THE political party that launches an annual propaganda campaign about the "war on Christmas" is guilty of waging (GASP!) war on Christmas. The unemployment rate is still 7%, tens of millions of Americans who want to work can't find jobs. We are still in a recession. But the gop / tea-baggers who claim to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ are insisting unemployment benefits for the tens of millions of unemployed in the U.S. will not be extended. Benefits for 1.3 million of these people will end on 28DEC13 unless Congress passes an unemployment benefits extension, more will loose their benefits after the new year. Please sign this petition telling Congress to pass an unemployment extension before they go on their holiday break.
Ever gotten a dirty look for wishing someone "Happy Holidays"?
It's the same story every year. December rolls around, and the next
thing you know Bill O'Reilly and FOX News get to work raising the blood
pressure of conservatives everywhere, telling tall tales of how evil
liberals won't let them sing carols or display nativity sets. And every
year, most of those stories turn out to be false -- not that it ever
deters the talking heads from telling them.
Well, this year there is a real "War on Christmas"; and it's not being waged by the ACLU or the Democratic Party. This
year, the Republicans are playing Scrooge, robbing 1.3 million people
across America of desperately needed unemployment benefits right in the
middle of the holiday season -- and setting the stage for robbing
millions more of the same benefits later.
Yesterday,
Nancy Pelosi stood up for the unemployed in a big way, saying she won't
support any budget deal in the House that doesn't guarantee these
crucial benefits. But Republicans refuse to extend them. Congress
is scheduled to go on holiday break in just a few short days, and if
they don't reach a deal benefits will be completely cut off on December
28th, sending people who are already in a tough place scrambling for
income even as temporary holiday jobs disappear and more people find
themselves without work.
Nothing could be more heartless -- or less in the spirit of the season. Tell Republican leaders in Congress to end their "War on Christmas" and extend unemployment benefits now.
When it comes to
Christmas, Republicans talk a big game, but sometimes it's hard to tell
if they understand what holidays are really about. Regardless of what
you call them or how you choose to observe them, the holiday season is
about family. It's about community. It's about lifting up people who are
struggling and taking care of each other. And that's what makes this
situation so appalling.
I know that getting Republicans in
Congress to act is always a long shot, but if we can get them to move on
anything, it's this. After all, at the end of the day, even the Grinch had a heart.
And deep inside, Republicans know that at this time of year especially
we should be showing each other compassion and care -- not taking from
those who really need it.
So this holiday season, let's come together to tell Republicans enough with the Scrooge act -- end your "War on Christmas" and give millions of people the gift of financial security over the holidays.
Thank you for standing with us,
Jim
Jim Dean
Chair, Democracy for America
WASHINGTON -- A coalition of House Republicans is preparing a letter
to send to their party's leadership pleading for an extension of
long-term unemployment insurance, a rare positive sign for the plan's
legislative prospects.
The members are currently trying to pick up additional signatures for
the letter, which may be sent to leadership either Friday or Monday,
according to a House aide. A spokesman for Rep. Joe Heck (R-Nev.) told the Las Vegas Sun
and confirmed to The Huffington Post that the congressman would be
among those signing on. Several sources said Rep. Chris Gibson (R-N.Y.)
is leading the effort, meanwhile, but Gibson's office ignored requests
for comment.
At a time when Congress appears unlikely to pass an extension of
federal unemployment benefits before they expire on Dec. 28, a show of
support from members of the House majority could provide a bit of a
boost. Still, the prospects of an extension passing seem low, meaning benefits for 1.3 million long-term jobless Americans will likely stop abruptly after Christmas.
Moments after the Labor Department announced on Friday
that the economy had added 203,000 jobs in November and the
unemployment rate had fallen to 7 percent -- the lowest level in five
years -- House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) seemingly dismissed the
need for an extension of federal benefits.
"Today’s report includes positive signs that should discourage calls for more emergency government 'stimulus,'" Boehner said.
Boehner's spokesman, Brendan Buck, would not say whether the speaker
was referring to unemployment insurance specifically. Instead, Buck
referred The Huffington Post to a statement Boehner made on the matter
Thursday -- before the jobs numbers were announced -- in which he
promised to look at a proposal if it were put forward by the president.
"I am not the expert [on the issue]," Boehner added. "Talk to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee."
The White House has not produced a proposal, though the president's team has tried to amplify pressure on Congress by releasing state-by-state data
on the impact a lapse in unemployment insurance would have. The
administration also referenced the need for an extension in its response
to Friday's jobs report.
House Democrats, meanwhile, put forward a budget plan
that includes a $25 billion extension of unemployment insurance, a
provision that would be paid for by funding IRS tax collectors to go
after delinquent taxpayers.
Democrats in the House and Senate have introduced standalone
legislation to reauthorize the benefits as well. But an extension is
more likely to pass if it's included in the budget deal currently being
negotiated in a bicameral conference committee. Those negotiations will
continue to take place over the weekend, led by Senate Budget Committee
Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan
(R-Wis.). One congressional aide familiar with the talks said the
inclusion of unemployment insurance in the final deal was "still an open
item," likely to be resolved with input from the chambers' respective
leaders.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/06/unemployment-benefits_n_4399549.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications
BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
Showing posts with label unemployment benefits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label unemployment benefits. Show all posts
06 December 2013
17 July 2013
There's one sequester cut Marco Rubio is sad about, and it's not Meals on Wheels or Head Start 15JUL13
sen marco rubio r FL is an evil person. He is a repiglican / tea-bagger manipulator and deceiver who serves his corporate masters, especially those of the military-industrial complex. He feigns concern for those in our military while not having served at all, but his concern doesn't include providing the necessary provisions and care for those in active duty or our Vets. He is concerned with maintaining our nation as a warstate to guarantee increasing the profit margins of the military-industrial complex. Here is his latest propaganda campaign aimed at the patriotism of Americans gullible enough, voluntarily ignorant enough to believe him. Hey sen rubio, can you manipulate and deceive people and still be the person of faith you claim to be? I'm just sayin... From Daily Kos and Roll Call....
Florida Republican Boy Wonder Marco Rubio is very upset about sequestration. His reason, as conveyed in an op-ed, seems to boil down to two words: Blue Angels.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)
- District: Junior Senator from Florida
- Residence: West Miami
- Born: May 28, 1971; Miami, Fla.
- Religion: Roman Catholic
- Family: Wife, Jeanette Rubio; four children
- Education: Tarkio College, attended 1989-90; Santa Fe Community College, attended 1990-91; U. of Florida, B.S. 1993 (political science); U. of Miami, J.D. 1996
- Military Service: None
- http://www.rollcall.com/members/32335.html
- There's one sequester cut Marco Rubio is sad about, and it's not Meals on Wheels or Head Start
Sen. Marco Rubio
For President Obama to continue the charade of making things like the Blue Angels the culprits of our debt and, therefore, the first thing on the chopping block when government must slim down is an insult to the American people.The Blue Angels are relatively cheap! The savings could have been found elsewhere to preserve Americans' right to see military planes flying demonstrations! Why, why, why?
Oh, Rubio has room for a passing mention of some of sequestration's other inconveniences:
President Obama’s administration should be ashamed for trying to convince the American people that our only choices when it comes to dealing with the debt are either to leave government as big and bloated as it is, or accept a new reality where our people have to endure longer lines at the airport, endless flight delays, the loss of safety net medical assistance, the denial of education services, and many other inconveniences and negative effects to people’s day-to-day lives.Umm, whut? As Rubio points out, he did vote against the Budget Control Act that produced the sequester. His reasoning was basically this: Slash Medicare, not the military budget, and OMG, what if this leads to tax increases? Well, we got sequestration rather than tax increases on the wealthy and corporations because Rubio's party wanted it that way. And now he's whining that President Obama is posing some kind of false choice between big government and flight delays, as if magical budget fairies are going to sneeze out the services people expect, want, and need from the government without it costing anything or requiring revenue.
Sequester effects that Rubio doesn't have room to mention: cuts to unemployment insurance checks, domestic violence programs, Meals on Wheels, national parks. Rubio doesn't spare a word for all the federal workers who are losing big chunks of their pay to furloughs. He spends more words on flight delays that Congress already acted to prevent than he does on Head Start cuts (if that's even one of the things he means by "education services") that are leaving low-income kids without preschool, teachers without jobs, and parents having to scramble to find child care if they're going to be able to keep their jobs or look for work. "The loss of safety net medical assistance," meanwhile, is a nicely bloodless way to describe cuts to cancer treatment for Medicare patients.
The Blue Angels, though? Rubio has room for six full paragraphs about them.
01 January 2013
Inside The Fiscal Cliff Budget Compromise Bill: Tax Cuts and Tax Hikes & The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly in the Fiscal Cliff Package & Obama, Senate Republicans reach agreement on ‘fiscal cliff’ 31DEZ12&1JAN13
SO far this deal passed by the Senate is bad, but not as bad as it could be. The rich are getting an undeserved tax break on high value inherited estates, and taxes should have been raised on incomes over $300,000 not $400,000 / $450,000. But there is nothing in here about raising the eligibility age for Medicare or Medicaid, no cuts to Social Security, and the 1% are going to have to pay almost their fair share in taxes. The devil is in the details, but here is some good information on the Senate compromise from NPR, The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and The Washington Post....
The budget compromise bill that is meant to allow the U.S.
government to avoid higher tax rates and austere budget cuts has tax
rates as its central issue, with discussions about more spending cuts,
and the federal debt limit, put off until the coming weeks.
Now that NPR and other organizations have had some time to look at the compromise, we can list some of the proposed effects contained in the Senate bill that the House began considering Tuesday. This list isn't exhaustive — we're including links to other analysis below. But here's some of what the proposed deal would do:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/01/01/168419337/inside-the-budget-compromise-bill-tax-cuts-and-tax-hikes
Last night, the Senate voted on and approved a package to avert most components of the fiscal cliff, which we took a preliminary review of last night. Today, however, there are many more details to review now that the legislation is available and JCT has estimated the revenue effects.
In short, the package would permanently extend most of the 2001/2003/2010 tax cuts for incomes below $400,000/$450,000 while letting the ordinary rate above that threshold rise to 39.6 percent and the capital gains and dividends rates to 20 percent; it would increase the estate tax rate from 35 to 40 percent; it would permanently patch the AMT; and it would extend various “tax extenders” for 2012 and 2013. On the spending side, the package would delay the sequester for two months, enact a doc fix for a year, extend unemployment benefits for a year, extend the farm bill for a year, and enact about $50 billion in spending and revenue offsets to pay for the sequester delay and doc fix.
Based on more recent estimates, CRFB estimates that the entire package would increase deficits by about $4.6 trillion over the next ten years compared to current law projections (assuming everything expires or activates as called for) but would decrease deficits and debt by about $650 billion compared to more realistic current policy projections. These revised estimates continue to show that debt would remain on a upward path over the next ten years -- reaching 79 percent of GDP by 2022 – if policymakers are unable to offset a repeal of the sequester and Sustainable Growth Rate. That would be a slight improvement over the CRFB Realistic Projections, which show debt rising to over 81 percent by 2022. Clearly, lawmakers will need to go further, however, to put in place much more savings.
Below is our effort to roughly estimate the parameters of the deal.
So what’s to like and dislike about the deal? Below we explain:
The Good
CRFB hopes that lawmakers will return the table very quickly in the new year to enact savings sufficient in size and scope to solve the country's debt problems.
http://crfb.org/blogs/good-bad-and-ugly-fiscal-cliff-package
The agreement primarily targets taxpayers who earn more than $450,000 per year, raising their rates for wages and investment profits. At the same time, the deal would protect more than 100 million households earning less than $250,000 a year from income tax increases scheduled to take effect Jan. 1.
The deal came together barely three hours before the midnight deadline, after negotiators cleared two final hurdles involving the estate tax and automatic spending cuts set to affect the Pentagon and other federal agencies this week.
Republicans gave in on the spending cuts, known as sequestration, by agreeing to a two-month delay in budget reductions that would be paid for in part with new tax revenue, a condition they had resisted. And the White House made a major concession on the estate tax, agreeing to terms that would permit estates worth as much as $15 million to escape taxation by the end of the decade, Democrats said.
As the deadline for agreement closed in on Monday, Biden rushed to the Capitol to brief Senate Democrats on the deal, as Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) laid plans for a vote shortly after midnight, when taxes were set to rise for virtually every American.
“I think we’ll get a very good vote tonight,” a beaming Biden said as he emerged from the meeting with Democrats after nearly two hours. “But happy new year and I’ll see you all maybe tomorrow.”
The measure is now at the House, where Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) pledged to bring it to a vote in the coming days. “Decisions about whether the House will seek to accept or promptly amend the measure will not be made until House members — and the American people — have been able to review the legislation,” Boehner and other GOP leaders said in a written statement.
Senior aides predicted the measure would pass the House with bipartisan support. But Boehner’s decision to delay the vote meant the nation would tumble over the cliff at least briefly.
In addition to dealing with the fiscal crisis, the measure would extend federal farm policies through September, averting an estimated doubling of milk prices. The deal also nixed a set pay raise for members of Congress.
