Sen. Jim Bunning Stalls Unemployment Benefits Extension Bill

[rugcat]

At a time when we're facing the worst unemployment situation in decades, where people are in real trouble, you'd think a bill that extended unemployment benefits would be a good and humane legislative idea.

Not so fast, says Senator Bunning. (R-KY)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704358004575095970707513064.html?m od=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_6

And Jon Kyl, equally conservative if not quite so crazy, defends Bunning and sums up the conservative position succinctly:

Unemployment insurance "doesn't create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work," Kyl said during debate over whether unemployment insurance and other benefits that expired amid GOP objections Sunday should be extended.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7822064

[leahzero]

Totally out of touch with reality. If these privileged buffoons had ever known a day of hardship in their lives, they'd sing a different tune.

[backslashbaby]

Oh, and COBRA, too! So out into the individual market right away with all of you if you lose your job.

Wait, that makes my individual premiums go down. Hmmmm ;)

Once everyone is the red-headed stepchild, I'll bet we'll see some changes, at least :(

[blacbird]

Jim Bunning might be the worst Senator in that 100-member body. Even a lot of Republicans consider him a disaster. His major qualification for election in the first place was being a Hall-of-Fame MLB baseball player. Now, I don't categorically knock ex-jocks or ex-celebs who get elected to political office; some of them (Reagan, Ford, Schwarzenegger, come to mind) prove to have enough chops aside from their celeb status that they make it work. Bunning . . . not so much. He's been an unmitigated disaster from the get-go.

Kyl's not far behind him in that race toward the bottom of the barrel.

If there's any Senate practice that should be abolished, it's the ability of a single Senator to block legislation. That should go long before the filibuster cloture rule should be tampered with. At least now we get to actually know who is doing this crap. Up until a couple of years ago, the identities of Senators pulling these maneuvers (Ted Stevens of AK being the all-time champ at it) was kept secret.

caw

[rugcat]

Jim Bunning might be the worst Senator in that 100-member body. Even a lot of Republicans consider him a disaster. His major qualification for election in the first place was being a Hall-of-Fame MLB baseball player. Now, I don't categorically knock ex-jocks or ex-celebs who get elected to political office; some of them (Reagan, Ford, Schwarzenegger, come to mind) prove to have enough chops aside from their celeb status that they make it work. Bunning . . . not so much. He's been an unmitigated disaster from the get-go.

cawAnd yet, he got elected. And reelected.

[blacbird]

And yet, he got elected. And reelected.

Heavily Republican state, lots of voters who automatically vote for the R. He damn near got upset by a Dem in his last election, which in Kentucky is tantamount to rebellion.

caw

[Slushie]

Unemployment insurance "doesn't create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work," Kyl said during debate over whether unemployment insurance and other benefits that expired amid GOP objections Sunday should be extended.

Of course, what this guy fails to point-out is, unemployment benefits allow the recipient to continue pumping money into the economy, keeping other people employed.

[Romantic Heretic]

Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?

[Cranky]

A disincentive to work? Has this assclown ever tried to make it on unemployment insurance payments? Yeah, I didn't think so.

[Dommo]

Unemployment would do a lot more to help people work, if states didn't remove a dollar of unemployment for every dollar you earn working a part time job.

If you could at least work part time while on unemployment, then combined you might be able to get by. The way it is now, you're gimped really badly.

[Scoody]

I would agree. If the treasury has the money to pay for it, don't hold out. But if it has to be paid with "magic" money then no. I can't use "magic" money to pay anything I need no matter how much it may benefit me, why should Congress?

I'm sure Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi have not ever had to make do with unemployment checks either and it makes me sick to see them "feel our pain" so to speak. More money for this! More money for that! What do you mean there's no more money? Did the printing press break or what? Why don't they just load up some dump trucks with a buttload of money then just go up and down the street shoveling it out? Not like the government is expecting anyone to work for it anymore.

