Wages: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow

Tell Ann Romney that a middle-class wage in 2012 is $45,000 a year after taxes, but 50% of all U.S. workers earn less than half that before taxes.

In the Old Days

Since first being established at 25 cents an hour by FDR in 1938 under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the federal minimum wage has been raised only 22 times since then. Today the Republicans want to abolish it.

Over sixty years ago, during and after World War II, one could leave their rural community and obtain a government job (civilian or in armed service) and earn a decent living. Since then, "government" was, and always has been, America's single biggest "job creator". (Yes Speaker Boehner, government does create jobs.)

Or they could have left the family farm and moved to the big city and found work paying good wage in a mill or factory, without even having a high school diploma.

In 1952 the president of Jones and Laughlin Steel Company complained that the cost of the union's wage and benefit package was $1.08 an hour (or $2,246 a year). The average median salary at that time was $2,992 a year during the 1950s, when the U.S. population was half of what it is today. By that time the minimum wage had risen to $0.75 an hour.

J & L Steel (known to its employees as simply "J & L") provided the most competition to the Carnegie Steel Company in the Pittsburgh vicinity. Back in those days a man could go to work at the local steel mill and provide a decent living for his family of four while his wife stayed home to raise their children. (Yes Mrs. Romney, the wife could afford a "choice" to be a stay-at-home mom.)

What it Costs to Live a Middle-Class Life Now

Today in 2012 the average mean wage for a steelworker is $24.11 an hour, or $50,160 a year -- about what a typical teacher, fireman, or police person might earn. That's because they are represented by unions, and their wages have kept pace with the rising cost of living over the past sixty years. They also maintained their family healthcare plans that were provided by their employers. They're not over-paid as the Republicans like say, they're just earning an average and comfortable middle-class living....like most of us did back in the 1950s.

In 2012, it costs at least $45,000 a year (after payroll taxes) to meet the minimum cost for a typical American middle-class family of four, living in an average home, in an average neighborhood, and driving average cars.

A typical monthly budget might look like this:

That would equal $45,000 a year, which would be needed AFTER payroll taxes are deducted. That does not include emergency savings for repairs, clothes, entertainment, or a savings account for retirement and college. If the spouse also works, babysitters or daycare expenses would be deducted from those additional earnings.

$45,000 a year equals $21.63 an hour BEFORE payroll taxes are deducted. Remember, steelworkers now earn an average of $24.11 an hour (a middle-class wage).

* High-cost metropolitan areas such as NYC, Boston and San Francisco would be much higher. You can transpose $150 of the monthly budget from electricity to natural gas or oil if you use that for heat.)

Prevailing Wages For Average American Workers

Half the entire U.S. workforce now earns less than $12.67 a hour. The federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is about 1/3 of a middle-class wage of $21.63 an hour. Last year the average CEO earned $10.8 million and paid a lower tax rate (15%) than those middle-class steelworkers, firefighters and teachers (25%). (See tax brackets and rates here)

As of the last quarter of 2011, the total median household income was $52,378 a year (that's just $26,188 per person in a two income household.)

Last year 50% of all U.S. workers earned less than $26,364 a year (that's $12.67 an hour) when the poverty level for a family household of four is considered to be $22,314 a year (which is a very low government assessment). $22,314 year is about what Ann Romney spends every year just to feed and care for her favorite horse.

By contrast, for those out of work, the average American collected only $295 in weekly unemployment benefits ($15,340 a year) which only replaced about a third of the average worker's previous salary.

If one were working a full-time 40-hour per week job (providing they could find one) and earned the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, they would only be earning $290 a week, or $1,257 a month, or $15,080 a year.

As for retired workers, their average monthly Social Security benefit was about $1,230 a month at the beginning of 2012 ($14,760 a year).

Disabled workers on Social Security disability averaged $1,111 a month ($13,332 a year).

At least 8 million unemployment Americas exhausted all their unemployed benefits without ever finding work again. Some retired early, some became disabled (many denied SSD benefits), and others moved in with family or friends. Millions now earn $0 and hour, or $0 a week, or $0 a year --- and now just subsist on food stamps.

Are these the people that the Republicans are complaining about, who aren't paying their fair share of federal income taxes, and that they should "put more skin in the game"?

The poverty level $22,314 a year is only HALF the income needed in 2012 that would be necessary for a family of four to live on for a middle-class life-style without a spouse who is also working (if they had made a "choice" to be a stay-at-home mom.). The poverty level of $22,314 a year would include EVERYBODY who are dependent on unemployment benefits, Social Security funds, and disability payments.

How can a spouse (a mom or dad) earn $22,314 or less a year and expect a parent to "choose" to stay at home to raise their children? They can't, and the don't. Both parents must work to live a middle-class life-style. A divorce could be financially catastrophic for both parents, and one or both could end up on welfare and food stamps, just to survive.

The Role of Labor Unions

Union membership exploded during and after World War II, nearly doubling between 1938 and 1946. It was after World War II that American Exceptionalism became most valid, when the United States emerged as the advanced, capitalist democracy. At 35%, the unionization rate in 1945 was the highest in American history.

