Millions of Americans face loss of unemployment benefits

[Refugee 7]

The U.S. Senate on Tuesday failed to meet a deadline to extend federal unemployment benefits, threatening half a million Californians with the prospect of losing their benefits by the end of December.

An estimated 454,000 California job seekers are among about 2 million nationwide who will be cut off from weekly unemployment benefits by the end of the year if the federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation program is allowed to lapse.

California's 12.4 percent unemployment rate is the third-highest in the nation, after Nevada and Michigan, and the federal benefits have been a lifeline for long-term unemployed workers struggling to pay for basic expenses. In California, the average unemployment check is $297 a week.

"People are squeaking by. They've lost their homes and moved in with relatives," said Maurice Emsellem, policy co-director of the National Employment Law Project, one of several advocacy groups urging Congress to extend the benefits. "This program is not just helping unemployed workers -- it's helping the economy. People spend their checks on food and gas and basic expenses. Pulling the plug on the benefits will be a huge shock to the national economy."

Unemployment payments typically start with 26 weeks of state benefits. After that, jobless workers can seek up to 53 weeks of federally funded Emergency Unemployment Compensation. California's unemployment rate is so high that jobless workers qualify for another 20 week extension of the federally funded benefits, bringing the maximum to 99 weeks total.

If the federal benefits aren't extended, many Californians would be cut off from unemployment benefits after 26 weeks. While some Senate Democrats are promising to try again to extend the federal benefits later this month, the prospects are highly uncertain in a newly cost-conscious Congress, given that such a move would add billions to the deficit.

More than a quarter million California residents are already considered "99ers" -- which means they've already exhausted the 99-week maximum.

Gloria Nieto is one of them. She lost her job at the Santa Cruz AIDS Project in March 2009. She then spiraled into a financial hole that grows deeper every day. She and her partner fell behind on mortgage payments and were forced to sell their San Jose house for less than they owed on it rather than face foreclosure. Now they rent.

Nieto, who says she has applied for more than 150 jobs, exhausted her benefits in April and says the stress of long-term unemployment has led to health complications, which in turn bring additional medical expenses. She's grateful for the $200 a month she gets in food stamps.

"I feel totally abandoned," said Nieto, 56. "Everyone is talking about the 2 million people who are about to lose their benefits. But some of us have already lost our benefits. We've been dropped by the wayside, and no one wants to deal with us."

Others, like 50-year-old Mary Kline of San Jose, find themselves at the other end of the line. Laid off from her food service job Nov. 2, Kline came to the state employment office in Campbell on Tuesday to try and get her unemployment insurance cranked back up again. Like many in the office waiting to use the dedicated phones line to claims specialists, Kline has relied on her unemployment checks of about $200 a month off and on since first finding herself jobless last summer. After finding and then losing another job, Kline is desperate once again.

"It'll be really sad if they don't extend'' benefits, said Kline, who's not sure how she'll pay for the room she rents if she has neither a job nor jobless benefits. "There's got to be someplace where people can get help. I understand now why so many people are on the streets. I'm just praying I don't end up there, but it's scary that it could happen.''

Fred Cavazos of San Jose was in a similar quandary as the laid-off warehouseman waited to speak with a state unemployment clerk. Like many in Silicon Valley, this past decade for Cavazos has been a turbulent stretch of job, no job, contract work, unemployment checks, more contract work. Now he was again looking for help from the government in building a financial bridge until he could find work again.

"I'm hoping to reopen a claim today, but if they stop these benefits, it'll really hurt me,'' he said. His wife works, but the income is barely enough to pay their rent and the bills for their son and daughter and grand-daughter who live with them.

"We don't go anywhere, we don't do anything -- that's how we survive these days,'' said Cavazos. "Without my income and without unemployment insurance, there won't be much food on our table. People need to work, but sometimes people also need help to help them survive until they can find that next job.''