[Don]

Of course, what this guy fails to point-out is, unemployment benefits allow the recipient to continue pumping money into the economy, keeping other people employed.
Broken window fallacy (http://freedomkeys.com/window.htm).
I would agree. If the treasury has the money to pay for it, don't hold out. But if it has to be paid with "magic" money then no. I can't use "magic" money to pay anything I need no matter how much it may benefit me, why should Congress?
If you can believe in unicorns and rainbows, it's not that much of a stretch to believe in magic money.
And yet, he got elected. And reelected.
But he's retiring now. And he'll be replaced by... Ron Paul's son, Rand!! :hooray:

The progressives should have been happy with a corrupt clown like Bunning. They're going to get an intelligent, principled opponent in the Senate instead.

[Diana Hignutt]

I know for a fact, that in a few cases, unemployemnt benefits are a disincentive to finding work. I know four people who aren't bothering to try and find work because they are getting paid for not working (my punk nephew for one--sorry Ian, I just ratted you out, bud). Now, I understand that's anecdotal, but I believe some experts do agree.

However, it's not like there are any jobs to find anyway. So, I do support additional extensions to UE benefits.

But here's a crazy idea. The infrastructure is falling apart and people need jobs. I think a public works rebuilding program like FDR did might be a viable solution.

[Scoody]

I know for a fact, that in a few cases, unemployemnt benefits are a disincentive to finding work. I know four people who aren't bothering to try and find work because they are getting paid for not working (my punk nephew for one--sorry Ian, I just ratted you out, bud). Now, I understand that's anecdotal, but I believe some experts do agree.

However, it's not like there are any jobs to find anyway. So, I do support additional extensions to UE benefits.

But here's a crazy idea. The infrastructure is falling apart and people need jobs. I think a public works rebuilding program like FDR did might be a viable solution.

There are no jobs because business who do the hiring have no idea what is in store for them. They may get hit with having to provide healthcare for all of their employees, they may not. They may get hit with cap and trade taxes, they may not. Then you have all of this "Green" legislation that may come through and businesses will take the hit. No wonder they ain't hiring. I have had businesses a couple of times and I would be looking to unload them about now. I would at least shave off a good portion of my employees.

Stop running everything! Jeez! Obama has not run so much as a lemonade stand yet he is going to fix the economy with hope and change?

[Don]

You got it, Scoody. I know more than one business owner who's frozen plans until they can figure out what in hell's coming down the road. Some are in the process of sale or retirement, just because they're tired of all the ca-ca it takes to play the game now.

I'm almost convinced that FedGov's finally going to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs this time. I know a lot of people who used to think I was crazy for bailing out when I did, and they're starting to pat me on the back now.

[Synonym]

Amazing that one senator could cause such havoc. I believe the Pay as you Go Law has been signed by Obama and the Senate decided to 'exempt' this bill. First one to come up against the new law. I believe he was making a point by forcing the Senate to follow the rules.

Don't fret. They'll find another way around their own rules. Rules? What rules?

[Don]

O gee, don't go getting all principled and stuff, Syn. We know this is all about a Republican Eating Babies, and we'll have no distraction. What the hell has "legal" got to do with it anyway? This is the US Senate we're talking about.

[Robert Toy]

This one is too important to follow the rules

[Magdalen]

Hey, here's how we can pay for it: pay the Congresscritters minimum wage and cut-off their health-care benefits. And when they get voted out, no UIA for them, no sir.

[MattW]

You got it, Scoody. I know more than one business owner who's frozen plans until they can figure out what in hell's coming down the road. Some are in the process of sale or retirement, just because they're tired of all the ca-ca it takes to play the game now.
Yeah, but those sound like small businesses - everyone knows they don't create any jobs1,2







1. Creating jobs = donating to political campaigns
2. In spite of oppressive regulation that favors large conglomerates, ~60% of new jobs come from small business

[Diana Hignutt]

You got it, Scoody. I know more than one business owner who's frozen plans until they can figure out what in hell's coming down the road. Some are in the process of sale or retirement, just because they're tired of all the ca-ca it takes to play the game now.

I'm almost convinced that FedGov's finally going to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs this time. I know a lot of people who used to think I was crazy for bailing out when I did, and they're starting to pat me on the back now.

We haven't frozen our plans. We still plan on hiring a new employee that I've been trying to recruit for months. Some of us, haven't given up just because one group of pols is in charge instead of the other. I know lots of current business owners (like me) who poo-poo such thoughts. Some of us know no other way than to keep trying.

[Jersey Chick]

I had a nice long response - and then poof - it vanished. Grrr...