A concerted drive by the CIO to organize the South called "Operation Dixie" failed dismally in 1946. Unable to overcome private repression, racial divisions, and the pro-employer stance of southern local and state [Republican] governments, the CIO's defeat left the South as a non-union, low-wage domestic enclave and a bastion of anti- union politics (which still is today).

Then, in 1946, a conservative Republican majority was elected to Congress, dashing all hopes for any renewed post-war New Deals.

The quarter century after 1950 formed a ‘golden age' for American unions. Established unions found a secure place at the bargaining table with America's leading firms in such industries as autos, steel, trucking, and chemicals. Contracts were periodically negotiated providing for the exchange of good wages for cooperative workplace relations. Rules were negotiated providing a system of civil authority at work, with negotiated regulations for promotion and layoffs, and procedures giving workers opportunities to voice grievances before neutral arbitrators.

Wages rose steadily, by over 2 percent per year and union workers earned a comfortable 20 percent more than non-union workers of similar age, experience and education. American wages were higher and growth was rapid enough to narrow the gap between rich and poor, and between management salaries and worker wages.

Unions also won a growing list of benefit programs, medical and dental insurance, paid holidays and vacations, supplemental unemployment insurance, and pensions. Competition for workers forced many non-union employers to match the benefit packages won by unions, but unionized employers provided benefits worth over 60 percent more than were given non-union workers.

* Because of outsourcing, we now have a glut of labor, high unemployment, and lower wages.

In no other country have women and members of racial minorities assumed such prominent positions in the labor movement as they have in the United States. The movement of African-American and women to leadership positions in the late-twentieth century labor movement was accelerated by a shift in the membership structure of the United States union movement.

The union participation rate has declined in all industries since the "golden age" for American workers: from 35% in 1945, to 30% in 1970, to 24.7% in 1980, to 17.6% in 1990, to 11.8% today. That is the Republican legacy for average American workers, and why the economy is where is today. (Source)

The Auto Industry at a Glance

Besides the steel industry and government jobs, the U.S. auto industry used to be one of the best places to work in the 1950s.

GM’s president “Engine Charlie” E. Wilson told Congress in 1953, “What’s good for America is good for General Motors, and vice versa.” He took home $586,100 a year when the minimum wage was $0.75 an hour and gasoline was $0.27 a gallon.

During this time 80 percent of the world’s auto production and assembly was centered in Detroit. Back then GM was the world's largest corporation and had 46 percent of the American auto market. At its peak, the company employed more than 600,000 Americans.

But little by little over the past few decades, instead of exporting their products, the auto manufacturers (like all other major American manufacturers) began exporting their factories and our jobs instead. Now American companies employee people all over the world. Just under George W. Bush alone we've lost 52,000 factories.

Through NAFTA, we have guaranteed an endless hemorrhaging of our manufacturing base out of the United States. GM is now the largest employer...in Mexico. Since 1978, General Motors has built more than 50 parts factories in Mexico, which today employ 72,000 workers and pays thousands of Mexican workers between $1 to $2 an hour.

Then GM took their second taxpayer bailout to the tune of $49.5 billion and received bankruptcy protection in 2009 to cut its costs. (GM's first big bailout was right after Work War II.)

Auto workers in the U.S. saw their wages drop by 50% since the auto bail outs. Longtime auto workers still earn about $28 an hour (a nice middle-class wage of $58,240 a year before payroll taxes). But GM's new workers start at only $15.78 an hour, about half the prevailing rate paid to the company's production employees before the bail out --- which is about what a GM janitor was once paid in 1980, or a little more than double the minimum wage today. Yet GM's CEO Daniel F. Akerson is expected to earn at least $9 million in stock and salary in 2012.

The same for Ford, who didn't even need a bail out, but agreed to raise the hourly wages of entry-level employees from $15 an hour to about $19. Ford's CEO Alan Mulally ranked #1 in auto CEO pay with $29.5 million. Mulally's compensation was up 11% from 2010 and brings his cumulative take to $148.3 million since joining Ford six years ago. Some 120,000 Ford employees have lost jobs under Mulally's reign, and Ford shareholders saw their shares dropped 36 percent last year. So much for "pay for performance" and "job creators".

Foreign automakers are placing their U.S. factories in the southern states because of generous tax incentives and anti-union sentiment, presenting a huge challenge to the once-formidable United Auto Workers. Bob King, president of the UAW, says "We keep putting more taxes and lower wages on the people who are working in this nation and keep giving tax breaks to the wealthy," he said. "And that will destroy our democracy."

Conclusion

We can look back to the "golden era" of the middle-class, when rural folks left the farms to work in the steel mills and auto factories. The Waltons (Wal-Mart) got super-rich from their abundant labor supply of underemployed and unemployed people living in the rural anti-union south, who were desperate for employment, when even a minimum-wage job was seen as step up from rural poverty.

It was nice that Ann Romney had made the "choice" to stay at home and "work hard" raising her sons, but most average working Americans no longer have the luxury of a "choice" if they're only earning $15, $12, $10, or $7.25 an hour. They would need to earn at the very least $25 an hour to live like a steelworker or autoworker did sixty years ago.