During a midday event at the White House, Obama praised the emerging agreement even though it would raise only about $600 billion over the next decade by White House estimates — far less than the $1.6 trillion the president had initially sought to extract from the nation’s richest households.
The agreement “would further reduce the deficit by asking the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans to pay higher taxes for the first time in two decades. . . . So that’s progress,” Obama said.
“Keep in mind that just last month, Republicans in Congress said they would never agree to raise tax rates on the wealthiest Americans. Obviously, the agreement that’s currently being discussed would raise those rates and raise them permanently,” he said.
Some liberals were fuming about the accord, complaining that Obama had been promising to increase taxes on income over $250,000 a year — a much lower threshold — since he ran for the White House in 2008.
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said: “If you make $250,000 a year, you’re not middle class. You’re in the top 2 percent of income earners in America... No deal is better than a bad deal, and this looks like a very bad deal the way this is shaping up.”
Other Democrats were upset about the administration’s decision to maintain a big exemption for inherited estates that allows those worth as much as $5 million — $10 million for couples — to go untaxed.
Although the White House won an agreement to raise the tax rates on larger estates from 35 percent to 40 percent, Republicans successfully insisted that the exemption should be adjusted annually for inflation, a provision that would increase the exemption amount to $7.5 million for individuals and $15 million for couples by 2020, said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee.
He called the final agreement a “sweetheart giveaway to the wealthiest 7,200 estates in the country.”
Republicans, too, were anxious about the accord, especially in the House, which two weeks ago rejected a proposal that would let taxes rise only on income over $1 million a year. GOP lawmakers — who have not voted for a broad tax increase since 1990 — were particularly incensed about the lack of new spending cuts.
Rep. Patrick T. McHenry (N.C.), a staunch conservative, said he was “gravely disappointed” and that House passage of the measure was not guaranteed.
Under the agreement, the top income tax rate would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent for married couples earning more than $450,000 a year and single people earning more than $400,000 a year. Those households also would pay higher rates on investment profits, with rates on dividends and capital gains rising from 15 percent to 20 percent.
Combined with a 3.8 percent surcharge on investment income adopted as part of Obama’s health-care initiative — a tax that also takes effect in January — the top rate on investment income would rise to 23.8 percent for high-income households.
Nor would taxpayers earning less than $450,000 entirely escape. The deal would restore limits on personal exemptions and itemized deductions that existed during the Clinton administration, with those benefits phasing out for couples earning more than $250,000 a year and single people earning more than $200,000.
That would keep Obama’s campaign pledge to raise taxes on the top 2 percent of earners, essentially households over $250,000. A Democrat familiar with the talks said the president hopes to gain additional revenue from those households by seeking to limit their tax breaks when the battle to reduce record deficits continues in the new year.
By extending lower tax rates for nearly all Americans, the deal would leave tax revenue about $3.7 trillion lower than if the rates had reset at higher levels.
In addition to permanently extending tax cuts enacted during the George W. Bush administration for 114 million households, the deal calls for a permanent fix for the alternative minimum tax, which would otherwise hit nearly 30 million taxpayers for the first time when they file their 2012 returns.
It would extend for five years tax credits for college tuition and the working poor, which were enacted as part of Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus package, benefiting 25 million low-income families.
Businesses would see a variety of popular tax breaks extended through 2013, including a credit for research that primarily benefits high-tech companies and an investment write-off that helps manufacturers.
The long-term unemployed could count on receiving emergency benefits for another year, at a cost of about $30 billion.
And doctors would be spared a 27 percent cut in Medicare reimbursements set to take effect in January — although the $30 billion cost of that extension would be covered by cutting other health-care programs.
The last last piece of the puzzle to fall into place was the sequester, which would be delayed until early March under an agreement to raise $12 billion in new tax revenue and $12 billion in fresh savings from the Pentagon and domestic programs.
Most of the deal had been locked down in a phone call between Biden and McConnell shortly before 1 a.m. Monday.
But at 6:30 a.m., McConnell’s phone rang again. The White House was unhappy with a tentative agreement for handling the sequester.
Those cuts were adopted in the summer of 2011 after an epic battle over the federal borrowing limit. At the time, Boehner insisted on identifying spending cuts equal in size to the increase in the debt limit, which was lifted by $2.1 trillion. About half the savings came in the form of limits on agency budgets over the next 10 years. The rest — about $1.2 trillion over the next decade, including interest savings — would begin on Wednesday, striking every federal account evenly, across the board.
With negotiators focused on how to prevent taxes from rising, the sequester had been largely forgotten. Enter Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and other senior Pentagon officials, who mounted an intense campaign over the past two days to spare the military, warning lawmakers that 800,000 civilian jobs were at risk.
Suddenly, the sequester was back on the table. The White House at first sought a two-year delay, which would have added more than $200 billion to budget deficits. Republicans demanded new spending cuts and offered $120 billion in options.
As the talks continued, Obama appeared at the White House, demanding in a campaign-style event that any plan to pay for the sequester must be “balanced.”
“That means the revenues have to be part of the equation in turning off the sequester and eliminating these automatic spending cuts,” he said.
The announcement angered Republicans; a top aide to McConnell tweeted that Obama had just “moved the goalpost.”
Soon after, McConnell appeared on the Senate floor to plead for the deal to move forward.
“Let’s take what’s been agreed to and get moving. The president wants this, members of Congress want to protect taxpayers and we can get it done now,” McConnell said. “We must do this.”
Rosalind S. Helderman and Ed O’Keefe contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/fiscal-cliff/biden-mcconnell-continue-cliff-talks-as-clock-winds-down/2012/12/31/66c044e2-534d-11e2-8b9e-dd8773594efc_print.html
Now that NPR and other organizations have had some time to look at the compromise, we can list some of the proposed effects contained in the Senate bill that the House began considering Tuesday. This list isn't exhaustive — we're including links to other analysis below. But here's some of what the proposed deal would do:
- Extend tax cuts for income below $450,000 (couples) and $400,000 (single filers)
- Above those thresholds, raise the income tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, while capital gains and dividends rates go to 20 percent, from 15.
- Begin a two-month delay on the automatic $109 billion cuts to defense and non-defense spending.
- Extend and alter the tax credit for businesses' research and development.
- Patch the Alternative Minimum Tax to make annual fixes unnecessary for 10 years.
- Raise the highest rate on estate taxes to 40 percent, while keeping the current $5 million per person exemption.
- Extend federal benefits for long-term unemployed Americans by one year.
- Extends the child tax credit, as well as the child and dependent care credit, depending on income.
- Allow more conversions to Roth IRAs (which would bring in revenue, as it requires tax payments up front).
- Extend the farm bill for a year (avoiding the "milk cliff" crisis).
- Bring back limits on personal exemptions and some itemized deductions, for incomes of $300,000 (households) and $250,000 (singles).
- Postpone a planned 27 percent cut to Medicare payments to doctors.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/01/01/168419337/inside-the-budget-compromise-bill-tax-cuts-and-tax-hikes
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly in the Fiscal Cliff Package
In short, the package would permanently extend most of the 2001/2003/2010 tax cuts for incomes below $400,000/$450,000 while letting the ordinary rate above that threshold rise to 39.6 percent and the capital gains and dividends rates to 20 percent; it would increase the estate tax rate from 35 to 40 percent; it would permanently patch the AMT; and it would extend various “tax extenders” for 2012 and 2013. On the spending side, the package would delay the sequester for two months, enact a doc fix for a year, extend unemployment benefits for a year, extend the farm bill for a year, and enact about $50 billion in spending and revenue offsets to pay for the sequester delay and doc fix.
Based on more recent estimates, CRFB estimates that the entire package would increase deficits by about $4.6 trillion over the next ten years compared to current law projections (assuming everything expires or activates as called for) but would decrease deficits and debt by about $650 billion compared to more realistic current policy projections. These revised estimates continue to show that debt would remain on a upward path over the next ten years -- reaching 79 percent of GDP by 2022 – if policymakers are unable to offset a repeal of the sequester and Sustainable Growth Rate. That would be a slight improvement over the CRFB Realistic Projections, which show debt rising to over 81 percent by 2022. Clearly, lawmakers will need to go further, however, to put in place much more savings.
Below is our effort to roughly estimate the parameters of the deal.
Savings and Costs in the Fiscal Cliff Package
So what’s to like and dislike about the deal? Below we explain:
The Good
- Avoids most of the abrupt economic harm from the fiscal cliff by extending or delaying most provisions
- Raises $620 billion in gross revenues relative to current policy, which would contribute to reducing the deficit compared to current policy
- Sets the precedent that extending the sequester has to be paid for and strengthens the precedent that the doc fix should be waived only along with offsetting health provisions
- Leaves in place the ability for lawmakers to discuss further and more meaningful deficit reduction measures in the coming weeks in order to avoid sequestration in the beginning of March
- Does not put in place the measures necessary to stabilize the debt as a share of the economy, let alone reduce it
- Does not include any serious entitlement reforms or set up a clear process for considering such reforms even though rising health costs remain our largest single fiscal challenge on Social Security is on a road toward insolvency
- Does not include a process to enact pro-growth and revenue generating tax reforms
- Does not specifically offset the costs of the tax extenders or UI benefits, setting a bad precedent for future extensions
- Uses a tax timing gimmick to pay for part of the sequester. Specifically, it raises $12 billion by allowing people to convert certain retirement accounts to "Roth" accounts so that they can pay their taxes now instead of later
- Cuts taxes by almost $4 trillion relative to current law projections, with a permanent resolution to the 01/03/10 tax cuts and AMT enacted on a deficit-financed basis even when deficit reduction needs have not been met
- Represents an incredible failed opportunity by missing what Erskine Bowles calls a “magic moment” to put in place a comprehensive plan that would simultaneously avoid the fiscal cliff and more importantly enact the spending cuts, tax reforms, and entitlement reforms necessary to truly control rising debt
CRFB hopes that lawmakers will return the table very quickly in the new year to enact savings sufficient in size and scope to solve the country's debt problems.
http://crfb.org/blogs/good-bad-and-ugly-fiscal-cliff-package
Obama, Senate Republicans reach agreement on ‘fiscal cliff’
By Lori Montgomery and Paul Kane
The Senate approved a bipartisan agreement early Tuesday morning to let income taxes rise sharply for the first time in two decades, fulfilling President Obama’s promise to raise taxes on the rich and avoiding the worst effects of the “fiscal cliff.” The agreement, brokered by Vice President Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), passed 89 to 8 in a highly unusual New Year’s morning vote. It now heads to the House, where leaders have not guaranteed passage but top officials believe it could win passage in the next few days.The agreement primarily targets taxpayers who earn more than $450,000 per year, raising their rates for wages and investment profits. At the same time, the deal would protect more than 100 million households earning less than $250,000 a year from income tax increases scheduled to take effect Jan. 1.
The deal came together barely three hours before the midnight deadline, after negotiators cleared two final hurdles involving the estate tax and automatic spending cuts set to affect the Pentagon and other federal agencies this week.
Republicans gave in on the spending cuts, known as sequestration, by agreeing to a two-month delay in budget reductions that would be paid for in part with new tax revenue, a condition they had resisted. And the White House made a major concession on the estate tax, agreeing to terms that would permit estates worth as much as $15 million to escape taxation by the end of the decade, Democrats said.
As the deadline for agreement closed in on Monday, Biden rushed to the Capitol to brief Senate Democrats on the deal, as Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) laid plans for a vote shortly after midnight, when taxes were set to rise for virtually every American.
“I think we’ll get a very good vote tonight,” a beaming Biden said as he emerged from the meeting with Democrats after nearly two hours. “But happy new year and I’ll see you all maybe tomorrow.”
The measure is now at the House, where Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) pledged to bring it to a vote in the coming days. “Decisions about whether the House will seek to accept or promptly amend the measure will not be made until House members — and the American people — have been able to review the legislation,” Boehner and other GOP leaders said in a written statement.
Senior aides predicted the measure would pass the House with bipartisan support. But Boehner’s decision to delay the vote meant the nation would tumble over the cliff at least briefly.
In addition to dealing with the fiscal crisis, the measure would extend federal farm policies through September, averting an estimated doubling of milk prices. The deal also nixed a set pay raise for members of Congress.
During a midday event at the White House, Obama praised the emerging agreement even though it would raise only about $600 billion over the next decade by White House estimates — far less than the $1.6 trillion the president had initially sought to extract from the nation’s richest households.
The agreement “would further reduce the deficit by asking the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans to pay higher taxes for the first time in two decades. . . . So that’s progress,” Obama said.
“Keep in mind that just last month, Republicans in Congress said they would never agree to raise tax rates on the wealthiest Americans. Obviously, the agreement that’s currently being discussed would raise those rates and raise them permanently,” he said.
Some liberals were fuming about the accord, complaining that Obama had been promising to increase taxes on income over $250,000 a year — a much lower threshold — since he ran for the White House in 2008.
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said: “If you make $250,000 a year, you’re not middle class. You’re in the top 2 percent of income earners in America... No deal is better than a bad deal, and this looks like a very bad deal the way this is shaping up.”
Other Democrats were upset about the administration’s decision to maintain a big exemption for inherited estates that allows those worth as much as $5 million — $10 million for couples — to go untaxed.
