Why Congress Can't Afford Not to Extend Unemployment Benefits Again

Some 2.14 million out of work Americans will have lost their benefit checks.


It's "Recovery Summer," according to White House officials who have been circling the country to show off solar-panel installers working on Federal buildings and construction workers building senior housing projects—jobs created by last year's stimulus, which is still being spent. Unfortunately, this season has lost its luster for many who aren't at work on stimulus projects. In a move that may have spelled financial crisis for nearly a quarter of the 9.2 million Americans living on unemployment checks, Congress adjourned for July 4th recess without extending emergency benefits. When Congress returns July 12th, some 2.14 million out of work Americans will have lost their benefit checks.

[See 21 things employers wish job seekers knew.]

While economists are split on the merits of further government spending in the name of job creation, few debate the merits of paying unemployment benefits when unemployment is at 9.5 percent. Not only do benefits provide necessary income when the private sector cannot, they are also believed by many to be a sprightly stimulus—putting money in the hands of people who spend it immediately. With five active job seekers for every job opening in the United States, job creation needs to be much more robust before benefits are cut. "We have a big problem—people can't find jobs," says Thomas Kochan, codirector of the Institute for Work and Employment Research at MIT. "This recession has been unusually harsh on people who have been out of work for an extended period of time, so it's time for Congress to act."

When Congress reconvenes, the Senate jobs bill could restore federal benefits that expired June 2, and extend them through November. This is considered by many to be a crucial lifeline for the jobless, many of whom have been shut out of the fledgling job market thanks to mismatches in their skills or expectations and employers' needs. Republican Senators have blocked the bill because they have differed with Democrats on how to pay for it.

[See why Obama traded jobs for a higher priority.]

If Congress fails to extend benefits when they return from recess, an estimated 3.2 million Americans will lose their benefits by the end of July—a result that could cause obvious financial, social, and psychological distress for millions of households. It would be a strange turn of events for a Congress that has traditionally doled out benefits in periods of high unemployment. "That certainly has been the historical pattern—typically benefits are extended repeatedly until the unemployment rates get down to a certain level, and obviously whatever that level is, we're not there yet," says Stephen Stanley, chief economist at Pierpoint Securities in Stamford, Conn. "Historical experience would suggest you would be expecting Congress to continue to extend benefits at this point in the cycle."

The logistics of current benefits can get pretty confusing, so here's the basic rundown: Most states provide the first 26 weeks of benefit checks. During the recession, Congress authorized emergency benefits lasting, ultimately, 34 weeks with a couple of additional tiers that added 13 extra weeks for some states, and an extra six weeks on top of those 13 for fewer states—based entirely on how high their unemployment rates were. Finally, extended benefits kick in after emergency benefits, and those last 13 to 20 weeks. That's the formula that has given some long-term unemployed workers in very lousy job markets access to 99 weeks of unemployment.

The long-term unemployed, or those out of work for six months or more, now make up 46 percent of the total unemployed. Long-term unemployment is a vicious cycle: workers can't find work for a long time for a variety of reasons, then get shut out of new hiring because they've been unemployed for so long. Many may never return to the same occupations they had in, say, the hard-hit construction or manufacturing industries. "We are seeing some structural changes in the economy," says Sung Won Sohn, an economist at California State University-Channel Islands. While the government can't pay benefits forever, the government has some responsibility to train workers for new roles, Sohn says.