But those jobs went overseas and across our borders, so that American corporations could pay their foreign workers at factories like Foxconn $1 an hour, while the CEOs could rake in millions every year. And that's a fact.

Yet the Republicans refuse to raise taxes on the CEOs, the rich, and themselves to help pay down government debt. They want to eliminate the current $7.25-an-hour federal minimum wage altogether, instead of raising it. The GOP wouldn't be happier if they could eliminate all labor unions, pay school teachers and firefighters half as less, lower the corporate tax rate to 0%, and force those earning only $26,364 a year to "put more skin in the game" -- and all while the GOP cuts food stamps and TANF for the poor and all of our Social Security and Medicare benefits.

The Republicans complain about the cost of welfare and food stamps, but their corporate sponsors (and people like Mitt Romney) forced these people into poverty to fatten their own wallets. If this is what's called a "shared sacrifice" by wealthy Republicans, then why would the middle-class or poor ever vote for a Republican?

That's why our solders in Iraq and Afghanistan kept re-enlisting. They had no good paying jobs to come home to. Typical pay in the military for an enlisted 20-year-old E-2 is $37,637 a year -- or married with two children is $41,021. After four years an E-4 with a wife and two children is $48,180 a year. A new officer starts at $54,800 a year. (Pay figures do not included special combat pay, reenlistment bonuses, allowances, etc.)

Tomorrow the "job creators" will pay all of us $1 an hour, just like they now do in China and Mexico today, once they make us all desperate enough for their ridiculously low-paying jobs. Corporate America is turning us into a third world county. The average "household" will no longer need two incomes to survive, but will need four incomes at the rate we're going. A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for George W. Bush, but probably much worse.

* The Jones and Laughlin Steel Company eventually merged with Republic Steel in 1984 to form LTV Steel. In 2002 International Steel Group purchased LTV. International Steel Group was ranked #426 on the Fortune 500. It was later acquired by Mittal Steel in 2005, and in 2006 it merged with Arcelor to become the world's largest steel company, ArcelorMittal, which is headquartered in Luxembourg.

Non-Partisan Facts about the Jobs Numbers (First Time Ever!)

Lies, damned lies, and statistics describes the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments. Both the Democrats and the Republicans use partisanship when describing the number of jobs created and how many people are unemployed to curry favor with the voters.

I've been on both sides of this argument because I've changed my party affiliation halfway through the Great Recession while being unemployed. I could use lies, damned lies, and statistics if I had wanted to, but I decided to take a more neutral point of view when authoring this particular post (links are included for my sources).

The Republicans just can't seem to comprehend the boring jobs numbers at all, and the Democrats don't want them to know. But I can understand why, and I don't blame them at all.

I'll begin with the first myth.

Please read the sentence below and remember it while reading the remainder of this post:

"The U.S. Department of Labor reports 3.4 million job openings and 12.8 million Americans are unemployed."

Got that? I believe the number of unemployed Americans to be much higher, but we'll get to that part further on in this post.

On one hand, the Republicans say people "find jobs right away when their unemployment benefits expire", indicating that there are lots of jobs available for them if they want to work. (Remember, the U.S. Department of Labor reports 3.4 million job openings and 12.8 million Americans are unemployed.)

On the other hand, the Republicans are also saying that "the unemployed are refusing to take jobs, and that giving them unemployment benefits only encourages them to remain unemployed." The Republicans must be touting some obscure study dating back to the 1970's. While that may have been true 40 years ago, it's certainly not true today. (Remember, the U.S. Department of Labor reports 3.4 million job openings and 12.8 million Americans are unemployed.)

Alan Reynolds at the ultra-conservative/libertarian Cato Institute (a right-wing advocacy group), supports that claim about the unemployed finding work when their benefits run out. He says, "If you are subsidized to stay out of the workforce, many people will. People think that when benefits run out, most people will still be unemployed, but most will accept jobs that are less than ideal shortly before benefits run out. There is work available if people are willing to relocate or take jobs in a different field. Unemployment benefits can actually hurt people's chances of finding work; their skills get rusty and they have more trouble explaining the long gap on their resumes."

Remember, the U.S. Department of Labor reports 3.4 million job openings and 12.8 million Americans are unemployed. Those job openings also include many part-time low-paying jobs that will go to 16-year-olds at the mall, temporary summer help at fast food restaurants, and temporary winter retail positions at places like Wal-Mart during the holiday season ("less than ideal" jobs).

Those 3.4 million job openings also might include those high-school janitor jobs that Newt Gingrich wants to hire under-age children to do.

But yet, Alan Reynolds wants the general public to believe that if you're not underwater on the mortgage of your home (and can find a buyer), and you still have some cash in the bank, you can pack up the kids into the family car and drive across the country - - and you'd have a very good chance of getting hired for one of those 3.4 million jobs that are "less than ideal".

But Mister Reynolds implies that by giving you an unemployment check instead, it will only encourage you to at stay home, watch TV, and drink beer all day long (no matter how far behind you are on your mortgage and car payments).

I would encourage Alan Reynolds to read my article, The Truth About Unemployment Benefits. (Reynolds is supposed to be a "fellow" at that "institute", but he obviously must lack some very basic arithmetic skills.)

