The loss of a job brings with it all kinds of troubles. Mortgages, car payments, and tuition bills pile up. Relationships are strained. A sprained ankle or a runny nose becomes a crisis.
The unemployed will pull through this recession, but too often they are pummeled by nitpicking, punitive rules erected by the government officials and businesses they turn to for help. State lawmakers have a chance on Wednesday to offer a small dose of comfort to jobless Virginians.
Gov. Tim Kaine has proposed two modest changes in unemployment benefits that must be adopted in order for the state to qualify for $125 million in federal aid. First, workers laid off from declining industries, such as textiles, would be permitted to collect assistance for an extended period while they receive training in new job skills. Second, part-time workers who lose their jobs would be eligible for benefits.
If the General Assembly rejects Kaine's plan and the federal dollars attached, families across Virginia face the loss of their homes and vehicles. Men and women struggling to better themselves will have to cut short educational opportunities and settle for unskilled, low-paying jobs with no hope for future financial stability. The $125 million at stake would cover not only the newly eligible jobless under Kaine's proposal, but all Virginians seeking unemployment assistance.
House Speaker Bill Howell says he is obligated to oppose the new benefits to protect businesses because the changes will nudge up unemployment taxes in a year when they are already slated for an increase. But the added tax burden from Kaine's plan is slight, boosting the annual tax by an average of $4.56 per employee, with the full impact not felt until 2012.
Virginia's existing rate of $98 per worker is the third lowest in the country, exceeding only Mississippi and South Dakota. Neighboring states assess higher taxes, including $342 per employee in North Carolina and $148 in Maryland.
House Republican leaders worry it will be politically difficult to take away the new benefits once the recession is over, creating a long-term obligation on businesses. But it should be far more difficult for them to refuse assistance to needy families at the height of a cruel and relentless recession. Legislators are elected to make tough decisions, and they can make it clear now that they intend for the assistance to be temporary.
There is nothing wrong with GOP leaders looking out for businesses in this economic downturn. But House Republicans, who are heavily concentrated in rural regions, also have an obligation to their constituents, who live in communities where the safety net is thinnest, where job opportunities were scarce even before the recession and virtually nonexistent today.
The pain is especially sharp for rural lawmakers' neighbors, fellow church members and the people they sit next to at high school baseball games. Surely these elected representatives are not so deadened to despair in their communities that they would refuse to help.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Reform the VEC
The first thing that needs to be done is reform the way the VEC operates. When people are laid off, they usually need unemployment money immediately, not in 30 days or later. The method of reporting on job searches and the method for determining any occasional part-time work also needs to be changed to reflect reality, and the unemployed should not be penalized for making $20 for a few hours work. The people who handle questions and problems at the VEC also need to be better-educated and should be required to have at least a modicum of common sense, and hire a few more people so the unemployed do not spend hours on hold instead of actively seeking work. The current system rewards those who abuse it, and punishes those who try to follow the rules.
Sunset
A binding sunset clause included in such a piece of legislation, would probably make it that much more palatable to fiscal conservatives. I know that is the only way I would support such a move.
Modest increase in taxes?
It's a "modest increase" based on Federal money (actually federal debt to China) that dries up in two years and we the tax payers will have to fund more social handout money! The very left op ed staff has never seen a handout program that they don't support.