Anyway - I'd like to punch this guy in the face.

All of Congress should have to survive on $550/week for an entire year and out of that pay:

1. mortgage
2. clothing
3. utilities
4.food
5. COBRA (because they should lose their insurance as well)
6. All those annoying little things that break because you really don't need to spend all that money right now - yanno, like the furnace, which you really kinda need because it's really kinda cold out right now.

Wonder how fast he'd change his tune if he saw how it really works for a lot of us trying to make it until the employment situation kicks over. My husband's in the lower-forties on his union hall's list. Any day now (God willing) he'll get the call and he will HAPPILY go back to work. We've been doing this list for the last year.

Idiots like this infuriate me - they have no idea. Not one. It's so easy to sit back and play with other people's lives, and make decisions that don't affect him or his immediate family.

Tool.

[Don]

We haven't frozen our plans. We still plan on hiring a new employee that I've been trying to recruit for months. Some of us, haven't given up just because one group of pols is in charge instead of the other. I know lots of current business owners (like me) who poo-poo such thoughts. Some of us know no other way than to keep trying.
Should we just call you Dagny? :D

[Cranky]

Hey, here's how we can pay for it: pay the Congresscritters minimum wage and cut-off their health-care benefits. And when they get voted out, no UIA for them, no sir.

After we raid their IRA's and other investment portfolios, too, so they've got little to no savings to fall back on. Yes. I am all for it. Not necessarily permanently, but a good six months to a year.

And yes, that's sarcasm. But boy howdy, I wish someone would club these guys over the head with a serious cluebat.

[Scoody]

And yes, that's sarcasm. But boy howdy, I wish someone would club these guys over the head with a serious cluebat.

Or even better, grab them by their ankles and slam them against the tree the cluebat came from.

[Cranky]

Or even better, grab them by their ankles and slam them against the tree the cluebat came from.

Right. Because that's totally what I meant.

*deep breath*

No. These guys are, by and large, out of touch. Not just with people who are forced to get by on unemployment benefits for any length of time, but with regular people who aren't driven to work every day and have assistants who buy their lattes for them. And that's across the board, Democrat and Republican.

They don't get it, and I doubt they ever will. They either hear success stories or the worst of the worst. They don't really understand. And so long as they understood *that* I think we'd all be a lot better off for it when they decide to get off their asses and actually legislate instead of posing for the cameras and their constituents.

[Diana Hignutt]

Should we just call you Dagny? :D

Sadly, that shoe probably fits.

[nighttimer]

I know for a fact, that in a few cases, unemployemnt benefits are a disincentive to finding work. I know four people who aren't bothering to try and find work because they are getting paid for not working (my punk nephew for one--sorry Ian, I just ratted you out, bud). Now, I understand that's anecdotal, but I believe some experts do agree.

However, it's not like there are any jobs to find anyway. So, I do support additional extensions to UE benefits.

I've been unemployed and taken unemployment applications from people who worked all their lives. People are first shocked when they see how little they're going to get on unemployment, then they're grateful for the help.

I will never forget the man who called crying because of some bureaucratic snafu had his benefits cut off. I was able to help reestablish his eligibility and he was so grateful. Being able to get his check meant he would be able to buy a Christmas present for his little girl. I'm sure Jon Kyl and Jim Bunning would sneer that he shouldn't be wasting federal money on toys.

ALL an unemployment check is is a life preserver until you can find another job. Are there some lazy people who game the system, yes there is, but so what? The vast majority of people whom I spoke to hated having to accept help and want to find work as soon as they can.

Unemployment works differently in every state, but in Ohio, you only receive benefits for two children. It doesn't matter if you have four, five or six kids; any additional money will only cover two of the kids and after that you'd better be able to make those dollars stretch.

Ohio was also one of the states where if you were collecting Social Security, your unemployment compensation benefits were reduced accordingly. Oh, and you're enrolled in a state job search program where they try to match you with positions. Doesn't matter if you were pulling down $80K or more in a job. If there's a job in your field that's only paying half as much, you have to apply for it.