And not everyone who has been unemployed receives any unemployment benefits. And most people who have qualified for state and federal unemployment benefits over the past 3 years, have already used theirs up - - and without ever finding any other job again. FACT.

The Huffington Post reports that "only 22% of Americans who've been unemployed for more than a year are currently receiving unemployment benefits." Even Fox News says, "Early last year, 75% [of all the unemployed] were receiving checks. The figure is now 48%, a shift that points to a growing crisis of long-term unemployment. Nearly one-third of America's 14 million unemployed have had no job for a year or more."

I would say it's more like 2 years or more. For yours truly, it's been over 3 years, and I personally know of many other people who have been out of work longer than me.

After their unemployment benefits run out, many people can then apply for food stamps (and TANF if they have children). Nearly 46 million people now rely on food stamps because they're either out of work or "under-employed". As one Tea Party website says, "8.2 million Americans have only part-time employment, either because they can't find full-time work, or because their hours have been cut back." This is what is now known as the under-employed.

Yet the Tea Party and Republicans are also saying that "we shouldn't be giving checks to people who sit at home doing nothing" and that "the unemployed are gaming the system" and that many are "using their checks to buy alcohol and drugs". Newt Gingrich even made a wild claim about them "flying to Hawaii".

So I suppose that currently, according the Tea Party and Republicans, if we cut off unemployment benefits to 7.7 million Americans who currently receive them, they would immediately find 3.4 million 7.7 million available jobs that were "less than ideal", so long as they were "willing to relocate or take jobs in a different field". And is that supposed to make sense to anyone with a brain larger than a dinosaur? That big square peg (12.8 million unemployed) does NOT fit into that tiny little hole (3.4 million jobs).

Today in February 2012, we have at least 10 million Americans who once qualified, but have already exhausted all their unemployment benefits (I explain in more detail further below). We also have 7.7 million who currently receive unemployment benefits (state and federal) and we have another 8.2 million who only work part time (because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job).

So far, this makes a total of 25.9 million that we know of, that the Bureau of Labor Statistics actually counted at one time or another; but the BLS currently reports the U-3 unemployment rate as only 12.8 million, and when we currently only have 3.4 million job openings - - and that's after Obama said he's already created 3.7 million new jobs over the past 23 months. Now add another 6 million high school and college graduates that were never included as part of the work force.

Now look at those number again (double check the links if you need to.)

But what have the Republicans been saying?

• "The unemployed are refusing to take jobs"
• "Giving them unemployment benefits only encourages them to remain unemployed."
• "The unemployed always find jobs right away when their unemployment benefits expire."
• "There are jobs available if people are willing to relocate."
• "There is work available if people are willing to take work in a different field."
• "They lack the necessary job skills."
• "The unemployed are gaming the system."
• "We shouldn't be giving checks to people who sit at home doing nothing."
• "They're just buying alcohol and drugs."
• "They're lazy hobos."
• "They're vacationing in Hawaii!!!"

The Republicans know full well that there aren't enough jobs today, and they also know that half the jobs were lost at the end of George W. Bush's watch as the economy was sinking, and the other half were lost in the beginning of Obama's watch. Either way, no matter who one blames for lost jobs, there still aren't enough jobs for everyone that needs one. So why do the Republicans always make all these false accusations about the unemployed and unemployment benefits?

End Non-Partisan Facts, Begin Partisan Commentary

Simple, because the Republicans just don't want to pay anybody "to sit at home and do nothing", regardless if it's the Republican's fault, Obama's fault, the "job creator's" fault, the banker's fault, or the fault of the unemployed. The Republicans just don't want to help the unemployed, the sick, the poor, the working poor, or the destitute and homeless...they never have and they never will. And they have ALWAYS castigated the unemployed, that's just the GOP.

But if you mention more tax breaks for the uber-rich, more defense spending, and more subsidies for big oil and tobacco, the Republicans are all on board. And they will want it all paid for with cuts to food stamps, unemployment insurance, Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid, TANF, and anything else that someone only earning $27,000 a year or less might need to survive on. That's just the GOP.

But we need to look more at the job numbers.

Back to Non-Partisan Facts, End of Partisan Commentary

Herman Cain recently claimed the government falsifies the jobs numbers. But if you can't believe a serial adulterer, a sexual molester, and a greedy liar, then you might not believe him. But personally, I do tend to believe that the government does sugar-coat the numbers, no matter which political party holds office. It's always been that way; it's just partisan politics.

If you count all the Americans that just magically dropped out of the work force, the unemployment rate is much higher than is being currently reported.

Which brings up another question: How does one "drop out" of the work force? I suppose one "re-enters" the work force when they get hired by someone, but how does one "drop out"?

A Tea Party website mentions that, "Since January 2009, the BLS [Bureau of Labor Statistics] said more than 5 million people have dropped out of the labor force -- the greatest decline in American history and the lowest participation rate in more than three decades. Only about six in 10 adult American civilians are counted as part of the labor force." (Very rarely do I ever agree with the Tea Party these days, and let alone with Herman Cain about anything!)