Although the White House won an agreement to raise the tax rates on larger estates from 35 percent to 40 percent, Republicans successfully insisted that the exemption should be adjusted annually for inflation, a provision that would increase the exemption amount to $7.5 million for individuals and $15 million for couples by 2020, said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee.
He called the final agreement a “sweetheart giveaway to the wealthiest 7,200 estates in the country.”
Republicans, too, were anxious about the accord, especially in the House, which two weeks ago rejected a proposal that would let taxes rise only on income over $1 million a year. GOP lawmakers — who have not voted for a broad tax increase since 1990 — were particularly incensed about the lack of new spending cuts.
Rep. Patrick T. McHenry (N.C.), a staunch conservative, said he was “gravely disappointed” and that House passage of the measure was not guaranteed.
Under the agreement, the top income tax rate would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent for married couples earning more than $450,000 a year and single people earning more than $400,000 a year. Those households also would pay higher rates on investment profits, with rates on dividends and capital gains rising from 15 percent to 20 percent.
Combined with a 3.8 percent surcharge on investment income adopted as part of Obama’s health-care initiative — a tax that also takes effect in January — the top rate on investment income would rise to 23.8 percent for high-income households.
Nor would taxpayers earning less than $450,000 entirely escape. The deal would restore limits on personal exemptions and itemized deductions that existed during the Clinton administration, with those benefits phasing out for couples earning more than $250,000 a year and single people earning more than $200,000.
That would keep Obama’s campaign pledge to raise taxes on the top 2 percent of earners, essentially households over $250,000. A Democrat familiar with the talks said the president hopes to gain additional revenue from those households by seeking to limit their tax breaks when the battle to reduce record deficits continues in the new year.
By extending lower tax rates for nearly all Americans, the deal would leave tax revenue about $3.7 trillion lower than if the rates had reset at higher levels.
In addition to permanently extending tax cuts enacted during the George W. Bush administration for 114 million households, the deal calls for a permanent fix for the alternative minimum tax, which would otherwise hit nearly 30 million taxpayers for the first time when they file their 2012 returns.
It would extend for five years tax credits for college tuition and the working poor, which were enacted as part of Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus package, benefiting 25 million low-income families.
Businesses would see a variety of popular tax breaks extended through 2013, including a credit for research that primarily benefits high-tech companies and an investment write-off that helps manufacturers.
The long-term unemployed could count on receiving emergency benefits for another year, at a cost of about $30 billion.
And doctors would be spared a 27 percent cut in Medicare reimbursements set to take effect in January — although the $30 billion cost of that extension would be covered by cutting other health-care programs.
The last last piece of the puzzle to fall into place was the sequester, which would be delayed until early March under an agreement to raise $12 billion in new tax revenue and $12 billion in fresh savings from the Pentagon and domestic programs.
Most of the deal had been locked down in a phone call between Biden and McConnell shortly before 1 a.m. Monday.
But at 6:30 a.m., McConnell’s phone rang again. The White House was unhappy with a tentative agreement for handling the sequester.
Those cuts were adopted in the summer of 2011 after an epic battle over the federal borrowing limit. At the time, Boehner insisted on identifying spending cuts equal in size to the increase in the debt limit, which was lifted by $2.1 trillion. About half the savings came in the form of limits on agency budgets over the next 10 years. The rest — about $1.2 trillion over the next decade, including interest savings — would begin on Wednesday, striking every federal account evenly, across the board.
With negotiators focused on how to prevent taxes from rising, the sequester had been largely forgotten. Enter Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and other senior Pentagon officials, who mounted an intense campaign over the past two days to spare the military, warning lawmakers that 800,000 civilian jobs were at risk.
Suddenly, the sequester was back on the table. The White House at first sought a two-year delay, which would have added more than $200 billion to budget deficits. Republicans demanded new spending cuts and offered $120 billion in options.
As the talks continued, Obama appeared at the White House, demanding in a campaign-style event that any plan to pay for the sequester must be “balanced.”
“That means the revenues have to be part of the equation in turning off the sequester and eliminating these automatic spending cuts,” he said.
The announcement angered Republicans; a top aide to McConnell tweeted that Obama had just “moved the goalpost.”
Soon after, McConnell appeared on the Senate floor to plead for the deal to move forward.
“Let’s take what’s been agreed to and get moving. The president wants this, members of Congress want to protect taxpayers and we can get it done now,” McConnell said. “We must do this.”
Rosalind S. Helderman and Ed O’Keefe contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/fiscal-cliff/biden-mcconnell-continue-cliff-talks-as-clock-winds-down/2012/12/31/66c044e2-534d-11e2-8b9e-dd8773594efc_print.html
21 September 2012
What Mitt Romney Really Represents 21SEP12
ROBERT REICH lays it out in plain English, romney-ryan will bring us closer to being a plutocracy than any prior administration. romney is of and for the rich, and those are the people he will represent in every decision he makes. BOHICA America, at least with george bush we could afford vaseline....
It's not just his giant income or the low tax rates he pays on it. And it's not just the videotape of him berating almost half of America, or his endless gaffes, or his regressive budget policies.
It's something that unites all of this, and connects it to the biggest underlying problem America faces -- the unprecedented concentration of wealth and power at the very top that's undermining our economy and destroying our democracy.
Romney just released his 2011 tax returns, showing he paid $1.9 million in taxes on more than $13 million of income last year -- for an effective tax rate of 14.1 percent. (He released his 2010 return in January, showing he paid an effective tax rate of 13.9 percent.)
American has had hugely wealthy presidents before -- think of Teddy Roosevelt and his distant cousin, Franklin D. Roosevelt; or John F. Kennedy, beneficiary of father Joe's fortune.
But here's the difference. These men were champions of the working class and the poor, and were considered traitors to their own class. Teddy Roosevelt railed against the "malefactors of great wealth," and he busted up the oil and railroad trusts.
FDR thundered against the "economic royalists," raised taxes on the wealthy, and gave average working people the right to form unions -- along with Social Security, unemployment insurance, a minimum wage, and a 40-hour workweek.
But Mitt Romney is not a traitor to his class. He is a sponsor of his class. He wants to cut their taxes by $3.7 trillion over the next decade, and hasn't even specified what "loopholes" he'd close to make up for this gigantic giveaway.
And he wants to cut benefits that almost everyone else relies on -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps, unemployment insurance, and housing assistance.
He's even a warrior for his class, telling his wealthy followers his job isn't to worry about the "47 percent" of Americans who won't vote for him, whom he calls "victims" and he berates for not paying federal incomes taxes and taking federal handouts.
(He mangles these facts, of course. Almost all working Americans pay federal taxes -- and the federal taxes that have been rising fastest for most people are Social Security payroll taxes, which aren't collected on a penny of income over $110,100. Moreover, most of the "47 percent" whom he accuses of taking handouts are on Medicare or Social Security -- the biggest "entitlement" programs -- which, not incidentally, they paid into during their working lives.)
Money means power. Concentrated wealth at the top means extraordinary power at the top. The reason Romney pays a rate of only 14 percent on $13 million of income in 2011 -- a lower rate than many in the middle class -- is because he exploits a loophole that allows private equity managers to treat their income as capital gains, taxed at only 15 percent.
And that loophole exists solely because private equity and hedge fund managers have so much political clout -- as a result of their huge fortunes and the money they've donated to political candidates -- that neither party will remove it.
In other words, everything America is learning about Mitt Romney -- his tax returns, his years at Bain Capital, the video of his speech to high-end donors in which he belittles half of America, his gaffes, the budget policies he promotes -- repeat and reenforce the same underlying reality.
So much wealth and power have accumulated at the top of America that our economy and our democracy are seriously threatened. Romney not only represents this problem. He is the living embodiment of it.
ROBERT B. REICH, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock" and "The Work of Nations." His latest is an e-book, "Beyond Outrage," now available in paperback. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.
It's not just his giant income or the low tax rates he pays on it. And it's not just the videotape of him berating almost half of America, or his endless gaffes, or his regressive budget policies.
It's something that unites all of this, and connects it to the biggest underlying problem America faces -- the unprecedented concentration of wealth and power at the very top that's undermining our economy and destroying our democracy.
Romney just released his 2011 tax returns, showing he paid $1.9 million in taxes on more than $13 million of income last year -- for an effective tax rate of 14.1 percent. (He released his 2010 return in January, showing he paid an effective tax rate of 13.9 percent.)
American has had hugely wealthy presidents before -- think of Teddy Roosevelt and his distant cousin, Franklin D. Roosevelt; or John F. Kennedy, beneficiary of father Joe's fortune.
But here's the difference. These men were champions of the working class and the poor, and were considered traitors to their own class. Teddy Roosevelt railed against the "malefactors of great wealth," and he busted up the oil and railroad trusts.
FDR thundered against the "economic royalists," raised taxes on the wealthy, and gave average working people the right to form unions -- along with Social Security, unemployment insurance, a minimum wage, and a 40-hour workweek.
But Mitt Romney is not a traitor to his class. He is a sponsor of his class. He wants to cut their taxes by $3.7 trillion over the next decade, and hasn't even specified what "loopholes" he'd close to make up for this gigantic giveaway.
And he wants to cut benefits that almost everyone else relies on -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps, unemployment insurance, and housing assistance.
He's even a warrior for his class, telling his wealthy followers his job isn't to worry about the "47 percent" of Americans who won't vote for him, whom he calls "victims" and he berates for not paying federal incomes taxes and taking federal handouts.
(He mangles these facts, of course. Almost all working Americans pay federal taxes -- and the federal taxes that have been rising fastest for most people are Social Security payroll taxes, which aren't collected on a penny of income over $110,100. Moreover, most of the "47 percent" whom he accuses of taking handouts are on Medicare or Social Security -- the biggest "entitlement" programs -- which, not incidentally, they paid into during their working lives.)
Money means power. Concentrated wealth at the top means extraordinary power at the top. The reason Romney pays a rate of only 14 percent on $13 million of income in 2011 -- a lower rate than many in the middle class -- is because he exploits a loophole that allows private equity managers to treat their income as capital gains, taxed at only 15 percent.
And that loophole exists solely because private equity and hedge fund managers have so much political clout -- as a result of their huge fortunes and the money they've donated to political candidates -- that neither party will remove it.
In other words, everything America is learning about Mitt Romney -- his tax returns, his years at Bain Capital, the video of his speech to high-end donors in which he belittles half of America, his gaffes, the budget policies he promotes -- repeat and reenforce the same underlying reality.
So much wealth and power have accumulated at the top of America that our economy and our democracy are seriously threatened. Romney not only represents this problem. He is the living embodiment of it.
ROBERT B. REICH, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock" and "The Work of Nations." His latest is an e-book, "Beyond Outrage," now available in paperback. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.
Follow Robert Reich on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/RBReich
04 February 2012
Jobs Report: As Many As Three Million Long-Term Unemployed Not Counted As Jobless Rate Drops 3FEB12 &
IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID! Still the main issue facing the administration, congress, the presidential candidates and the electorate. Unemployment, underemployment, economic inequality, and employment insecurity weigh heavy on the psyche of the 99% and yet the 1% continues it's obstructionist tactics to keep the economy in the doldrums until the election. The Obama administration needs to extend unemployment benefits and present a big, bold stimulus package to congress that includes massive funding for an infrastructure bank, massive funding for green technology and renewable energy and massive funding for job training. It needs to be coupled with trade sanctions against countries like the prc for their products being dumped in the U.S. (like solar panels) and higher taxes on companies outsourcing jobs from the U.S. AND then the administration needs to name names of those in congress who stand in the way. Here's the latest on the unemployment figures from HuffPost followed by an excellent post by Robert Reich.....
The job market is still on a long road to full recovery, but it took a big step in January.
U.S. nonfarm payrolls grew by 243,000 jobs in January, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on Friday, up from a revised 203,000 jobs in December.
The unemployment rate declined to 8.3 percent in January, from 8.5 percent in December. But if workers who have dropped out of the labor force were included, some economists estimate, the unemployment could be higher than 10 percent.
"This report is encouraging, but it still underscores how far a distance we have to go and how many people are still long-term unemployed and disconnected from the workforce," said Harvard economist Lawrence Katz. "Even if we were willing to say that the scars of the great recession mean a couple of million people drop out permanently, we still have many years to go before we get back to where we were."
Still, the headline numbers were far better than market expectations for payroll growth of about 155,000 jobs and an unemployment rate of 8.5 percent. The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 107 points in early trading, while the Nasdaq rose 28 points and the S&P 500 rose about 2 points.
The job growth is indeed good news for the economy, the labor market -- and for President Barack Obama's reelection chances.
Still, some perspective is in order: Total nonfarm payroll employment now stands at 132.4 million jobs, after some benchmark revisions, or about 5.6 million jobs lower than the 138 million at the peak in January 2008. In other words, it will take many more months of this sort of job growth just to get employment back to where it was four years ago.
A recent study by Washington, D.C. consulting firm Hamilton Place Strategies estimates that there may be three million long-term unemployed people who are currently not being counted by the Labor Department because they have simply given up looking for work. Signs of an improving job market might bring them back to the labor force, which would push the unemployment rate higher.