Anyone who thinks unemployment subsidizes an extended vacation for lazy people has never been on unemployment. It ain't no joke. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/02/MN4U1C5TJ9.DTL)

And every person who loses their unemployment check due to Bunning's posturing and Kyl's callous and stupid remarks, should remember this in November. These obstructionist Republicans need to lose THEIR jobs....

[Synonym]

The last news I heard on the radio mentioned a magic 'fix' for the situation. Really people, it's all posturing and television time. Why let yourselves get so upset? All we've done is raise the ratings for a news show or two and get our knickers in a bind. God, I hate this continual manipulation of emotion by the politicians and the media.

Sometimes I wish we didn't have this instant sound-bite world.

[rugcat]

Sometimes I wish we didn't have this instant sound-bite world.It can be annoying. But would you prefer that politicians could do all kinds of stuff that no one would ever know about?

It's hard to hold people accountable if you have no idea what they're doing.

[Synonym]

I would point out that we used to have a watch-dog on the government who relished digging into the fray and exposing the 'tricks' of the political magicians. Unfortunately, I don't trust them any longer. When the media began allowing their bias to show, it ruined my illusions.

Now we're down to bickering about which news channel is more biased for which party. That's sad.

[backslashbaby]

I take it a ton of people noticed this story when they turned into their job search info or tried to pay their COBRA today.

Besides, how often do you see a one-man filibuster? We should care about that. This is getting a bit ridiculous.

[blacbird]

The dipshit has removed his blockade after Senate leaders agreed to permit a vote on an amendment he wanted. Now, there wasn't a chance in hell this amendment would be passed, and he knew that, but played out his little charade anyway, without saying why. So the amendment was voted on, and promptly killed.

At least that's how Bunning is now spinning things. My guess is that he was beginning to feel the heat from his own constituents, as well as other Repub Senators, and caved with a transparent and lame face-saving story.

caw

[William Haskins]

bunning's op-ed, explaining his position:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2010/03/column-why-i-took-a-stand-.html

Over a month ago, Democrats passed and President Obama signed into law the "Pay-Go" legislation. It calls on Congress to pay for bills by not adding to our debt. It sounds like a common sense tool that would rein in government spending. Unfortunately, Pay-Go is a paper tiger. It has no teeth. I did not vote for the Democrats' Pay-Go legislation because I knew it was just a political dog-and-pony show to get some good press after some political setbacks. Since the Pay-Go rule was enacted, the national debt has gone up $244,992,297,448.11 (as of Wednesday, that is).

Last week, Majority Leader <kwd title="More news, photos about Harry Reid" href="http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/People/Politicians,+Government+Officials,+Strategists/U.S.+Senators/Harry+Reid" gen="auto">Harry Reid, D-Nev., asked to pass a 30-day extensions bill for unemployment insurance and other federal programs. Earlier in February, those extensions were included in a broader bipartisan bill that was paid for but did not meet Sen. Reid's approval, and he nixed the deal. When I saw the Democrats in Congress were going to vote on the extensions bill without paying for it and not following their own Pay-Go rules, I said enough is enough.</kwd>
<kwd title="More news, photos about Harry Reid" href="http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/People/Politicians,+Government+Officials,+Strategists/U.S.+Senators/Harry+Reid" gen="auto">
</kwd>
Many people asked me, "Why now?" My answer is, "Why not now?" Why can't a non-controversial measure in the Senate that would help those in need be paid for? If the Senate cannot find $10 billion to pay for a measure we all support, we will never pay for anything.


while no one has to agree with bunning's position on this, you can still see it's a far cry from the image the OP attempted to paint by conflating bunning's position with kyl's rhetoric in place any attempt to quote the guy at the center of it all.

granted, measured analysis fails to function as red meat for low-info voters who need to shake their fist at the mean old republicans, but it does tend to add some insight.

[rugcat]

bunning's op-ed, explaining his position: I'd call it justifying rather than explaining, unless by "explaining" a position the following quote qualifies:

"Many people asked me, 'Why now?' My answer is, 'Why not now?'"while no one has to agree with bunning's position on this, you can still see it's a far cry from the image the OP attempted to paint by conflating bunning's position with kyl's rhetoric in place any attempt to quote the guy at the center of it all.There's no conflation. Kyle was supporting Bunning's one man filibuster. The question of "why now, why this bill?" is germane, considering the number of unfunded bills both have voted for in the past.