So here we are. The Tea Party and Republicans know we have a lot of people unemployed, and they know that there aren't enough jobs, but yet they still blame the unemployed for not taking jobs! Does that make any sense at all?

End Non-Partisan Facts, Begin Partisan Commentary

While I can understand that the Tea Party and Republicans will never "officially" and openly admit that they would like to see high unemployment and a bad economy (no matter what the human cost and suffering to REAL people), just so that they can blame the Obama administration for doing a bad job (and to get themselves elected next November); but why have they been spewing disparaging remarks out of the other side of their mouth about the unemployed? Is that their way of getting votes, or are the jobless just statistically less apt to vote, and therefore, the GOP uses the jobless as sacrificial red meat to appease their far-right conservative base?

Despite what many Republican politicians still ignorantly believe, the majority of the unemployed and those in need of food stamps are not "a bunch of lazy and young black guys wearing baggy pants and sitting on the curb drinking cheap wine out of a brown paper bag while panhandling for change outside a liquor store." They're mostly middle-aged white people that were once middle-class workers until 3 years ago, and maybe half of them are Republicans.

Back to Non-Partisan Facts, End of Partisan Commentary

Now, let's get deeper into the actual numbers.

It was in January of 2009 when Obama first took office. Nine months later in October of 2009 the labor department had reported that unemployment had peaked when there were 15.7 million Americans unemployed, and the U-3 unemployment rate was at 10.2%. (This was over 99 weeks ago, so please note that since that time, those who had been receiving unemployment benefits have since exhausted all their unemployment benefits.)

Seven months later in May of 2010, when the U-3 unemployment rate dropped to 9.7%, there were almost 10 million Americans who had qualified for, and were receiving, regular state UI benefits (4.5 million) and extended federal EUC benefits (5.4 million). This was when Obama had then been in office for 14 months.

A year later Obama had been in office for 26 months. Since that time there were another 6 million high school and college graduates who never found work, never qualified for unemployment benefits, and were never counted as part of the labor force (as we had a lower "participation rate")

A year later, Obama has now been in office for 36 months (3 years). As of January 2012, there were 7.7 million Americans who had qualified for, and are currently receiving, regular state UI benefits (4.08 million, those who were laid off within the last 6 months) and extended federal EUC benefits (3.62 million).

The U-3 unemployment rate is now 8.3%. Remember, as was noted before, at least 10 million Americans have already exhausted all their unemployment benefits, and of those, most are no longer being counted as "discouraged workers" or "marginally attached" anymore after one year.

* As of February 2012, those who qualify for federal extended benefits (now up to only 73 weeks maximum, instead of the previous total of 99 weeks) may now have to be drug tested and join a "Georgia Works" program to work two months for free).

At the very minimum, since Obama first took office, and not counting those who never qualified for unemployment benefits (such as school graduates, small business owners who went bust, private contractors, etc.), nearly 18 million Americans have at some point received federally funded extended unemployment benefits (meaning they exhausted 26 weeks of state benefits and were unemployed 6 months and longer to qualify for federal extended UI benefits).

Now subtract from 18 million how many NET jobs were created since October 2009 when the unemployment peaked at 10.2% = _______________ total Americans that we know for sure are currently unemployed (and not counting the "under" employed, those who working one or more part-time jobs.)

The last I heard, Obama says there were 3.7 million NET new jobs created. The labor secretary Hilda L. Solis says we currently have 8.1 million "long-term unemployed", about what I once estimated as a total for all UI exhaustees and 99ers.

But even leaving room for a margin of error, and accounting for those who might be working "under the table" and/or those who went on Social Security and disability, I still think there are closer to 15.7 million Americans who have been out of work for over 99 weeks (2 years and longer).

So how can the unemployment rate be dropping if there weren't as many jobs created for the ones that were lost, while the current job openings can't even sustain natural population growth? The REAL unemployment rate is closer to 20% - - one out of every person between the ages of 16 and 65 (what the Bureau of Labor Statistics counts as the labor force)

While Obama can claim 3.7 million NET new jobs were created over the last 26 months (including natural "churn" in the job market), we'd still need millions of more jobs just to break even, because we've had more layoffs since the unemployment rate peaked in October 2009.

End Non-Partisan Facts, Begin Partisan Commentary

Naturally I don't want the Republicans to know about any of this, because they'd use it against Obama in an election year. But voting for Republicans will only make things much worse for everyone...everyone, that is, except for the Republican politicians (who think most of the unemployed are lazy drug users) and the wealthy "job creators" - - those who feel that they're being punished by the other 99%.

Last year, of that bottom 99%, half of them earned less than $27,000 a year (when the poverty line for a family of four was $22,314), but the Republicans think these people should "put more skin in the game".

The Republicans must not believe (or are in denial) that the "working poor", and another 30 million Americans who are unemployed, are struggling just to survive, but instead think they're all just engaged in class envy and resentment - - and waging a class war against the uber-rich "job creators".

But let's not forget how we got to where we are today.

Under George W. Bush we lost 52,000 factories. A Republican congress had deregulated the banks that caused the housing crash. The Republicans under George W. Bush caused our huge deficit with tax cuts and two un-paid wars (Obama added to it by trying to stimulate the economy and helping the unemployed). The Republicans caused mass poverty and what they claim to be Obama's welfare state. (Yes, I know, the truth hurts).