Congress has extended unemployment benefits eight times since the recession began, most recently in July. But Republican concerns about deficit spending have made extending them further a deeply divisive political issue, with some conservatives arguing that extending unemployment benefits keeps people from taking lower-wage jobs.

Patrick Joyce, a spokesman for the state's Employment Development Department, said 1.4 million people now receive unemployment benefits in California but that an estimated 454,000 could lose their benefits by the end of the year. Unless Congress acts, more will drop off next year.

The recently unemployed as well as the long-term unemployed are affected.

"If you lost your job November 1, you'll get your 26 weeks of benefits, but at the end of the 26 weeks, that would be it," said Joyce. "And if you've been granted an extension, you would finish that extension, but then you'd be cut off. It's going to be a staggered process of people falling off the rolls."

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_16745250?source=rss&nclick_check=1

[Echosoftom 3]

"But Republican concerns about deficit spending have made extending them further a deeply divisive political issue, with some conservatives arguing that extending unemployment benefits keeps people from taking lower-wage jobs."

Now this is a perfect example of how politicians are so out of touch with real life....WHAT lower-wage jobs you idiots?!! There are none! Any time you have 10,000 people going after 100 job positions when a new Best Buy is opening up. That's a problem and somebody loses. :mad:

[SingsInFrench 262]

I really feel for those families losing their benefits with no job on the horizon. What are they going to do? I only hope they can get some kind of government assistance and food stamps to sustain them until they can find something. I worry about people not able to pay their mortgages and rent and becoming homeless.

[wild1forever 152]

^^I completely agree, Sharon.

I find it completely galling that the current bunch of clowns in Washington believes that unemployment assistance has to be paid for, but two wars and tax cuts for the wealthy do not. :icon_mad:

[agirl 0]

I feel so sorry for the people this is affecting. This should be a priority with our government. Stupid politicians!

[weird monkey 0]

Even more galling is that the conservatives act like it's assistance, like welfare, when in fact all employees and employers pay into the unemployment fund. It works like social security in that respect. They wouldn't dream of cutting off Social Security, but by equating unemployment with welfare, and making out like the unemployed are lazy bums, the half-wits that support their policies just eat that stuff up. I find the rampant ignorance in this country very disheartening.

It exacerbates the unemployment problem, because with more people with no money to spend, that means businesses selling less, and laying off even more people.

Just when you thought the Republicans couldn't run this country any further into the ground...

[nurktwin 2,143]

i don't understand why they think it has to be paid for, after all they don't pay for wars, they borrow it from social security funds and never pay it back. then wonder why SS will run out of money and that should be fixed by raising the age to 68 by 2050 and 69 by 2075. i feel for those that are losing their benefits and i also feel for the billions of young ppl that will probably never get a SS check in the future. IS this the American way? i can't see them changing SS for the millions already on it, cuz that would cause 1 hell of a riot. ppl from 62 to 100 years old that get SS and fought in WW2, Korean war and Viet Nam for this country would march on D.C. but wouldn't be carrying signs, they'd be carrying guns and they know how to use them!! these ppl fought and many lost their lives to give us the freedom that we know today, Gov just can't sign a piece of paper today to change that instantly. they know it will take many years for that change to happen, maybe 50 or more. but in the end, it will change if we don't act now. minor changes today lead to many more minor changes as the years pass until our grandkids and theirs will never have even heard of SS. and believe me, if there is no SS, where does that money go, cuz the country will still be broke and in the hole.

[LizzieB 0]

I have a little different take on this. Now please keep in mind, I am speaking from my own personal experience and in no way do I think my position applies to the majority of benefit recipients.

In our case, we don't really need unemployment benefits. My husband could easily find work that would pay what he receives in benefits, which is about one quarter of his previous take home pay.

So why doesn't he work? Well, why should he take a job he is obviously overqualified for instead of continuing to receive a small sum of money while waiting around in hopes of finding a job that will restore him to or near his previous salary? As soon as he takes that lower paying job, he can't get the benefits back if he finds the job he has taken makes him want to shoot himself.

