E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSUpdated Friday Dec. 7, 8:45am ET Democratic senators said Thursday that the economy is still weak enough that it needs more federal stimulus spending as part of any year-ending fiscal deal with Republicans.
Senate Democratic Policy Committee chairman Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., told reporters, “I believe you need a stimulus. It could be a payroll tax (cut), it could be something else, but you need some kind of ‘oomph’ to the economy in this first year, particularly now that the statistics show it’s moving slowly.”
On Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that non-farm payroll employment increased by 146,000 in November, while the unemployment rate went from 7.9 percent in October to 7.7 percent last month.
"The number of unemployed persons, at 12.0 million, changed little," the BLS report said. The number of long-term unemployed, those Americans who were jobless for 27 weeks or more, was little changed at 4.8 million in November.
And the number of people in the labor force -- either working or actively looking for work -- dropped by 350,000.
Jacquelyn Martin / AP
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., right, accompanied by fellow Senate Democrats, gestures during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Dec. 6, 2012, to discuss efforts to "boost the economy and prevent Americans from abruptly losing their jobless benefits at the end of the year."
Schumer and other Democrats said at a Capitol press conference Thursday that an extension of emergency unemployment insurance benefits must be part of any year-ending "fiscal cliff" deal.
The Democratic senators cited the need to spur a sluggish economy, which had a 7.9 percent jobless rate in October. An extended unemployment benefit “produces a major economic stimulus,” said Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I. His state has a 10.4 percent unemployment rate.
“We’re all talking about a stimulus. How do we get the economy moving? This is the best stimulus there is,” Schumer said.
He and other Democrats gave a textbook Keynesian argument for continued unemployment payments to those who might otherwise lose them at year end. People who get unemployment checks “are going to the local stores, they are increasing demand,” Reed said.
The Democrats said the heated, weeks-long debate on the fiscal cliff of spending cuts and tax increases seemed somewhat unreal and theoretical to some of their hard-pressed constituents.
While congressional leaders wrangle over the fiscal cliff, “two million Americans are now looking over a real cliff,” Reed said.
President Barack Obama headed to Virginia where he reminded the public that if the fiscal cliff isn't averted, taxes will increase on 98 percent of Americans next year. The Daily Rundown's Chuck Todd reports.
Schumer said, “Many of the elements of the ‘fiscal cliff’ are abstract concepts to struggling middle-class families, (but) unemployment benefits are not abstract.”
“If there is an agreement on the fiscal cliff, unemployment insurance must be included,” Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said. And “if there’s not an agreement reached, we must extend unemployment separately.”
He added, “We must not leave here for the holidays until we extend unemployment insurance.”
Asked how this call for more stimulus spending was consistent with the idea of reducing budget deficits and the growing burden of federal debt, Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said, “Not all spending is created equal.”
Asked the same question later, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid cited a story he’d heard Thursday morning on National Public Radio which said the European Union was “concerned about all their austerity,” that is, the reduction in European governments’ spending at a time of persistently high unemployment.
In the tense negotiations back-and-forth between President Barack Obama and Congressional Republicans, the chances of cliff-diving appear to be less likely, but there's still no hard deal on the table yet. Former communications director for the Blue Dog Democrats Kristen Hawn and David Winston, a veteran Republican pollster, discuss.
Reid argued that fiscal restraint and short-term stimulus aren’t mutually exclusive: “You can do both…. There are many, many things you can do to reduce debt, but still have (a) simulative aspect.”
According to the Congressional Budget Office, unemployment insurance benefits totaled $94 billion in fiscal year 2012, a substantial increase over the $33 billion paid out in fiscal year 2007 before the economy toppled into the recession. The total cost of jobless benefits over the past five years has been $520 billion.
The CBO said fully extending the current Emergency Unemployment Compensation program and temporary provisions of the Extended Benefit program for one year would cost $30 billion.
Democratic senators said they want the money spent on unemployment to not be offset by spending cuts elsewhere in the federal budget. “An offset, I think, is unnecessary and its bad economics,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.