This is what the Republican don't want you to know...that they only care about the top 1%.

Even though the Republicans call the unemployed lazy drug users who reject jobs to stay on the government dole (and claim that when their unemployment benefits run out, they suddenly find a job), this is simply not true.

The Republicans also know that there are only 3.4 million job openings scattered somewhere across the county, and that there just aren't enough jobs for everyone...but the GOP will still accuse Obama of promoting a welfare state, and use the unemployment numbers against him, rather that acknowledging that there just aren't enough jobs, and that we need a stronger safety net until more jobs come on line...not because "Obama want us to be more like Europe". In Europe, their safety net is much more generous than ours is.

And if half our workforce (75 million) earns less than $27,000 a year and another 30 million are unemployed (which all told, equals about 2/3 of our entire workforce), how does the GOP expect these people to access healthcare if they become injured and sick if the Republicans want to CUT everything, instead of just taxing billionaires a little more?

If any of those families could have afforded their own healthcare insurance, they would have paid an average of $414 per month last year. Millions of unemployed Americans might have once been eligible for COBRA too, but most couldn't afford those high insurance rates either. It's not that they're "free riders", they just can't afford the cost of healthcare insurance after they pay for their rent, heat, electricity and food. What part of that don't the Republicans understand? This is not class warfare, it's math.

But we don't want the Republicans to know the REAL jobs numbers, because if they realized how dire the situation really is for the unemployed, they won't use that knowledge to help the poor and working poor, but only use the numbers to try and make Obama look bad, just so that the GOP can regain power. The Republicans could care less about the unemployed, poor, working poor, or middle-class....just the top 1%.

When will Republican voters who earn less than $1 million a year ever wake up?

If Obama created 3.7 million jobs in his first 3 years, at that rate we'd have another 1.23 million created in 2012. If Obama were elected for four more years, at 1.23 million a year, we'd have a total of 9.84 million new jobs during his 8 years in office - - - about what we lost under both Bush and Obama in 2008 and 2009.

And with Obama, by allowing the historically low Bush tax cuts to expire at the end of the year (and/or a 30% income tax on earnings over $1 million a year), and with the end of two wars (barring Iran), our budget will also be in much better shape as well. Otherwise, we'll just have "more of the same" with the Republicans with more tax cuts for the rich, the outsourcing of jobs, the repeal of Dodd-Frank and the Consumer Protection Bureau to reign in the big banks, and things will only get worse.

And guess what? If that happens, all the formerly-middle-class Americans who were driven into poverty by the GOP won't get a dime from them in any future assistance. That's just the GOP.

Back to Non-Partisan Facts, End Partisan of Commentary

No matter who wins the Presidency, the House, and the Senate this November, you can bet that one or the other political party will use lies, damned lies, and statistics (and political partisanship) to cook the books when it comes to the unemployed.

Just like in the past, both parties will sweep the jobless under the rug (bury them alive) because they won't want to deal with the reality, let alone acknowledge, that millions of Americans were most likely permanently forced into poverty during the Great Recession and will mostly probably never earn a middle-class wage again...especially if they were already forced into early Social Security retirement, or if they are between the ages of 45 and 65 years old today. FACT.

Just like when someone dies, life goes on for everybody else.

End Non-Partisan Facts AND Partisan Commentary

P.S. - Beware of the Unemployment Truthers!

Early Retirement vs. Long Term Unemployment

Many Americans (usually socially conservative Republicans) who still need to work (and might hate their jobs) think that people who retire on Social Security benefits, rely on disability payments, or need an unemployment check, are living the high-life on money they don't deserve. These Republicans don't realize the downside of being outside the working environment.

The Republicans just don't seem to understand how those without a job feel: the feeling of a sense of separation from a previous active life, that gives one a better understanding about why so many seniors are taking anti-depression medications. It seems like one's value to others, as well as their own self esteem, have dropped off the map. Where are the challenges, the fun, and the involvement? Life does not have much shape anymore, and it can be very depressing, especially for senior retirees dependent on Social Security, the poor, the disabled, and the unemployed. They aren't all partying like it's 1929. But the GOP thinks so.

Before the Republican-caused economic crash in 2008, many people who could comfortably retire became bored. There was only so much one could do around the house. There was only so much TV one could absorb. There was only so much beer one could drink. There was only so much napping one could do.

Many people missed the routine of going to a job and the comradely they found with their co-workers in a work environment. So they re-entered the work force, even if it was for a low-paying and part-time job that they didn't financially need. But it's not the same any more because even these menial jobs are now being highly prized by teenagers, the unemployed, and those who need two or three of these jobs just to make ends meet.

Many older workers who were laid off after the economic crash, if they were 62, might have opted for a smaller check from Social Security with an early retirement after their unemployment benefits expired. But those who were too old to be re-hired, and ended up long-term unemployed, and were not old enough to qualify for their pensions or Social Security, they got trapped between a big rock and very hard place.

But some people who still need to work (and every single Republican) chastises those that can't work any longer, or are without a job and can't find any work at all (those who may need to rely on government assistance for their survival).