Now, I personally don't think he will be restored to his previous salary any time soon. But in the mean time, it's very hard to give up free money that you don't really need, however little it may be, and ask someone to take an 8 hour a day low paying, boring job, which is probably what he would get. To me, the preference is to have someone at home full time, completely free to take care of any issues without any pressure, and to have a little extra spending cash to boot.

In our case, the Republicans are correct. Unemployment benefits are a disincintive to work. And the problem is, you have a lot of people in our situation - previously well paid professionals with other means of support and options for work that are not desirable. I know not everyone is in this situation. Obviously many people need the benefits to survive. I have no idea the split between the two groups. But personally, I think there are a whole lot of people that would go back to work, adjust their lifestyle down accordingly and move on, should benefits be stopped. I really think it is time for many, many people to accept this reality, because the old days are not coming back any time soon. And our country as a whole would be better for it.

It's too bad they can't determine the ones that really need the benefits, versus those like my husband that take them because they are there. Unfortunately, you can't, so you have to decide which course of action causes more damage, on a whole, to the people of this country. And therein lies the difference of opinion.

Edited December 1, 2010 by LizzieB

[Refugee 7]

^ Well said.

[weird monkey 0]

....

But in the mean time, it's very hard to give up free money that you don't really need,...

That's just it. It's insurance and people have been paying into the fund as long as they work for wages. If it were auto insurance and you were in a fender bender, would you pay for the repair yourself because you could afford to, or make an accident claim so your insurance company, which you've been paying premiums to, would cover it?

I think most people are mandated to have auto insurance, just like they have unemployment insurance taken out of their paycheck. Even though need and situations vary, everyone who pays in deserves to collect when they put in a claim.

The fact also remains that cutting off benefits by letting the emergency measure expire is bad for the economy and will have a negative ripple effect.

On the other hand giving the rich more tax cuts, has proven to be ineffective. The few hundred dollars someone who is unemployed receives wll get spent because they have to spend it. Statistically, the money retained by the rich by paing less tax, will simply sit there unspent because they already have more than they need to get by.

[Echosoftom 3]

Yes it's well said but you're right, it by no means speaks for the majority of people in this situation. The problem I have with statements like this being made by politicians is that it's a broad sweeping comment. So it's assumed that these people are being lazy or slow about looking for work or taking jobs. I know lots of people who are working at lower paying jobs since they've been laid off. And they're the lucky ones. Now I don't know about where you live but here in my town there's nothing. When I look at my local evening news and see hundreds and sometimes even thousands of people wrapped around a block for a few positions that tells me how desperate the situation has become.

The other thing that continues to upset me is the fact that we had no problem handing over billions to bail out these F*$king arrogant CEO's but when it comes to bailing out the backbone of our society (working class taxpaying citizens) everybody has something to say when they need some help. That just floors me.

Marcia, I totally agree. The perception is that it's a bunch of lazy people who don't want to work. And while I'm sure there are some who are taking advantage, I think the majority of people would like to be working and making a fair wage.

So if they don't extend the benefits then we'll have other problems and issues. Homeless people, welfare recipients, crime going up, economy weakened, etc. Meanwhile, we're continuing to spend billions every week on not just one but, TWO wars that I still don't get, WHY?? So when I hear them going on and on about unemployment benefits and all it cost, it's still a mere drop in the bucket compared to a lot of the other ridiculous spending that's going on in Washington.

[SingsInFrench 262]

^ I couldn't agree more Sharon

[nurktwin 2,143]

i guess most ppl are too young to have studied history. cutting benefits doesn't help anything. it didn't stop the great depression or the so called non-depression of the 70's. it just made things worse. at the same time the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. doesn't that sound familiar????? it's called "History" ppl, don't make the same mistakes again!! obviously, the ppl we vote for and put in office have never had a history lesson. or are they that smart, that we are the dumb ones to vote them in?