In fact, the labor force participation rate fell to 63.7 percent in January from 64 percent in December, the lowest since January 1982, suggesting workers are still leaving the labor force.
A group of workers the Bureau of Labor Statistics labels "not in the labor force" -- because they have not looked for work in more than a month -- but who currently want a job, has risen by 1.66 million since the recession began. However, this number is lower than some economists' estimates. If those 1.66 million workers were added back to the civilian labor force, then the unemployment rate would jump to 9.2 percent.
Some economists have even higher estimates of how many workers who want jobs are not being counted. For example, if the three million workers Hamilton Place Strategies estimates are out of the labor force were added back in, then that would theoretically push the jobless rate up to 10.9 percent.
By way of comparison, unemployment peaked at 10 percent in October 2009. A broad measure of unemployment, which includes workers only marginally attached to the labor force, fell to 15.1 percent, the lowest since February of 2009.
The private sector added 257,000 jobs in January, while the government sector cut 14,000. The biggest job-creating sectors were manufacturing, which added 50,000 jobs, and "leisure and hospitality" services, which added 44,000 jobs. The average private-sector work week held steady at 34.5 hours, while average hourly wages rose to $23.29 from $23.25.
The most significant aspect of January's jobs report is political. The fact that America's labor market continues to improve is good news for the White House. But as a practical matter the improvement is less significant for the American work force.
President Obama's only chance for rebutting Republican claims that he's responsible for a bad economy is to point to a positive trend. Voters respond to economic trends as much as they respond to absolute levels of economic activity. Under ordinary circumstances January's unemployment rate of 8.3 percent would be terrible. But compared to September's 9.1 percent, it looks quite good. And the trend line -- 9 percent in October, 8.6 percent in November, 8.5 percent in December, and now 8.3 percent -- is enough to make Democrats gleeful.
But the U.S. labor market is far from healthy. America's job deficit is still mammoth. Our working-age population has grown by nearly 10 million since the recession officially began in December 2007 but many of these people never entered the workforce. Millions of others are still too discouraged to look for work.
The most direct way of measuring the jobs deficit is to look at the share of the working-age population in jobs. Before the recession, 63.3 percent of working-age Americans had jobs. That employment-to-population ratio reached a low last summer of 58.2 percent. Now it's 58.5 percent. That's better than it was, but not by much. The trend line here isn't quite as encouraging.
Given how many people have lost their jobs and how much larger the total working-age population is now, we've got a long road ahead. At January's rate of job gains -- 243,000 -- the nation wouldn't return to full employment for another seven years.
When they're not blaming Obama for a bad economy, Republicans are decrying the federal budget deficit and demanding more cuts. But America's jobs deficit continues to be a much larger problem than the budget deficit.
In fact, we can't possibly achieve the growth needed to reduce the budget deficit as a proportion of the total economy unless far more people are employed. Workers are consumers, and consumer spending is 70 percent of economic activity. And cutting the budget means fewer workers, directly (as government continues to shed workers) and indirectly (as government contractors have to lay off workers) and therefore fewer consumers.
Yet deficit hawks continue to circle. State and local budgets are still being slashed. The federal government is scheduled to begin major spending cuts less than a year from now. Republicans are calling for more cuts in the short term. Austerity economics continues to gain traction.
Meanwhile Congress is debating whether to renew extended unemployment benefits. This should be a no-brainer. The long-term unemployed, who have been jobless for more than six months, comprise a growing share of the unemployed. (In January they rose from 42.5 percent to 42.9 percent).
Republicans say unemployment benefits are prolonging unemployment, that people won't get jobs if they get unemployment checks from the government. That's claptrap, especially when there's only 1 job opening for every 4 people who need a job. Republicans also say we can't afford to extend jobless benefits. Also untrue. Jobless workers spend whatever money they get, and their spending keeps other people in jobs.
Government should extend unemployment benefits, and not cut spending until the nation's rate of unemployment is down to 5 percent. Then, and only then, should we move toward budget austerity.
The job situation is better than it was but it's still awful. The jobs deficit is still our number one economic problem. Forget the budget deficit until we tame it.
Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future, now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org.
The job market is still on a long road to full recovery, but it took a big step in January.
U.S. nonfarm payrolls grew by 243,000 jobs in January, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on Friday, up from a revised 203,000 jobs in December.
The unemployment rate declined to 8.3 percent in January, from 8.5 percent in December. But if workers who have dropped out of the labor force were included, some economists estimate, the unemployment could be higher than 10 percent.
"This report is encouraging, but it still underscores how far a distance we have to go and how many people are still long-term unemployed and disconnected from the workforce," said Harvard economist Lawrence Katz. "Even if we were willing to say that the scars of the great recession mean a couple of million people drop out permanently, we still have many years to go before we get back to where we were."
Still, the headline numbers were far better than market expectations for payroll growth of about 155,000 jobs and an unemployment rate of 8.5 percent. The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 107 points in early trading, while the Nasdaq rose 28 points and the S&P 500 rose about 2 points.
The job growth is indeed good news for the economy, the labor market -- and for President Barack Obama's reelection chances.
Still, some perspective is in order: Total nonfarm payroll employment now stands at 132.4 million jobs, after some benchmark revisions, or about 5.6 million jobs lower than the 138 million at the peak in January 2008. In other words, it will take many more months of this sort of job growth just to get employment back to where it was four years ago.
A recent study by Washington, D.C. consulting firm Hamilton Place Strategies estimates that there may be three million long-term unemployed people who are currently not being counted by the Labor Department because they have simply given up looking for work. Signs of an improving job market might bring them back to the labor force, which would push the unemployment rate higher.
In fact, the labor force participation rate fell to 63.7 percent in January from 64 percent in December, the lowest since January 1982, suggesting workers are still leaving the labor force.
A group of workers the Bureau of Labor Statistics labels "not in the labor force" -- because they have not looked for work in more than a month -- but who currently want a job, has risen by 1.66 million since the recession began. However, this number is lower than some economists' estimates. If those 1.66 million workers were added back to the civilian labor force, then the unemployment rate would jump to 9.2 percent.
Some economists have even higher estimates of how many workers who want jobs are not being counted. For example, if the three million workers Hamilton Place Strategies estimates are out of the labor force were added back in, then that would theoretically push the jobless rate up to 10.9 percent.
By way of comparison, unemployment peaked at 10 percent in October 2009. A broad measure of unemployment, which includes workers only marginally attached to the labor force, fell to 15.1 percent, the lowest since February of 2009.
The private sector added 257,000 jobs in January, while the government sector cut 14,000. The biggest job-creating sectors were manufacturing, which added 50,000 jobs, and "leisure and hospitality" services, which added 44,000 jobs. The average private-sector work week held steady at 34.5 hours, while average hourly wages rose to $23.29 from $23.25.
America's Jobs Deficit, and Why It's Still More Important Than the Budget Deficit
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/americas-jobs-deficit-and_b_1253099.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotificationsThe most significant aspect of January's jobs report is political. The fact that America's labor market continues to improve is good news for the White House. But as a practical matter the improvement is less significant for the American work force.
President Obama's only chance for rebutting Republican claims that he's responsible for a bad economy is to point to a positive trend. Voters respond to economic trends as much as they respond to absolute levels of economic activity. Under ordinary circumstances January's unemployment rate of 8.3 percent would be terrible. But compared to September's 9.1 percent, it looks quite good. And the trend line -- 9 percent in October, 8.6 percent in November, 8.5 percent in December, and now 8.3 percent -- is enough to make Democrats gleeful.
But the U.S. labor market is far from healthy. America's job deficit is still mammoth. Our working-age population has grown by nearly 10 million since the recession officially began in December 2007 but many of these people never entered the workforce. Millions of others are still too discouraged to look for work.
The most direct way of measuring the jobs deficit is to look at the share of the working-age population in jobs. Before the recession, 63.3 percent of working-age Americans had jobs. That employment-to-population ratio reached a low last summer of 58.2 percent. Now it's 58.5 percent. That's better than it was, but not by much. The trend line here isn't quite as encouraging.
Given how many people have lost their jobs and how much larger the total working-age population is now, we've got a long road ahead. At January's rate of job gains -- 243,000 -- the nation wouldn't return to full employment for another seven years.
When they're not blaming Obama for a bad economy, Republicans are decrying the federal budget deficit and demanding more cuts. But America's jobs deficit continues to be a much larger problem than the budget deficit.
In fact, we can't possibly achieve the growth needed to reduce the budget deficit as a proportion of the total economy unless far more people are employed. Workers are consumers, and consumer spending is 70 percent of economic activity. And cutting the budget means fewer workers, directly (as government continues to shed workers) and indirectly (as government contractors have to lay off workers) and therefore fewer consumers.
Yet deficit hawks continue to circle. State and local budgets are still being slashed. The federal government is scheduled to begin major spending cuts less than a year from now. Republicans are calling for more cuts in the short term. Austerity economics continues to gain traction.
Meanwhile Congress is debating whether to renew extended unemployment benefits. This should be a no-brainer. The long-term unemployed, who have been jobless for more than six months, comprise a growing share of the unemployed. (In January they rose from 42.5 percent to 42.9 percent).
Republicans say unemployment benefits are prolonging unemployment, that people won't get jobs if they get unemployment checks from the government. That's claptrap, especially when there's only 1 job opening for every 4 people who need a job. Republicans also say we can't afford to extend jobless benefits. Also untrue. Jobless workers spend whatever money they get, and their spending keeps other people in jobs.
Government should extend unemployment benefits, and not cut spending until the nation's rate of unemployment is down to 5 percent. Then, and only then, should we move toward budget austerity.
The job situation is better than it was but it's still awful. The jobs deficit is still our number one economic problem. Forget the budget deficit until we tame it.
Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future, now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org.
15 December 2011
Congressional leaders reach spending deal to avoid government shutdown 15DEZ11
HOW are the issues and concerns of the 99% addressed in this agreement? The payroll tax break isn't part of the deal, unemployment benefits haven't been extended, the keystone xl pipeline may still be one of the riders in legislation and there is more interference in the lives of the citizens of D.C. along with funding cuts for the EPA and education. The 1% come out ahead, as usual.....no surtax on millionaires, no cuts to corporate welfare, no closing major corporate tax loopholes, no cuts impacting the profit margins of those merchants of death controlling the Pentagon. Congress is waging class warfare on 99% of the country and Pres Obama has become the Commander-In-Chief of this force of 535 whose motto has become to serve and protect the obscenely rich, the greedy, the corporate welfare queens and the military-industrial complex.
Congressional negotiators signed off Thursday evening on a $1 trillion spending agreement for federal agencies, just 28 hours before a deadline that would have led to a government shutdown.
After dropping policy prescriptions restricting travel to Cuba and a minor provision related to oversight of financial trades, members of the House and Senate appropriations committees gave final approval to the plan after a four-day standoff that was linked to a separate issue: President Obama’s demands to extend the payroll tax holiday for 160 million workers.
That negotiation, lawmakers and aides said, also could be headed toward an agreement, with lawmakers thinking about extending the tax break for two months to buy more time to determine how to fund it without increasing the federal deficit.
There was a broad shift in tone Thursday on Capitol Hill as leaders on both sides stopped saying the other would be to blame for a potential shutdown and began sending signs of progress.
Talks on the payroll tax began after Democrats dropped their demand that the cut be paid for with a new surtax on those who earn more than $1 million a year.
“Yeah, that’s gone,” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) confirmed Thursday evening.
But it was not clear whether Republicans would drop a series of provisions added in the House intended to lure votes from conservatives who believe the tax holiday is bad economic policy.
The House “riders” included an effort to speed approval of the construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline, reforms to unemployment insurance, higher Medicare premiums for upper-income seniors and a year-long extension of a two-year pay freeze for federal workers.
The package also would extend unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless and avert a scheduled cut in Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors.
Baucus, who is negotiating the tax and unemployment package for Democrats, said one consideration was to link the eligibility period of unemployment benefits to the level of joblessness in each state. That would mean that laid-off workers in Nevada — which has a 13.4 percent unemployment rate, the nation’s highest — would be eligible to receive benefits for a longer period than those in North Dakota, the state with the lowest unemployment rate.
A senior Democratic aide said talks over how to pay for the extended tax cut for the full year were ongoing, but an agreement had been secured to at least continue the tax break for two months, at a cost of $40 billion. Among the ideas being considered to pay for the cut, the aide said, were raising fees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collect from lenders, selling wireless spectrum controlled by the government and ending a tax break on the sale of corporate jets.
“There’s momentum building toward a comprehensive agreement, but still there are a lot of pieces to put together,” Baucus said.
To ensure the government remains funded, the White House and Democratic leaders signaled earlier Thursday that they would release their members to move ahead with the $1 trillion spending bill that the Appropriations Committee negotiated, paving the way for final votes on the measure in the House and the Senate.
A vote could occur as early as Friday, with Congress approving a temporary stopgap measure to provide time to complete their work when the legislation that is keeping the lights on ends at midnight.
Democratic leaders had blocked the bill from moving ahead after the White House said it wanted Congress to agree to extend the tax cut first and expressed lingering concerns about some of its provisions.