At times the Democrats' portrayal of the economy Thursday sounded like the gloomy picture painted by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who caucuses with the Democrats said, “Sometimes, maybe especially here inside the Beltway, we forget that this terrible, terrible recession continues in many, many parts of the country. While official unemployment is 7.9 percent real unemployment – counting those people who have given up looking for work and those people who are working 20 hours and they want to be working 40 hours – is closer to 15 percent.”
Harkin told reporters after the press conference, “I don’t see us getting out of this high unemployment picture for some time. I think it’s going to be a gradual reduction.”
Leave a Comment:
This is such a stupid argument, it's like a couple sitting at the kitchen table going through their budget trying to figure out why they are spending more money than they make. Let's see, we have the cable bill (along with all the movie channels), we eat out 5 times a week, we just bought two brand new cars, we remodeled our kitchen, we just bought the "big screen" we always wanted and next week they'll start on our new pool. Hmm, you know what, we need more money, we need to find a way to bring in more cash so we can pay for all this stuff. Our government has lost its mind, it doesn't realize that spending $3.8 trillion every year isn't sustainable but in their mind they aren't willing to give up anything, keep all the perks, keep spending like there's not tomorrow and ask Americans to pay more. They managed to convince us that this is about rich versus poor, that everyone who makes more than 250k a year is somehow evil and isn't paying their fair share. They are lying to us and we should demand they tighten their belts just like they asked us to do 4 years ago.
Pretty soon Monopoly money will be worth more than the US dollar!
Too bad we couldn't use Monopoly money to pay for Bush's wars.
Give me a break! I consider myself to have democratic views, but enough with the "extended" unemployment. This makes me sick. At its peak, an unemployed person could receive 99 weeks of unemployment! Huh, two years of unemployment and you can't find a job - Bullsh*t.
I know an unemployed person who maxed out his unemployment benefits and had no desire to find a job during that time. As soon as the benefits dried up, he suddenly had a job (albeit temporary). Stop the nonsense.
WhoAreYou....You have began your awakening....Congratulations.
The Democratic party has no intention of reducing unemployment, reducing food stamp usage (actually advertising to increase usage) nor any government program that "indentures" those people to the government and by default....those people vote mindlessly for the Democrats to ensure their "slop trough" is full.....
It is sad that the Democratic Party has stooped to this level...It is not the Democratic Party I used to know either....
Now we have a President that has continued to circumvent the Constitution (immigration, budget, etc.) and now has the audacity to ask Congress to give him the power to raise the debt ceiling!
This is more typical of Chavez (Venezuela), Morsi (Egypt) and other radical leaders that started their path to dictatorship.
Awakening is a beautiful thing! More and more are waking up every day...
Too bad it came after the election!
At 52, I was laid-off (reduction in force of 200 people company-wide) back in July. First time in my entire life, I have been let go. I have been looking for a job since then... I have had many phone interviews, which turn into in-person interviews and then nothing... Why? Well, to be perfectly honest, it's probably age discrimination... Everything is great... they are impressed with my skills, experience and education... And over the phone, I have a young-sounding voice... But, once I show up in-person, they realize that I'm older than 35 and they start singing a different tune...
I am not someone who tries to milk the system and get every drop of unemployment that I can... As I said, this is the first time in my entire life that I have collected unemployment benefits, after working (without a single break) for 30+ years...
Age discrimination was probably the reason that I was let go... Five out of 15 people were let go in my department, at 52, I was the youngest person let go... Of the ten remaining people, the oldest is 42... So, I was kicked to the curb because I was 50+ and now I am being overlooked for a new job because I am 50+...
Over 50% of the long term unemployed are older workers... The average time for an older worker to get another job is 51 weeks... Yet, conventional unemployment benefits are for only 26 weeks... There needs to be a safety net in place for older (50+) workers who are being unfairly discriminate against by being let go by their current employers and then being overlooked by prospective employers...
VINCA...