And the nationwide anti-union push by state legislatures for "right-to-work" laws isn't helping either. Union-busting legislation never promotes employers to hire more, only an increase in demand for products will promote job growth. More low-paying jobs will not increase consumer demand, but more jobs paying better wages will create more jobs, and therefore more consumer demand. (Economics 101)

It's almost as though the GOP, and those who still need to work, almost seem to resent and envy those that don't or can't work any longer. They would rather lump the poor and unemployed into one big group and accuse them all of "gaming the system" and living on government "hand outs" - - as though they were all buying big brand new Cadillacs and were on a constant vacation. But the poor and unemployed aren't living this ridiculous GOP fantasy.

And despite what most Republicans still ignorantly believe, it's not just a bunch of lazy and dirty young black guys dressed in torn and shabby clothes and sitting on the sidewalk drinking cheap wine out of a brown paper bag while begging for change. Today it's usually a middle-aged white guy that was once a middle-class worker until 3 years ago.

A study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that the poorest American households, the bottom 20%, received just 32 cents of every dollar of all government benefits distributed in 2010. Most went to the elderly and disabled, who received the bulk at 70% (Social Security, Medicare, etc.)

The New York Times reports that of that bottom 20%, African-Americans make up 22% of the poor, but only receives 14% of those government benefits - - close to their 12% total population share.

Whites, who make up 42% of the poor, received 69% of those government benefits - - again, much closer to their 64% total population share for TANF, veteran's benefits, unemployment benefits, Medicaid, food stamps, etc.

The share of benefits flowing to the least affluent households, the bottom fifth, has actually declined from 54% in 1979 to 36% in 2007, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis published last year.

Yet many people say they are angry because the government is wasting money and giving money to people who do not deserve it. But even many of these previous critics are now finding themselves more and more in need of some kind of financial assistance from the government. More middle-class families have been increasingly landing in the government's safety net as the middle-class has shrunk. ("Its the economy stupid!")

Rick Santorum has warned of “the narcotic of government dependency” and said that recent expansions in the "reach of government" and the spending behind them are "systematically destroying the work ethic.”

Newt Gingrich has compared the safety net to a spider web and President Obama as the "food stamp king".

Mitt Romney recently warned of "the dangers that the nation faces from the encroachment of the Entitlement Society", predicting that in a few years, "we will have created a society that contains a sizable contingent of long-term jobless, dependent on government benefits for survival. Government dependency can only foster passivity and sloth." Mitt Romney has said the nation must choose between an “entitlement society” and an “opportunity society.”

All the GOP candidates, including Ron Paul, have promised to cut spending (for Social Security, Medicare, TANF, Medicaid, and food stamps, but not corporate subsidies or defense spending) and further reduce taxes...which they all claim are now too high, when in reality, are actually at historical lows ever since the Bush tax cuts. The Republicans and Tea Party are betting that the voters are either ignorant, or will just believe the GOP's lies.

Since the Republican-caused economic crash in 2008 (before Obama took office), the problem by now is very familiar to most. Then the politicians (mostly Democrats) needed to expand the safety net because of high unemployment (etc.); but this was done without a commensurate increase in tax revenues, a primary reason for the government’s annual deficits and mushrooming debt. Think of the Bush tax cuts, that the very wealthy primarily benefited from - - paying a less effective tax rate than most middle-class workers.

And over the next 25 years, as the population ages (Baby Boomers) and medical costs climb, the Congressional Budget Office projects that benefits programs will grow faster than any other part of government, driving the federal debt to dangerous heights.

Americans are divided about the way forward, but 70% of respondents to a recent New York Times poll said the government should raise taxes. Usually it's just the Republicans that oppose raising taxes, but even Republican voters are now saying we should raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires.

The Republicans consistently argue about the debt to "our children and our grandchildren", but what about the reality of life for the poor and unemployed in American in the here and now, and not far off into some distant and incomprehensible future? What about the children and grandchildren who are suffering today?

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, almost half of all Americans lived in households that received some type of government benefits - - 44.5% in 2006 under Bush before the recession to 48.5% during the recession in 2010...a reflection of the deterioration of the middle class.

If "job creators" created enough fair-paying jobs for 15 million unemployed Americans, we wouldn't need Mitt Romney's “entitlement society” and we'd have an “opportunity society.” Mitt Romney earns millions of dollars every year from "investments" and pays a lower tax rate than most middle-class Americans, but how many jobs has HE been creating every year for the past 10 years since he left Bain Capital? None, other than his "undocumented" and under-paid housekeepers.

Few federal programs are more popular than Medicare, which along with Social Security, assures a minimum quality of life for older Americans. But the government projects that Medicare enrollment will grow by roughly one-third as baby boomers enter old age.

Only 22% of respondents to the New York Times poll correctly identified Medicare as the fastest-growing benefits program. A greater number of respondents, 27%, because of the Republican's bashing, wrongly thought it was programs for the lazy poor. The GOP has blamed Obama and the poor regularly, almost on a daily basis.

There has been much bitter complaining by the GOP about "unconstitutional government mandates" regarding ObamaCare®, but wouldn't it be similar to Medicare (as in Medicare for all) for which we're all required to pay Medicare taxes? Aren't these taxes also a "mandate"?

