Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bigtree

(94,660 posts)
7. worse than that, to pay for their payroll tax reduction
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:50 PM
Dec 2011

. . . they cut the length of workman's comp in their bill:


from the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/opinion/targeting-the-unemployed.html?pagewanted=print

Under current policy, federal benefits kick in when state-provided benefits run out, typically after 26 weeks. The duration of the federal payouts depends on the level of unemployment in a given state. Currently, workers in 22 of the hardest-hit states — including California, New Jersey and Connecticut — qualify for up to 73 more weeks of aid. In five other states — including New York — up to 67 more weeks are available. In the remaining 23 states, maximum federal benefits range from 34 weeks to 60 weeks. The cost to continue the program for another year would be about $45 billion.

The Republican plan would cut $11 billion of that in 2012 by slashing up to 40 weeks from the program, reducing by more than half the maximum 73 weeks now available. Because of the way the program is structured, the biggest cuts would come in the states with the highest unemployment. Millions of jobless workers would be quickly left without subsistence, and the weak economy would be weakened further by the drop in consumer spending.

The bill would also impose onerous — and gratuitous — requirements on people who apply for jobless benefits. It would allow states to drug test applicants and would require recipients to be high-school graduates or working toward an equivalency degree.

more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/opinion/targeting-the-unemployed.html?pagewanted=print

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»McConnell blocks vote on ...»Reply #7