They included a provision barring the District from spending local tax money on abortion, another blocking the implementation of new standards for energy-efficient light bulbs and a third reversing an Obama administration decision to loosen rules for Americans who want to visit family members in Cuba.
The goal of linking the payroll tax issue to the spending bill was to ensure Republicans in the House could not pass the funding measure and then leave for the holidays — forcing Senate Democrats to accept a Republican proposal to extend the tax cut or let it expire.
At the White House on Thursday, Obama reiterated that the move would be unacceptable to him.
“Congress cannot and should not go on vacation before they have made sure that working families aren’t seeing their taxes go up by $1,000 and those who are out there looking for work don’t see their unemployment insurance expire,” he said.
The hardball tactic of linking tax holiday negotiations — as well as jobless benefits — to the completion of the must-pass spending bill aggravated some Democrats who had worked with Republicans for months to hammer out the appropriations deal.
Rep. James P. Moran (D-Va.), who sits on the key committee, said some Democrats had told the White House that “they should not be using federal employees as pawns in a larger issue.”
“I don’t blame them for trying to use every means available to them,” he said. “But I just don’t think that it’s right.”
The funding bill sets government spending for the year at $1.043 trillion, a level agreed to in the August deal that also raised the nation’s legal borrowing limit. The figure represents a 1.5 percent drop in spending from the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30.
That doesn’t count $115 billion for overseas military operations, a $43 billion dip since this past year as the war in Iraq winds down. It also doesn’t count $8.1 billion in emergency disaster-relief spending.
The measure outlines spending for three-fourths of the government — all but the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, State and Transportation, as well as NASA and some smaller agencies — which were settled in a November deal.
But it addresses funding for a wide swath of government programs, including Pell grants, border security and federal funding for the District of Columbia, and is designed to settle spending issues until nearly the next election, sparing the government the possibility of another shutdown. As Congress works to lower the federal deficit and reduce government spending, most domestic programs will see cuts.
The measure omits funding for the Internal Revenue Service to prepare for the 2014 implementation of the federal health-care law. But it increases funding for border agents and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
It includes $8.4 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency — a $233 million drop from last year. And provides $550 million for Obama’s signature Race to the Top education program, which incentivizes school reform, a cut of more than 20 percent.
But the Indian Health Service would see funding rise to $237 million. And funding would increase for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health.
Congressional negotiators signed off Thursday evening on a $1 trillion spending agreement for federal agencies, just 28 hours before a deadline that would have led to a government shutdown.
After dropping policy prescriptions restricting travel to Cuba and a minor provision related to oversight of financial trades, members of the House and Senate appropriations committees gave final approval to the plan after a four-day standoff that was linked to a separate issue: President Obama’s demands to extend the payroll tax holiday for 160 million workers.
That negotiation, lawmakers and aides said, also could be headed toward an agreement, with lawmakers thinking about extending the tax break for two months to buy more time to determine how to fund it without increasing the federal deficit.
There was a broad shift in tone Thursday on Capitol Hill as leaders on both sides stopped saying the other would be to blame for a potential shutdown and began sending signs of progress.
Talks on the payroll tax began after Democrats dropped their demand that the cut be paid for with a new surtax on those who earn more than $1 million a year.
“Yeah, that’s gone,” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) confirmed Thursday evening.
But it was not clear whether Republicans would drop a series of provisions added in the House intended to lure votes from conservatives who believe the tax holiday is bad economic policy.
The House “riders” included an effort to speed approval of the construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline, reforms to unemployment insurance, higher Medicare premiums for upper-income seniors and a year-long extension of a two-year pay freeze for federal workers.
The package also would extend unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless and avert a scheduled cut in Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors.
Baucus, who is negotiating the tax and unemployment package for Democrats, said one consideration was to link the eligibility period of unemployment benefits to the level of joblessness in each state. That would mean that laid-off workers in Nevada — which has a 13.4 percent unemployment rate, the nation’s highest — would be eligible to receive benefits for a longer period than those in North Dakota, the state with the lowest unemployment rate.
A senior Democratic aide said talks over how to pay for the extended tax cut for the full year were ongoing, but an agreement had been secured to at least continue the tax break for two months, at a cost of $40 billion. Among the ideas being considered to pay for the cut, the aide said, were raising fees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collect from lenders, selling wireless spectrum controlled by the government and ending a tax break on the sale of corporate jets.
“There’s momentum building toward a comprehensive agreement, but still there are a lot of pieces to put together,” Baucus said.
To ensure the government remains funded, the White House and Democratic leaders signaled earlier Thursday that they would release their members to move ahead with the $1 trillion spending bill that the Appropriations Committee negotiated, paving the way for final votes on the measure in the House and the Senate.
A vote could occur as early as Friday, with Congress approving a temporary stopgap measure to provide time to complete their work when the legislation that is keeping the lights on ends at midnight.
Democratic leaders had blocked the bill from moving ahead after the White House said it wanted Congress to agree to extend the tax cut first and expressed lingering concerns about some of its provisions.
They included a provision barring the District from spending local tax money on abortion, another blocking the implementation of new standards for energy-efficient light bulbs and a third reversing an Obama administration decision to loosen rules for Americans who want to visit family members in Cuba.
The goal of linking the payroll tax issue to the spending bill was to ensure Republicans in the House could not pass the funding measure and then leave for the holidays — forcing Senate Democrats to accept a Republican proposal to extend the tax cut or let it expire.
At the White House on Thursday, Obama reiterated that the move would be unacceptable to him.
“Congress cannot and should not go on vacation before they have made sure that working families aren’t seeing their taxes go up by $1,000 and those who are out there looking for work don’t see their unemployment insurance expire,” he said.
The hardball tactic of linking tax holiday negotiations — as well as jobless benefits — to the completion of the must-pass spending bill aggravated some Democrats who had worked with Republicans for months to hammer out the appropriations deal.
Rep. James P. Moran (D-Va.), who sits on the key committee, said some Democrats had told the White House that “they should not be using federal employees as pawns in a larger issue.”
“I don’t blame them for trying to use every means available to them,” he said. “But I just don’t think that it’s right.”
The funding bill sets government spending for the year at $1.043 trillion, a level agreed to in the August deal that also raised the nation’s legal borrowing limit. The figure represents a 1.5 percent drop in spending from the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30.
That doesn’t count $115 billion for overseas military operations, a $43 billion dip since this past year as the war in Iraq winds down. It also doesn’t count $8.1 billion in emergency disaster-relief spending.
The measure outlines spending for three-fourths of the government — all but the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, State and Transportation, as well as NASA and some smaller agencies — which were settled in a November deal.
But it addresses funding for a wide swath of government programs, including Pell grants, border security and federal funding for the District of Columbia, and is designed to settle spending issues until nearly the next election, sparing the government the possibility of another shutdown. As Congress works to lower the federal deficit and reduce government spending, most domestic programs will see cuts.
The measure omits funding for the Internal Revenue Service to prepare for the 2014 implementation of the federal health-care law. But it increases funding for border agents and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
It includes $8.4 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency — a $233 million drop from last year. And provides $550 million for Obama’s signature Race to the Top education program, which incentivizes school reform, a cut of more than 20 percent.
But the Indian Health Service would see funding rise to $237 million. And funding would increase for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health.
03 December 2011
Jobs Report: Long-Term Unemployed Tell Congress They're Hurting & Jobs Mirage: 315,000 Drop Out Of Workforce, Driving Unemployment Rate To Three-Year Low 2DEZ11
ANYONE who has ever been unemployed knows the government stats are never correct, actually never honest (no matter who is president). That is probably why Pres Obama wasn't out thumping his chest about the drastic "drop" in the unemployment rate. I was thoroughly disgusted by john boehner's right wing rant about the unemployment numbers, he is one of those who claims extending the bush tax cuts for the wealthy is what will create jobs, yet can't show us any improvement in the economy and employment from the two years the tax cuts were extended. Where are the jobs speaker boehner??? I was unemployed in Pennsylvania for about a year in the 80's during reagan's economic miracle and I remember the feelings of hopelessness and depression and the fear, and when my inability to find a job went on and on also my feelings of worthlessness and that something was wrong with me. My family and friends and faith got me through that rough time in my life, but in times like these I have ghost from the past haunting me even though I have a good job. There is a little voice in my head that keeps me afraid, makes me wonder what will happen if all of the sudden I no longer have a job....just what will happen, especially since I am 53 years old. I thank God every day I have my job and pray that I stay employed. Congress should not be playing these political games with people's lives. Unemployment benefits must be extended for those unable to find work. Please take the time to e mail your Representative https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
and your Senators http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
and tell them to extend unemployment benefits for those desperately seeking jobs, we can not turn our backs on these people, our family, friends and neighbors, our fellow Americans......
WASHINGTON -- It's been two long years since Wayne Person lost his sales job, and the 59-year-old from Mount Laurel, N.J., still hasn't managed to find new work. After a seemingly endless string of rejections, he's come to blame his long bout with unemployment on two primary factors: His age and unemployment itself.
"It became almost impossible for me to get a job interview, let a lone a job," Person says. Of the interviews he has had, "They concluded I was unqualified because I was not tech savvy, which is ridiculous, or because I was looking to retire soon, which is equally ridiculous." He has a suspicion that many employers won't consider him simply because he's already out of work -- a hunch not without merit.
Person, who's draining his 401(k) in an effort to stay afloat, is one of many out-of-work Americans who are urging Congress to pass reauthorization for unemployment insurance benefits -- a safety net that Person himself exhausted long ago, and that nearly two million unemployed stand to lose come January if the benefits aren't extended, according to the worker advocacy group National Employment Law Project.
To highlight the plight of the jobless, an alliance of 23 progressive groups called USAction released a report Friday telling the stories of nearly 90 people who are out of work, including Person. On a call with reporters, members of the group argued that the numbers released Friday from the Bureau of Labor Statistics underscore the need for congressional action on jobs and unemployment insurance.
The jobless rate actually dropped last month -- from 9.0 percent to 8.6, marking the lowest rate since March 2009 -- but that good bit of news was due partly to a shrinking labor pool, as many discouraged Americans stop looking for work.
"I think there is a tendency to focus on what the unemployment rate is, as opposed to the devil in the details," said Christine Owens, executive director of National Employment Law Project, who was on the call. "Although it's certainly good news that the unemployment rate declined, a chunk of that decline is because several hundred thousand people dropped out of the labor force. We still have almost six million people who've been unemployed six months or longer."
Debating whether or not to reauthorize unemployment benefits is fast becoming a holiday-season ritual in Washington, with lawmakers now facing the same question they did last December. Democrats have stumped loudly for the extension, holding a press conference Wednesday with hundreds of unemployed workers to pressure their colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Republicans in both chambers, meanwhile, have shown quiet signs of support for the reauthorization.
"There's no reason not to renew this program," Owens said. "It would be a huge body blow to the economy. These benefits do not prolong unemployment; they keep the unemployed engaged in the job search. Maintaining this program has that effect."
William McNary, director of USAction, said the group assembled their report, entitled "Hardly Working: Stories from Un- and Under-Employed Americans," in order to show some of the people behind the jobless numbers.
One of those people is Molly Wassermann, who recently moved to New York City from Toledo, Ohio, in search of better job prospects. She's been without work since 2008.
"What exactly is a person supposed to do who isn't being hired?" Wassermann asked on the call. "Are we supposed to just die? ... The attitude toward us is everything but Christian. They say we're lazy. ... The right is demonizing us."
"The vast majority of us just want to work," she said.
Despite a stark drop in the national unemployment rate reported Friday, economists warned it will take decades for the labor market to return to pre-recession employment levels if the economy's achingly slow growth continues.
The U.S. economy added 120,000 jobs in November -- falling short of economists' expectations -- while the unemployment rate dipped from 9.0 to 8.6 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday morning. But roughly half of the decline in the unemployment rate came from the 315,000 Americans who dropped out of the labor market last month, in part a reflection of the slow pace of the recovery, economists said.
"When unemployment is this high for this long, it's very likely that most of the people dropping out are doing so because they can't find work," said Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, who has studied the shrinking labor force during the years since the recession began. "There is some movement here, that's true. But it's just so slow."
While November's job gains roughly kept pace with population growth, a more positive glimmer can be found in the upwards revisions of the past two months of employment growth. Job growth for September was revised up to 210,000 from 158,00, and October's gains were up to 100,000 from 80,000.
120,000 may not be 250,000 -- the lowest number most economists look to for a really healthy recovery -- but it's also better than zero, the initial headline number of new positions created in August, when fears of a double-dip recession really began to take hold. In October, the number of new positions created in August was revised upwards to 103,000.
"We've got a modest acceleration and more employment growth then we saw over the summer," said Nigel Gault, Chief US Economist at IHS Global Insight, a firm offering economic and financial analysis, forecasting and market intelligence.
Domestically, Gault said, things haven't turned out as bad as people feared. But the global picture emanating from Greece and China looks darker. "At the moment, the U.S. is doing better than most of the rest of the world. But let's say Europe drops into recession. How far and how long could we outperform them?"
Job gains came in retail, hospitality, health care and business services, with modest gains in temporary work -- which can sometimes be an indicator of future job growth. Manufacturing employment -- once heralded as the shining star of the recovery -- has remained essentially flat since July. Meanwhile, state and local government continued to shed jobs.