As a small business owner (i.e., less than 100 employees) I seek the 40 to 50-yr olds! They typically require less hand-holding, are less entitlement orientated, don't constantly check and text-message their cells phones, and come with skills. I know other business owners like myself - we prefer your age group. This said, I feel your whine re age discrimination is weak. If you have skills that are in demand you will find a job. Keeping that job requires the right attitude and work ethic. As an employer, my employees have to be making me money, and if you ain't you're not worth your paycheck. A job is not a right, it is a privileged! Come with an attitude that you provide value and you understand what it takes to make a business profitable, and you will be viewed as an asset to a company. This said, it also takes flexibility...are you willing to re-locate to an location where the economy is stronger, do you have out-dated skills that warrant re-tooling, are your skills in a dead-end business (e.g., manufacturing rotary-dial telephones)? Look in the mirror! If you represent value to an employer you will get a job. If not....well you might become proficient at whining and feeling a victim.
Not whining... just stating the facts... in the 6.5 years with the company, I had stellar reviews... and many, many compliments and not a single complaint...
Given that 1/3 of my department was let go, then only 1/3 of the staff age 50+ (which totalled 5) should have been let go... If two people age 50+ had been let go, then it would have represented 40% of the staff 50+ being let go... The remaining three terminations should have been from the staff age 42 or younger... But, 100% of the terminations were from the age 50+ staff... Clearly this was age discrimination...
I am not playing the victim here... but, it gets a bit discouraging when you have three phone interviews (with the same company) that were outstanding... with all positive feedback and you go in for the final (4th) interview and they start singing a completely different tune... I'm still the same person that you interviewed 3 times over the phone... but, when I show up in person, you realize that I am 35+... so, I become unwanted... too old!
I commend you for hiring older workers... Anyone who graduated from high school before 1980 (age 50+) can do math without a calculator, can write in cursive, can spell, can speak in complete sentences, can read and comprehend instructions, can compose memos, etc. in complete sentences, will be reliable and show up every day, will have a strong work ethic, won't text all day long... the list goes on and on...
I will keep looking... hopefully, there is some employer out there who look past that I am 50+ and hire me for my experience and skill set... Just hope it happens before my unemployment runs out...
As graduate with high honors from a top notch engineering university, I don't want to have to settle for being the greeter at Walmart...
"Calling for stimulus, Democrats cite 'real cliff' if jobless benefits aren't extended"
Dems need more money to pass out to their friends and supporters.
The trend has been for younger cheaper part time workers for years now.
Time to get real about the greedy ,they can do more with less,and they like it that way
If I have an employee that makes the average salary of $700.00 per week and now I have to add the money for him and his family as obligated by law, I have just added $250.00 per week to is pay but if I can have 4 part time workers instead of 3 full time I have saved $750.00 a week or $39,000 a year. By doing that I can add another employee or instead of three full time I now have 5 part time.
Why not just extend them for 5 years,,lmao
Paul Craig Roberts served in Reagan Treasury Dept, and also worked as editor at the Wall Street Journal. He knows about what he speaks. He described the horrendous economic situation for the US Economy. He puts blame on Wall Street and US Corporate executives who use Asian labor in outsourcing, rendering the US nation of workers poor.
Americans don’t support their own country they want to shop at WAL-MART!!!
America’s problems started August 1971!!
These are things Republicans don't want you to remember!!
With inflation unresolved by August 1971, and an election year looming, Nixon convened a summit of his economic advisers at Camp David. Nixon then announced temporary wage and price controls, allowed the dollar to float against other currencies, and ended the convertibility of the dollar into gold. This meant our money was now worthless!!! Inflationary dollars!!
The first signs of impending trouble are the exploding budget deficits themselves. They began, of course, under the parlous economic stewardship of Ronald Reagan. Reagan cut the marginal tax rate on the wealthiest of Americans from 70% to 38%. He promised it would spur an orgy of investment and rocket the economy to new levels of production and prosperity. Instead, his supply side economics did the exact opposite. It produced the deepest recession since the Great Depression.