Kyle's view on unemployment benefits shows his views on their importance. Bunnings's actions on the bill shows of what importance it is to him. You can be sure he would not have taken such a principled stand if the bill had been for paying for military hardware. Or for tax cuts.
granted, measured analysis fails to function as red meat for low-info voters who need to shake their fist at the mean old republicans, but it does tend to add some insight.If by mean old republicans, you mean total dicks, why yes, both Bunning and Kyle qualify.

[William Haskins]

okay... well since you're so fair, let's see if you're willing to extend your "dicks" comment to the likes of feingold, mccaskill and feinstein:

Senate rejects $250 checks for elderly

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A measure to give some 57 million elderly people, veterans and persons with disabilities a $250 check was rejected by the Senate on Wednesday, a setback for the powerful seniors' lobby.

President Barack Obama has called for Congress to approve the payments to make up for their benefits not increasing this year, but the Senate defeated it 50 to 47.

The payments would have added $13 billion to a $108 billion job-creation package pending in the Senate.

Congress approved payments last year as part of the $862 billion stimulus package.

Social Security payments for the elderly and disabled will stay flat this year for the first time since 1975 because they are tied to consumer prices, which decreased amid the worst economic recession in 70 years..."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100304/pl_nm/us_usa_congress_elderly

[rugcat]

okay... well since you're so fair, let's see if you're willing to extend your "dicks" comment to the likes of feingold, mccaskill and feinstein:Actually, I was referring to personality more than policy. Feingold and McCakill are not. Feinstein is a dick, personally, but nowhere near the level of someone like Bunning, or even Kyl.

[William Haskins]

i guess my question then, john, is: are you saying that bunning stalling a bill to extend job benefits is categorically a case of a greedy republican not wanting the unemployed to get extra checks, while saying that those democrats (and others) voting down a bill to give elderly people a $250 check is a complex and nuanced legislative choice?

i mean, can't they just as easily be reduced to horrible people who hate the elderly in this rhetorical game we all play?

[rugcat]

i guess my question then, john, is: are you saying that bunning stalling a bill to extend job benefits is categorically a case of a greedy republican not wanting the unemployed to get extra checks, while saying that those democrats (and others) voting down a bill to give elderly people a $250 check is a complex and nuanced legislative choice?

i mean, can't they just as easily be reduced to horrible people who hate the elderly in this rhetorical game we all play?No, I'm saying that Bunning is a dick who made a symbolic gesture to make an ideological point, with absolutely no regard for the trouble it would cause for thousands of people who are already struggling.

He knew eventually the bill would pass. But his "principles" were more important that the lives of those peons. And those "principles" of his only surfaced now, btw.

[William Haskins]

thanks for the clarification.

[backslashbaby]

bunning's op-ed, explaining his position:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2010/03/column-why-i-took-a-stand-.html





while no one has to agree with bunning's position on this, you can still see it's a far cry from the image the OP attempted to paint by conflating bunning's position with kyl's rhetoric in place any attempt to quote the guy at the center of it all.

granted, measured analysis fails to function as red meat for low-info voters who need to shake their fist at the mean old republicans, but it does tend to add some insight.

Give us your measured analysis of why it would have been unanimous but for Bunning, then. Not much fist-shaking at Republicans was necessary since Bunning's actions were in opposition to them, too.

[William Haskins]

were they? i thought kyl "defended him and summed up the conservative position succinctly..." (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4693272&postcount=1)

[backslashbaby]

Do you mean the article that is entitled One Senator Holds Up Bill, in New Level of Gridlock?

What was the conservative position on the method he used?

People were left hanging on things like their health insurance or how to get paid for their services (doctors) because of a cheap trick by one man, not by proper legislation.

[clintl]

i guess my question then, john, is: are you saying that bunning stalling a bill to extend job benefits is categorically a case of a greedy republican not wanting the unemployed to get extra checks, while saying that those democrats (and others) voting down a bill to give elderly people a $250 check is a complex and nuanced legislative choice?

i mean, can't they just as easily be reduced to horrible people who hate the elderly in this rhetorical game we all play?

There's a huge difference between preventing a bill that has broad support from being voted on, and voting no on a bill.

[William Haskins]

of course there is.