The job gains are not coming in primarily high-wage industries, and annual average wage growth is not keeping pace with inflation. Worker in the retail sector -- which had the biggest gains last month -- pull in median hourly wages of $10.94 an hour, according to the Labor Department, and that sector's growth is one factor that explains the 2 cents dip in average hourly earnings last month. Another key factor is that the weak labor market provides employees little leverage to bargain with their employers over pay, economists said.
Two million Americans have been out of work for 99 weeks or more -- up from 1.5 million last November -- according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The percentage of workers who are working part time but still seeking full-time work is also up from a year ago, according to a recent Gallup poll.
And the U.S. economy still needs to regain more than 6 million jobs lost during the recession -- plus some 4.6 million jobs to account for population growth -- to reach pre-recession employment.
It's stark numbers like these that have led economists to dub the years since the Great Recession officially ended "the jobless recovery."
"After previous recessions, hiring soared. What has come roaring back this time is profits. They've reached a peak," said Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institute.
While many Occupy Wall Street protest camps have been cleared around the country, the income inequality that brought thousands of Americans to the streets since mid-September remains as strong as ever, according to this latest government snapshot. And even if job growth began to rebound in coming months, that income inequality, which has been growing for decades now, would still remain.
"Even if we could magically return to where things were in 2007 and the issues of the housing market disappeared, we would still have the three decades of cumulative growing inequality problems," said Lawrence Katz, Professor of Economics at Harvard University.
Arthur Delaney contributed reporting
and your Senators http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
and tell them to extend unemployment benefits for those desperately seeking jobs, we can not turn our backs on these people, our family, friends and neighbors, our fellow Americans......
WASHINGTON -- It's been two long years since Wayne Person lost his sales job, and the 59-year-old from Mount Laurel, N.J., still hasn't managed to find new work. After a seemingly endless string of rejections, he's come to blame his long bout with unemployment on two primary factors: His age and unemployment itself.
"It became almost impossible for me to get a job interview, let a lone a job," Person says. Of the interviews he has had, "They concluded I was unqualified because I was not tech savvy, which is ridiculous, or because I was looking to retire soon, which is equally ridiculous." He has a suspicion that many employers won't consider him simply because he's already out of work -- a hunch not without merit.
Person, who's draining his 401(k) in an effort to stay afloat, is one of many out-of-work Americans who are urging Congress to pass reauthorization for unemployment insurance benefits -- a safety net that Person himself exhausted long ago, and that nearly two million unemployed stand to lose come January if the benefits aren't extended, according to the worker advocacy group National Employment Law Project.
To highlight the plight of the jobless, an alliance of 23 progressive groups called USAction released a report Friday telling the stories of nearly 90 people who are out of work, including Person. On a call with reporters, members of the group argued that the numbers released Friday from the Bureau of Labor Statistics underscore the need for congressional action on jobs and unemployment insurance.
The jobless rate actually dropped last month -- from 9.0 percent to 8.6, marking the lowest rate since March 2009 -- but that good bit of news was due partly to a shrinking labor pool, as many discouraged Americans stop looking for work.
"I think there is a tendency to focus on what the unemployment rate is, as opposed to the devil in the details," said Christine Owens, executive director of National Employment Law Project, who was on the call. "Although it's certainly good news that the unemployment rate declined, a chunk of that decline is because several hundred thousand people dropped out of the labor force. We still have almost six million people who've been unemployed six months or longer."
Debating whether or not to reauthorize unemployment benefits is fast becoming a holiday-season ritual in Washington, with lawmakers now facing the same question they did last December. Democrats have stumped loudly for the extension, holding a press conference Wednesday with hundreds of unemployed workers to pressure their colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Republicans in both chambers, meanwhile, have shown quiet signs of support for the reauthorization.
"There's no reason not to renew this program," Owens said. "It would be a huge body blow to the economy. These benefits do not prolong unemployment; they keep the unemployed engaged in the job search. Maintaining this program has that effect."
William McNary, director of USAction, said the group assembled their report, entitled "Hardly Working: Stories from Un- and Under-Employed Americans," in order to show some of the people behind the jobless numbers.
One of those people is Molly Wassermann, who recently moved to New York City from Toledo, Ohio, in search of better job prospects. She's been without work since 2008.
"What exactly is a person supposed to do who isn't being hired?" Wassermann asked on the call. "Are we supposed to just die? ... The attitude toward us is everything but Christian. They say we're lazy. ... The right is demonizing us."
"The vast majority of us just want to work," she said.
Jobs Mirage: 315,000 Drop Out Of Workforce, Driving Unemployment Rate To Three-Year Low
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/02/jobs-report-december-november-2011_n_1125180.htmlDespite a stark drop in the national unemployment rate reported Friday, economists warned it will take decades for the labor market to return to pre-recession employment levels if the economy's achingly slow growth continues.
The U.S. economy added 120,000 jobs in November -- falling short of economists' expectations -- while the unemployment rate dipped from 9.0 to 8.6 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday morning. But roughly half of the decline in the unemployment rate came from the 315,000 Americans who dropped out of the labor market last month, in part a reflection of the slow pace of the recovery, economists said.
"When unemployment is this high for this long, it's very likely that most of the people dropping out are doing so because they can't find work," said Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, who has studied the shrinking labor force during the years since the recession began. "There is some movement here, that's true. But it's just so slow."
While November's job gains roughly kept pace with population growth, a more positive glimmer can be found in the upwards revisions of the past two months of employment growth. Job growth for September was revised up to 210,000 from 158,00, and October's gains were up to 100,000 from 80,000.
120,000 may not be 250,000 -- the lowest number most economists look to for a really healthy recovery -- but it's also better than zero, the initial headline number of new positions created in August, when fears of a double-dip recession really began to take hold. In October, the number of new positions created in August was revised upwards to 103,000.
"We've got a modest acceleration and more employment growth then we saw over the summer," said Nigel Gault, Chief US Economist at IHS Global Insight, a firm offering economic and financial analysis, forecasting and market intelligence.
Domestically, Gault said, things haven't turned out as bad as people feared. But the global picture emanating from Greece and China looks darker. "At the moment, the U.S. is doing better than most of the rest of the world. But let's say Europe drops into recession. How far and how long could we outperform them?"
Job gains came in retail, hospitality, health care and business services, with modest gains in temporary work -- which can sometimes be an indicator of future job growth. Manufacturing employment -- once heralded as the shining star of the recovery -- has remained essentially flat since July. Meanwhile, state and local government continued to shed jobs.
The job gains are not coming in primarily high-wage industries, and annual average wage growth is not keeping pace with inflation. Worker in the retail sector -- which had the biggest gains last month -- pull in median hourly wages of $10.94 an hour, according to the Labor Department, and that sector's growth is one factor that explains the 2 cents dip in average hourly earnings last month. Another key factor is that the weak labor market provides employees little leverage to bargain with their employers over pay, economists said.
Two million Americans have been out of work for 99 weeks or more -- up from 1.5 million last November -- according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The percentage of workers who are working part time but still seeking full-time work is also up from a year ago, according to a recent Gallup poll.
And the U.S. economy still needs to regain more than 6 million jobs lost during the recession -- plus some 4.6 million jobs to account for population growth -- to reach pre-recession employment.
It's stark numbers like these that have led economists to dub the years since the Great Recession officially ended "the jobless recovery."
"After previous recessions, hiring soared. What has come roaring back this time is profits. They've reached a peak," said Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institute.
While many Occupy Wall Street protest camps have been cleared around the country, the income inequality that brought thousands of Americans to the streets since mid-September remains as strong as ever, according to this latest government snapshot. And even if job growth began to rebound in coming months, that income inequality, which has been growing for decades now, would still remain.
"Even if we could magically return to where things were in 2007 and the issues of the housing market disappeared, we would still have the three decades of cumulative growing inequality problems," said Lawrence Katz, Professor of Economics at Harvard University.
Arthur Delaney contributed reporting
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this report incorrectly reported that net job growth was flat in August, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The BLS initally reported zero job growth in August, but revised that number upward in October to 103,000 jobs.
PLAY
FULLSCREEN
ZOOM
12 November 2011
The States Doing The Most (and Least) To Spread The Wealth Read more: The States Doing The Most (and Least) To Spread The Wealth - 24/7 Wall St. http://247wallst.com/2011/11/11/the-states-doing-the-most-and-least-to-spread-the-wealth 11NOV11
FROM 24/7 Wall Street, very interesting, and disturbing reading.......
> Average pension benefits: $24,398 (8th highest)
> Total per pupil spending: $9,657 (22nd lowest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $3,367 (the lowest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 30.3% (11th lowest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 42.4 (7th highest)
> Avg. TANF cash assistance per month: $537 (2nd highest)
California provides a large amount of cash assistance to those in need. Recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families in the state receive $537 per month — the second largest amount in the country — and for 42.4 months — the 7th most months. California residents have one of the highest tax burdens in the country. The state also has the seventh highest level of income inequality.
9. Minnesota
> Average pension benefits: $16,304 (17th lowest)
> Total per pupil spending: $11,098 (15th highest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $8,435 (2nd highest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 40.7% (12th highest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 40 (10th highest)
> Avg. TANF cash assistance per month: $348 (19th most)
As of 2008, Medicaid enrollees in Minnesota received the second largest amount in benefits in the country. However, the state has cut outlay to the program as stated in the 2012-2013 budget, meaning the state’s ranking in this category may soon change. Residents of the state have to pay a very large amount in taxes. The average citizen of Minnesota pays 10.3% of their income in state and local taxes, which is the seventh largest amount in the country.
8. Alaska
> Average pension benefits: $18,632 (25th lowest)
> Total per pupil spending: $15,552 (3rd highest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $7,453 (6th highest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 27.0% (5th lowest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 37.3 (14th highest)
> Avg. TANF cash assistance per month: $602 (the highest)
Alaskans have the lowest tax burden in the country, paying just 6.3% of their income in state and local taxes. According to the Tax Foundation, “Before the Trans-Alaska pipeline was finished in 1977, taxpayers in Alaska bore the second-highest tax burden in the country. By 1980, with oil tax revenue pouring in, Alaska repealed its personal income tax and started sending out checks instead.” The state also doesn’t levy personal income tax or sales tax. Still, it manages to spend the third largest amount per pupil each year, provide the sixth largest amount in medicaid per beneficiary, and give the largest amount in monthly TANF assistance in the country.
7. Connecticut
> Average pension benefits: $26,622 (4th highest)
> Total per pupil spending: $14,531 (6th highest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $7,442 (7th highest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 29.2% (8th lowest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 26.7 (17th lowest)
> Avg. TANF cash assistance per month: $413 (11th highest)
Connecticut has the highest per capita income in the country. Its residents also pay more than $5,000 a year on average in state and local taxes — the highest amount in the U.S. As a result, residents have the third highest tax burden in the country. In return, Connecticuters receive above average benefits. State employees who receive their pensions through the Connecticut State Employees Retirement System have the fourth highest average pension benefits. Students have the sixth highest amount spent on them. The state also has the fourth highest cost of living, and the second highest rate of income inequality.
6. Hawaii
> Average pension benefits: $22,680 (10th highest)
> Total per pupil spending: $12,400 (11th highest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $5,261 (21st lowest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 54.3% (the highest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 46.7 (the highest)
> Avg. TANF cash assistance per month: $518 (3rd highest)
Hawaii, on average, covers 54.3% of workers’ previous weekly wages through unemployment benefits. This is the highest rate in the country. The state also provides, on average, the greatest number of months of TANF benefits, and the third highest average amount of cash assistance. Part of the reason for this is that Hawaii has — by a substantial margin — the highest cost of living in the country. The state also receives one of the largest amounts of federal funding per capita in the country. This is partly due to defense, but also because of its high rates of health and human services payments.
5. Pennsylvania
> Average pension benefits: $20,662 (15th highest)
> Total per pupil spending: $12,512 (10th highest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $6,937 (11th highest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 39.4% (17th highest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 42 (8th highest)
> Avg. TANF cash assistance per month: $322 (25th highest)
Pennsylvania ranks high in a number of categories, but is not especially exceptional in any. It spends a large amount on education, health care, public pensions, and welfare. As a result, it has the tenth highest tax burden in the country, with residents spending an average of 10.1% of their income in state and local taxes.
4. New York
> Average pension benefits: $17,459 (19th lowest)
> Total per pupil spending: $18,126 (the highest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $9,057 (the highest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 26.9% (2nd lowest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 43.9 (4th highest)
> Avg. TANF cash assistance per month: $499 (6th highest)
New York spends more than $18,100 per student on education each year, which is more than any other state in the nation. Approximately $12,500 of this is spent on teacher salaries and benefits alone. The state’s medicaid payments per beneficiary of $9,057 is the largest in the country, and more than $600 than the state that spends the second most. New York has the absolute highest rate of income inequality in the country. It also has the second largest state and local tax burden, and the third highest cost of living.