During Reagan's administration, the unemployment rate declined from 7.5% to 5.4%, with the rate reaching highs of 10.8% in 1982 and 10.4% in 1983. Reagan also earned the nickname "the Teflon President", in that public perceptions of him were not tarnished by the controversies that arose during his administration.
Bush blew through Clinton's surplus in his first year. The 2004 deficit reached $415 billion, a record. Still, its real size is masked by the fact that Bush has shifted $150 billion from the Social Security trust fund in order to make the shortfall look smaller. It's like pretending you're richer when you move money from one pocket to another. Both sums have to be repaid, so the real amount borrowed is the $415 billion nominal deficit plus the $150 billion from Social Security or $565,000,000,000 billion.
This is why Social Security will go broke!!!!
America has lost its competitive edge to CHINA!! Americans don’t support their own country they want to shop at WAL-MART!!!
AJ
And why is that? Costs of production? Labor, energy, regulation?
What do you think about the DOL challenging Boeing's moving some production to another state?
I have never been to a Wal-Mart and don't expect to be going to one soon.
As a dem,nor more of this crap,,enough already
Now that the election is over Bernie rightly points out that the real unemployment rate is much higher than the 8% the Dems fed you (but just like the Rep told you)!!!!
In 2025 there will be about two people working for every 1 person collecting SS.When SS started there where 25 people,working per,retiree,,thats why it will go bust.that and the 80 k boomers set to retire in the next 18 years.
Rip,ss
Lies,lies lies
Next year comes quick,,we look forward to four more dis functional years
Love the basic math skills here:
12M People Unemployed
12M People Underemployed
3M TOTAL Part-Time & Full-Time jobs nationwide
BUT yes, if we suddenly stop all assistance, it may not be pleasant, but those 24M people will suddenly each find 2-3 jobs tomorrow.... I still have yet to see how 24M people will be able to get a total of 48-72M jobs from the 3M that are available.
You're right --- no one can do basic math "but you."
When people get unemployment checks, they spend locally? When they get paychecks, then they shop online? Is that how that whole thing works?
Why work when you can get a steady paycheck. Unemployment is nice when you need it, but too many people are living off of it instead of looking for work. I've been on it. Found a job after a little while, too. Didn't need any extensions or the full time for it.
I sure we are all tired of the crap bye now
Let me explain what happened with the first stimulus so you FOX zombies can understand.
Before stimulus, GDP go way down.
After stimulus GDP go way up.
The housing bubble was an unintended stimulus. Between the unregulated banks and push for NINJA loans, the market was doomed.
The GDP did not go WAY UP. If it did, then federal revenues would have increased. And had federal revenues increased, then we wouldn't have had such large deficits; depending on spending levels.
Harbinger- Only an idiot could believe that borrowing money and handing it out as a reward for doing nothing could boost an economy. Keep shouting for the leach class, though. It illustrates the point.
It's time for real reform
And GDP is still ok,
Enough already of the never ending unemployment check. Though it may give bang for buck in economy I believe that it allows people to sit on their butts and do nothing for way too long. End all these UI extensions and I believe we will see more people working.
It should not be unemployment forever,,wtf.
You will see more part timers with two or three jobs,but it's better then the forever unemployed
Means test them every three months,cancell them if they are not doing what they are supposed to do
Tax breaks generate very little benefit to the economy at the present time because the rich are not investing the money in anything that generates jobs.
Not so for unemployment benefits that are spent immediately on living expenses.
Sounds like a no-brainer to me as to which will help the economy most.
Guess you don't own stock in any Swiss banks.
And exactly who is benefitting from spending on your living expenses?
And so, the truth begins to emerge. Typical of the dems, and in reality most politicians. Bait and switch. The president tells us taxes must go up on the rich. Fine. And some cutting of expenses must come too. Great. And then, all of a sudden, oh, we gotta have money for unemployment, for welfare, or for (insert "need"). Just need more money. Just need more . . . heroin. So tired of being lied to. But especially by the current powers that be. Getting so used to it I just expect it. However, no one can just say "You can kiss my ring, or you can kiss my a**.