3. New Jersey
> Average pension benefits: $16,817 (18th lowest)
> Total per pupil spending: $16,271 (2nd highest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $7,985 (4th highest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 37.2% (25th highest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 40.4 (9th highest)
> Avg. TANF cash assistance per month: $325 (21st highest)
New Jersey residents have access to exceptional amounts of health care benefits. Medicaid beneficiaries receive the fourth largest amount in the country. And those who receive medicare benefits, which is solely the fiscal responsibility of the federal government, receive the third largest amount. New Jersey also spends the second largest amount on education on a per student basis. Only 4% of New Jersey’s education budget derives from the federal government, with revenues split evenly between state and local governments. Unfortunately, New Jersey residents possess the largest tax burden in the country — nearly twice that of Alaska.
2. Massachusetts
> Average pension benefits: $25,596 (5th highest)
> Total per pupil spending: $14,118 (7th highest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $7,020 (10th highest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 36.1% (22nd lowest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 36.2 (16th highest)
> Avg. TANF cash assistance per month: $500 (5th highest)
Massachusetts has the third highest rate of income inequality in country. However, the states offers a number of above average benefits to address this issue. The state provides the fifth highest monthly amount in cash assistance for families enrolled in TANF in the country. The state also spends the seventh greatest amount on education, resulting in what many consider to be one of the best K-12 education systems in the country. Additionally, residents covered under the Massachusetts State Employees Retirement System receive the fifth highest amount in average benefits.
1. Rhode Island
> Average pension benefits: $25,571 (6th highest)
> Total per pupil spending: $13,707 (8th highest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $8,208 (3rd highest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 45.9% (2nd highest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 46.5 (2nd highest)
> Avg. TANF cash assistance per month: $417 (10th highest)
Rhode Island performs exceptionally well in all of the “generous” state metrics. It provides Medicaid beneficiaries with the third largest amount in payments. It provides the unemployed with almost 46% of their previous weekly wages — the second highest rate. Those receiving cash assistance through TANF, on average, can receive benefits for the second longest period among all states. Of course, taxes must be relatively high to fund these programs. The state has the fifth highest state-local tax burden in the country.
The Occupy movement has brought economic inequality to the headlines. Occupy protesters around the country have labeled themselves the 99%, in contrast to the wealthiest 1%. While this has captured the public’s attention, differences in wealth have always existed, and states have tried to level the playing field by redistributing money through education spending, unemployment benefits, health care, welfare, and other means.
24/7 Wall St. examined government spending by state in a number of categories to identify those that give the most and least in money and benefits to their residents. Our analysis has found that states that provide the most services and benefits have high income inequality. In order to finance these programs, the states that offer the most to their residents also have among the highest tax burdens in the country. While all income levels benefit from government assistance, the poor and the dispossessed benefit the most, in the form of welfare, medicare, and unemployment insurance.
Tax burden refers to the average amount a person pays in taxes as a percentage of his or her income. The Tax Foundation calculates each state’s tax burden by taking the total amount paid by the state’s residents in taxes, and dividing it by the total income of the state’s residents. Eight of the ten states that are most generous are among the top fifteen states with the highest tax burdens. New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut are all included on the list and also fill the top three slots for largest tax burdens in the country.
Income inequality measures how evenly wealth is distributed among residents of an area. Income inequality is high when a few people make a great deal and many make far less. Six of the ten states that are most generous are in the top 15 states for highest rates of income inequality. The three states with the greatest inequality in the country — New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts — are among the most generous. Many of the states giving the least, such as Idaho and Indiana, fall on the other end of the spectrum for income inequality.
It also happens that the states that spend the most on their residents have particularly high costs of living. While it may be that state governments simply give more because costs are higher, the difference in spending does reflect the entire situation. In many cases the most generous states also provide benefits for longer periods of time, such as unemployment and cash assistance for needy families. Nine of the ten states on the list are within the top 15 for highest costs of living. and seven of the ten least giving states are within the bottom 15 for cost of living.
24/7 Wall St. used the percent of former weekly wages covered by state unemployment insurance to rank unemployment benefits by state, using data from The National Employment Law Project. The amount each state spends on education per student, including teacher salaries, as well as data on income inequality, measured by the Gini coefficient, comes from the Census Bureau. Medicaid spending per recipient is from The Urban Institute and Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. Medicare spending per recipient is from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. 24/7 ranked the average amount each state employee receives in pension benefits per year using data from the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College on defined benefit plans. Data on the average number of months of benefits received and the average monthly amount of cash assistance from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), a welfare program that provides cash assistance to American families with dependent children, was obtained from the Administration for Children and Families. Cost of living data is from the Missouri Economic Research and Information Center.
This is 24/7 Wall St.’s states doing the most (and least) to spread the wealth.
10. California24/7 Wall St. examined government spending by state in a number of categories to identify those that give the most and least in money and benefits to their residents. Our analysis has found that states that provide the most services and benefits have high income inequality. In order to finance these programs, the states that offer the most to their residents also have among the highest tax burdens in the country. While all income levels benefit from government assistance, the poor and the dispossessed benefit the most, in the form of welfare, medicare, and unemployment insurance.
Tax burden refers to the average amount a person pays in taxes as a percentage of his or her income. The Tax Foundation calculates each state’s tax burden by taking the total amount paid by the state’s residents in taxes, and dividing it by the total income of the state’s residents. Eight of the ten states that are most generous are among the top fifteen states with the highest tax burdens. New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut are all included on the list and also fill the top three slots for largest tax burdens in the country.
Income inequality measures how evenly wealth is distributed among residents of an area. Income inequality is high when a few people make a great deal and many make far less. Six of the ten states that are most generous are in the top 15 states for highest rates of income inequality. The three states with the greatest inequality in the country — New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts — are among the most generous. Many of the states giving the least, such as Idaho and Indiana, fall on the other end of the spectrum for income inequality.
It also happens that the states that spend the most on their residents have particularly high costs of living. While it may be that state governments simply give more because costs are higher, the difference in spending does reflect the entire situation. In many cases the most generous states also provide benefits for longer periods of time, such as unemployment and cash assistance for needy families. Nine of the ten states on the list are within the top 15 for highest costs of living. and seven of the ten least giving states are within the bottom 15 for cost of living.
24/7 Wall St. used the percent of former weekly wages covered by state unemployment insurance to rank unemployment benefits by state, using data from The National Employment Law Project. The amount each state spends on education per student, including teacher salaries, as well as data on income inequality, measured by the Gini coefficient, comes from the Census Bureau. Medicaid spending per recipient is from The Urban Institute and Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. Medicare spending per recipient is from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. 24/7 ranked the average amount each state employee receives in pension benefits per year using data from the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College on defined benefit plans. Data on the average number of months of benefits received and the average monthly amount of cash assistance from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), a welfare program that provides cash assistance to American families with dependent children, was obtained from the Administration for Children and Families. Cost of living data is from the Missouri Economic Research and Information Center.
This is 24/7 Wall St.’s states doing the most (and least) to spread the wealth.
The states doing the most to spread the wealth
> Average pension benefits: $24,398 (8th highest)
> Total per pupil spending: $9,657 (22nd lowest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $3,367 (the lowest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 30.3% (11th lowest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 42.4 (7th highest)
> Avg. TANF cash assistance per month: $537 (2nd highest)
California provides a large amount of cash assistance to those in need. Recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families in the state receive $537 per month — the second largest amount in the country — and for 42.4 months — the 7th most months. California residents have one of the highest tax burdens in the country. The state also has the seventh highest level of income inequality.
9. Minnesota
> Average pension benefits: $16,304 (17th lowest)
> Total per pupil spending: $11,098 (15th highest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $8,435 (2nd highest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 40.7% (12th highest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 40 (10th highest)
> Avg. TANF cash assistance per month: $348 (19th most)
As of 2008, Medicaid enrollees in Minnesota received the second largest amount in benefits in the country. However, the state has cut outlay to the program as stated in the 2012-2013 budget, meaning the state’s ranking in this category may soon change. Residents of the state have to pay a very large amount in taxes. The average citizen of Minnesota pays 10.3% of their income in state and local taxes, which is the seventh largest amount in the country.
8. Alaska
> Average pension benefits: $18,632 (25th lowest)
> Total per pupil spending: $15,552 (3rd highest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $7,453 (6th highest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 27.0% (5th lowest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 37.3 (14th highest)
> Avg. TANF cash assistance per month: $602 (the highest)
Alaskans have the lowest tax burden in the country, paying just 6.3% of their income in state and local taxes. According to the Tax Foundation, “Before the Trans-Alaska pipeline was finished in 1977, taxpayers in Alaska bore the second-highest tax burden in the country. By 1980, with oil tax revenue pouring in, Alaska repealed its personal income tax and started sending out checks instead.” The state also doesn’t levy personal income tax or sales tax. Still, it manages to spend the third largest amount per pupil each year, provide the sixth largest amount in medicaid per beneficiary, and give the largest amount in monthly TANF assistance in the country.
7. Connecticut
> Average pension benefits: $26,622 (4th highest)
> Total per pupil spending: $14,531 (6th highest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $7,442 (7th highest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 29.2% (8th lowest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 26.7 (17th lowest)
> Avg. TANF cash assistance per month: $413 (11th highest)
Connecticut has the highest per capita income in the country. Its residents also pay more than $5,000 a year on average in state and local taxes — the highest amount in the U.S. As a result, residents have the third highest tax burden in the country. In return, Connecticuters receive above average benefits. State employees who receive their pensions through the Connecticut State Employees Retirement System have the fourth highest average pension benefits. Students have the sixth highest amount spent on them. The state also has the fourth highest cost of living, and the second highest rate of income inequality.
6. Hawaii
> Average pension benefits: $22,680 (10th highest)
> Total per pupil spending: $12,400 (11th highest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $5,261 (21st lowest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 54.3% (the highest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 46.7 (the highest)
> Avg. TANF cash assistance per month: $518 (3rd highest)
Hawaii, on average, covers 54.3% of workers’ previous weekly wages through unemployment benefits. This is the highest rate in the country. The state also provides, on average, the greatest number of months of TANF benefits, and the third highest average amount of cash assistance. Part of the reason for this is that Hawaii has — by a substantial margin — the highest cost of living in the country. The state also receives one of the largest amounts of federal funding per capita in the country. This is partly due to defense, but also because of its high rates of health and human services payments.
5. Pennsylvania
> Average pension benefits: $20,662 (15th highest)
> Total per pupil spending: $12,512 (10th highest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $6,937 (11th highest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 39.4% (17th highest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 42 (8th highest)
> Avg. TANF cash assistance per month: $322 (25th highest)
Pennsylvania ranks high in a number of categories, but is not especially exceptional in any. It spends a large amount on education, health care, public pensions, and welfare. As a result, it has the tenth highest tax burden in the country, with residents spending an average of 10.1% of their income in state and local taxes.
4. New York
> Average pension benefits: $17,459 (19th lowest)
> Total per pupil spending: $18,126 (the highest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $9,057 (the highest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 26.9% (2nd lowest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 43.9 (4th highest)
> Avg. TANF cash assistance per month: $499 (6th highest)
New York spends more than $18,100 per student on education each year, which is more than any other state in the nation. Approximately $12,500 of this is spent on teacher salaries and benefits alone. The state’s medicaid payments per beneficiary of $9,057 is the largest in the country, and more than $600 than the state that spends the second most. New York has the absolute highest rate of income inequality in the country. It also has the second largest state and local tax burden, and the third highest cost of living.
3. New Jersey
> Average pension benefits: $16,817 (18th lowest)
> Total per pupil spending: $16,271 (2nd highest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $7,985 (4th highest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 37.2% (25th highest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 40.4 (9th highest)
> Avg. TANF cash assistance per month: $325 (21st highest)
New Jersey residents have access to exceptional amounts of health care benefits. Medicaid beneficiaries receive the fourth largest amount in the country. And those who receive medicare benefits, which is solely the fiscal responsibility of the federal government, receive the third largest amount. New Jersey also spends the second largest amount on education on a per student basis. Only 4% of New Jersey’s education budget derives from the federal government, with revenues split evenly between state and local governments. Unfortunately, New Jersey residents possess the largest tax burden in the country — nearly twice that of Alaska.
2. Massachusetts
> Average pension benefits: $25,596 (5th highest)
> Total per pupil spending: $14,118 (7th highest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $7,020 (10th highest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 36.1% (22nd lowest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 36.2 (16th highest)
> Avg. TANF cash assistance per month: $500 (5th highest)
Massachusetts has the third highest rate of income inequality in country. However, the states offers a number of above average benefits to address this issue. The state provides the fifth highest monthly amount in cash assistance for families enrolled in TANF in the country. The state also spends the seventh greatest amount on education, resulting in what many consider to be one of the best K-12 education systems in the country. Additionally, residents covered under the Massachusetts State Employees Retirement System receive the fifth highest amount in average benefits.
1. Rhode Island
> Average pension benefits: $25,571 (6th highest)
> Total per pupil spending: $13,707 (8th highest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $8,208 (3rd highest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 45.9% (2nd highest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 46.5 (2nd highest)
> Avg. TANF cash assistance per month: $417 (10th highest)
Rhode Island performs exceptionally well in all of the “generous” state metrics. It provides Medicaid beneficiaries with the third largest amount in payments. It provides the unemployed with almost 46% of their previous weekly wages — the second highest rate. Those receiving cash assistance through TANF, on average, can receive benefits for the second longest period among all states. Of course, taxes must be relatively high to fund these programs. The state has the fifth highest state-local tax burden in the country.
The states doing the least to spread the wealth
10. Texas
> Average pension benefits: $18,828 (25th highest)
> Total per pupil spending: $8,540 (9th lowest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $4,667 (10th lowest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 36.0% (21st lowest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 30.3 (22nd lowest)
> Avg. TANF cash assistance per month: $195 (6th lowest)
Texas provides among the lowest average amount in monthly cash assistance to families receiving TANF benefits. It has the tenth lowest amount in medicaid payments per beneficiary. It also spends the ninth lowest amount on education on a per pupil basis. Residents of the state have one of the lowest state and local tax burdens in the country, paying just 7.9% of their income. The state also has the fourth lowest cost of living in the nation.
9. Florida
> Average pension benefits: $19,777 (19th highest)
> Total per pupil spending: $8,760 (14th lowest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $4,574 (6th lowest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 29.5% (9th lowest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 21.8 (9th lowest)
> Avg. TANF cash assistance per month: $233 (13th lowest)
Florida has one of the lowest per-beneficiary payout rates for Medicaid in the country. Conversely, it has one of the highest rates for Medicare, which aids those aged 65 years or older and is solely funded by the federal government. The state also provides relatively low unemployment benefits and TANF benefits.
8. Indiana
> Average pension benefits: $8,837 (the lowest)
> Total per pupil spending: $9,369 (17th lowest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $5,136 (18th lowest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 40.1% (13th highest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 24.8 (13th lowest)
> Avg. TANF cash assistance per month: $203 (8th lowest)
The greatest detriment to Indiana’s ranking is its pension system. The average benefits for a public servant enrolled in the Indiana Public Employees’ Retirement Fund is $8,837, the lowest amount in the country. Although Indiana, unlike many states, strives to make its full pension payments each year, it keeps payments small. According to the New York Times, “An employee earning $30,000 a year retires after 25 years with an annual pension of less than $10,000.” The state also provides a relatively low amount in average monthly cash assistance for TANF beneficiaries. The cost of living in Indiana is, however, relatively low.
7. South Carolina
> Average pension benefits: $17,467 (19th lowest)
> Total per pupil spending: $9,277 (16th lowest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $4,658 (8th lowest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 33.5% (16th lowest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 32.4 (20th highest)
> AAvg. TANF cash assistance per month: $172 (4th lowest)
South Carolina scores worse than average in every metric of generosity we looked at. The worst of these were Medicaid and cash assistance to the poor. South Carolina paid out just $4,658 per beneficiary last year for Medicaid, the eighth lowest amount in the U.S. Needy families received just $172 on average from TANF, the fourth lowest dollar amount in the country.
6. Arizona
> Average pension benefits: $19,056 (23rd highest)
> Total per pupil spending: $7,813 (3rd lowest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $4,701 (14th lowest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 26.2% (the lowest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 35.4 (18th highest)
> Avg. TANF cash assistance per month: $270 (18th lowest)
Arizona’s state and local tax burden is significantly lower than the national average. It also spends less than the national average in a number of areas. When it comes to education, the state spends the third lowest amount per pupil in the country. On top of this, the Arizona Senate recently cut $200 million from K-12 education. The state also covers the smallest amount of weekly wages for the unemployed. Additionally, the average weekly unemployment benefit is
$213, the fourth lowest amount in the country.
10. Texas
> Average pension benefits: $18,828 (25th highest)
> Total per pupil spending: $8,540 (9th lowest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $4,667 (10th lowest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 36.0% (21st lowest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 30.3 (22nd lowest)
> Avg. TANF cash assistance per month: $195 (6th lowest)
Texas provides among the lowest average amount in monthly cash assistance to families receiving TANF benefits. It has the tenth lowest amount in medicaid payments per beneficiary. It also spends the ninth lowest amount on education on a per pupil basis. Residents of the state have one of the lowest state and local tax burdens in the country, paying just 7.9% of their income. The state also has the fourth lowest cost of living in the nation.
9. Florida
> Average pension benefits: $19,777 (19th highest)
> Total per pupil spending: $8,760 (14th lowest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $4,574 (6th lowest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 29.5% (9th lowest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 21.8 (9th lowest)
> Avg. TANF cash assistance per month: $233 (13th lowest)
Florida has one of the lowest per-beneficiary payout rates for Medicaid in the country. Conversely, it has one of the highest rates for Medicare, which aids those aged 65 years or older and is solely funded by the federal government. The state also provides relatively low unemployment benefits and TANF benefits.
8. Indiana
> Average pension benefits: $8,837 (the lowest)
> Total per pupil spending: $9,369 (17th lowest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $5,136 (18th lowest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 40.1% (13th highest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 24.8 (13th lowest)
> Avg. TANF cash assistance per month: $203 (8th lowest)
The greatest detriment to Indiana’s ranking is its pension system. The average benefits for a public servant enrolled in the Indiana Public Employees’ Retirement Fund is $8,837, the lowest amount in the country. Although Indiana, unlike many states, strives to make its full pension payments each year, it keeps payments small. According to the New York Times, “An employee earning $30,000 a year retires after 25 years with an annual pension of less than $10,000.” The state also provides a relatively low amount in average monthly cash assistance for TANF beneficiaries. The cost of living in Indiana is, however, relatively low.
7. South Carolina
> Average pension benefits: $17,467 (19th lowest)
> Total per pupil spending: $9,277 (16th lowest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $4,658 (8th lowest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 33.5% (16th lowest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 32.4 (20th highest)
> AAvg. TANF cash assistance per month: $172 (4th lowest)
South Carolina scores worse than average in every metric of generosity we looked at. The worst of these were Medicaid and cash assistance to the poor. South Carolina paid out just $4,658 per beneficiary last year for Medicaid, the eighth lowest amount in the U.S. Needy families received just $172 on average from TANF, the fourth lowest dollar amount in the country.
6. Arizona
> Average pension benefits: $19,056 (23rd highest)
> Total per pupil spending: $7,813 (3rd lowest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $4,701 (14th lowest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 26.2% (the lowest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 35.4 (18th highest)
> Avg. TANF cash assistance per month: $270 (18th lowest)
Arizona’s state and local tax burden is significantly lower than the national average. It also spends less than the national average in a number of areas. When it comes to education, the state spends the third lowest amount per pupil in the country. On top of this, the Arizona Senate recently cut $200 million from K-12 education. The state also covers the smallest amount of weekly wages for the unemployed. Additionally, the average weekly unemployment benefit is
$213, the fourth lowest amount in the country.
5. Alabama
> Average pension benefits: $19,098 (22nd highest)
> Total per pupil spending: $8,870 (15th lowest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $3,931 (2nd lowest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 27.7% (6th lowest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 30.8 (25th lowest)
> Avg. TANF cash assistance per month: $197 (7th lowest)
In Alabama, the average Medicaid beneficiary receives just $3,931 each year. This is the second lowest amount in the country. In contrast, New York pays more than double that, or $9,057 per patient. Acccording to the Missouri Economic Research and Information Center, the relative cost of health care in the state also happens to be the lowest in the country, lessening the need for public assistance in this area. The state also provides just $197 for the average needy family through TANF, the seventh-lowest payout in the U.S.
4. Oklahoma
> Average pension benefits: $15,215 (13th lowest)
> Total per pupil spending: $7,885 (4th lowest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $4,666 (9th lowest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 39.2% (21st highest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 27.4 (18th lowest)
> Avg. TANF cash assistance per month: $189 (5th lowest)
Oklahoma spends the fourth smallest amount on education per pupil. It also pays the third least amount in employee benefits for those in the education system and the second least amount in teachers’ salaries to the number of students in the state. In addition to this, Oklahoma pays the fifth lowest amount in average monthly cash payments for TANF recipients and the ninth lowest amount in medicaid benefits for those enrolled in the program. Perhaps not surprising, the state has the second lowest cost of living in the country.
3. Idaho
> Average pension benefits: $16,088 (15th lowest)
> Total per pupil spending: $7,092 (2nd lowest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $5,685 (25th highest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 39.3% (20th highest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 8 (the lowest)
> Avg. TANF cash assistance per month: $302 (22nd lowest)
The state of Idaho spends just over $7,000 per pupil in a given year. This is the second lowest rank in the country. Idaho provides below average cash assistance through TANF, and recipients only average eight months of eligibility, by far the shortest period in the U.S. As measured by the Census Bureau’s GINI coefficient, Idaho has the eighth best income equality in the country.
2. Tennessee
> Average pension benefits: $13,145 (6th lowest)
> Total per pupil spending: $7,897 (5th lowest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $4,687 (12th lowest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 28.9% (7th lowest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 38 (13th highest)
> Avg. TANF cash assistance per month: $167 (3rd lowest)
Tennessee has the eleventh lowest per capita income in the country and state residents pay just $1,851 in taxes — the second lowest amount in the U.S. in state and local taxes. This means the state has one of the lowest tax burdens in the country. The state spends relatively little on education, unemployment benefits, TANF welfare benefits, and pension benefits. But Tennessee also has the lowest cost of living in the country.
1. Arkansas
> Average pension benefits: $12,009 (5th lowest)
> Total per pupil spending: $8,712 (11th lowest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $4,413 (4th lowest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 41.1% (11th highest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 11.2 (2nd lowest)
> Avg. TANF cash assistance per month: $147 (the lowest)
Arkansas has the second lowest median household income in the country, at just $38,571. Despite this, the state is one of the least generous, especially when it comes to assistance for the poor. The state gives just $147 per TANF recipient, the lowest in the country. And the average poor family receiving cash assistance is only eligible for 11.2 months, the second shortest period in the U.S.
Charles B. Stockdale, Michael B. Sauter, Ashley C. Allen
> Average pension benefits: $19,098 (22nd highest)
> Total per pupil spending: $8,870 (15th lowest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $3,931 (2nd lowest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 27.7% (6th lowest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 30.8 (25th lowest)
> Avg. TANF cash assistance per month: $197 (7th lowest)
In Alabama, the average Medicaid beneficiary receives just $3,931 each year. This is the second lowest amount in the country. In contrast, New York pays more than double that, or $9,057 per patient. Acccording to the Missouri Economic Research and Information Center, the relative cost of health care in the state also happens to be the lowest in the country, lessening the need for public assistance in this area. The state also provides just $197 for the average needy family through TANF, the seventh-lowest payout in the U.S.
4. Oklahoma
> Average pension benefits: $15,215 (13th lowest)
> Total per pupil spending: $7,885 (4th lowest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $4,666 (9th lowest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 39.2% (21st highest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 27.4 (18th lowest)
> Avg. TANF cash assistance per month: $189 (5th lowest)
Oklahoma spends the fourth smallest amount on education per pupil. It also pays the third least amount in employee benefits for those in the education system and the second least amount in teachers’ salaries to the number of students in the state. In addition to this, Oklahoma pays the fifth lowest amount in average monthly cash payments for TANF recipients and the ninth lowest amount in medicaid benefits for those enrolled in the program. Perhaps not surprising, the state has the second lowest cost of living in the country.
3. Idaho
> Average pension benefits: $16,088 (15th lowest)
> Total per pupil spending: $7,092 (2nd lowest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $5,685 (25th highest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 39.3% (20th highest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 8 (the lowest)
> Avg. TANF cash assistance per month: $302 (22nd lowest)
The state of Idaho spends just over $7,000 per pupil in a given year. This is the second lowest rank in the country. Idaho provides below average cash assistance through TANF, and recipients only average eight months of eligibility, by far the shortest period in the U.S. As measured by the Census Bureau’s GINI coefficient, Idaho has the eighth best income equality in the country.
2. Tennessee
> Average pension benefits: $13,145 (6th lowest)
> Total per pupil spending: $7,897 (5th lowest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $4,687 (12th lowest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 28.9% (7th lowest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 38 (13th highest)
> Avg. TANF cash assistance per month: $167 (3rd lowest)
Tennessee has the eleventh lowest per capita income in the country and state residents pay just $1,851 in taxes — the second lowest amount in the U.S. in state and local taxes. This means the state has one of the lowest tax burdens in the country. The state spends relatively little on education, unemployment benefits, TANF welfare benefits, and pension benefits. But Tennessee also has the lowest cost of living in the country.
1. Arkansas
> Average pension benefits: $12,009 (5th lowest)
> Total per pupil spending: $8,712 (11th lowest)
> Medicaid payments per beneficiary: $4,413 (4th lowest)
> Pct. of weekly wages covered by unemployment benefits: 41.1% (11th highest)
> No. of months of TANF received: 11.2 (2nd lowest)
> Avg. TANF cash assistance per month: $147 (the lowest)
Arkansas has the second lowest median household income in the country, at just $38,571. Despite this, the state is one of the least generous, especially when it comes to assistance for the poor. The state gives just $147 per TANF recipient, the lowest in the country. And the average poor family receiving cash assistance is only eligible for 11.2 months, the second shortest period in the U.S.
Charles B. Stockdale, Michael B. Sauter, Ashley C. Allen
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)