But part of the problem is that Medicare premiums are not nearly high enough. Why is that? As former White House economic advisor Jared Bernstein points out, "One reason why the incomes of the wealthiest households have surpassed the rest is because of the concentration of non-wage income, like capital gains and dividends. 86% of all capital gains income accrues to the richest fifth of households. This income receives extremely favorable treatment through our tax code—it’s currently subject to a top rate of 15% instead of the 35% levied on ordinary income."

And this massive amount of personal income that's raked in as "capital gains" by the top 20% is not subjected to Medicare or Social Security taxes. And even "ordinary income" that's taxed at the top marginal rate, is capped at the first $110,000 for Social Security. The wealthiest among us don't want to contribute their share to Medicare and Social Security, because they are so rich, they don't need these programs, and think nothing of the common good for all Americans. To them and their GOP enablers, this is labeled as "redistributing the wealth" or "class warfare". But in reality, it's always been about redistributing the wealth upwards to THEM, and it's THEM who have always been waging class warfare on the middle-class and poor.

The Republicans, the top 1%, and the major corporations have accused the elderly, the poor, the disabled, and the unemployed of "gaming the system", when in fact it has been the lobbyists and Republicans, on behalf of the top 1%, who have been vastly gaming the system - - even with illegal tax evasion.

Senior citizens struggle day-to-day to barely survive on Social Security benefits, and struggle to remain healthy on Medicare. Millionaires and billionaires don't struggle for their survival, and most don't want to pay any more to the social safety programs than they absolutely have to - - and only do when they're forced to by tax laws mandated by congress. Millionaires and billionaires don't want the lazy, the poor, drug addicts, the disabled, winos, and the elderly "living out of their wallets".

Since the Republican-caused Great Recession, many older workers 62 years of age and older who were laid and forced into early Social Security retirement, or were disabled and qualified for SSD, aren't near as bad off as those who are 45 to 62 years old and were laid off over 2 years ago. They have already exhausted all their unemployment benefits and because of their age and lack of ANY available jobs, they still can't find work.

Contrary to what conservative think-tanks like the Heritage Foundation likes to proclaim as "fact", people do not magically find jobs when their unemployment insurance runs out. If they're lucky, and have children, they might qualify for TANF (financial assistance) of about $400 a month in "welfare" benefits, but only for up to 4 years. If they don't have children, the best they can expect and hope for is food stamps and state Medicaid if they need to see a doctor.

But the Republicans don't even want them to have that, and say the unemployed are all just "gaming the system", and in many states Republican legislatures are now requiring people to take drug tests. 15 million Americans are out of work, and only 3 million jobs are available, but the GOP thinks most Americans would rather stay home, collect food stamps, and take drugs. (In a "tit-for-tat", now there's legislation being put forth by a Democrat requiring members of Congress to take a drug test too.)

This week House GOP leaders announced they were putting forward a plan that would extend the payroll tax cut for 10 months, but it would not include an extension of unemployment insurance benefits, or what is known as the "doc fix", a measure needed to prevent dramatic cuts in Medicare reimbursements. But we could always expect something like this from the Republicans. Now Congress is all set for ANOTHER standoff.

On a brighter note though, recently there's been more talk about "in-sourcing" more jobs and more discussion about raising the minimum wage, but it will be too little too late for those who are 45 and older - - especially if they have already been unemployed for over two years. Those people will still need government "entitlements" - - even unemployed Republican voters (those who hate BIG GOVERNMENT for others, but have no complaints at all when they find themselves in need.)

By the way, Pepsi is planning on cutting 8,700 jobs. Maybe more Republican critics of BIG GOVERNMENT might need to apply for government hand outs unemployment insurance benefits if they are too young to retire, but can't even get a job at McDonalds.

Despite what Republicans in congress, conservative talk show hosts, and right-wing bloggers are saying, most of the unemployed Americans today are not sitting at home waiting for an unemployment check, because their unemployment benefits have already expired a long time ago.

Most of these long-term unemployed Americans now need food stamps just to eat. And just like those who were forced into early retirement, they aren't partying like it's 1929. If they're like me, they just sit in room all day long with the TV on - - because they can't afford to sit at a bar (or on a sidewalk) drinking cheap whiskey or wine all day long, let alone buy any half-way decent drugs. But the GOP wants everybody else (who still has a job and still needs to work) to think we do.

Sign the petition: We Need Jobs Now, because labor is a perishable good - - and the GOP would rather debate birth control, rather than put Americans back to work. Millions of unemployed Americans are too far away from retirement age, so hopefully most of them will find a way to survive until then, if the Republicans will allow them to.

NOTE: A woman named Alana Semuels wrote an article for the L.A. TIMES in 2010 about the long-term unemployed. Now she is writing a new piece about the "social safety net", as well as a piece which she may write with MSNBC's Ed Schultz. Contact her below if you wish to contribute your own story about being one of the long-term unemployed. Alana Semuels Staff Writer Los Angeles Times 202 W. First St. Los Angeles, CA 90012 213-237-7929 alana.semuels@latimes.com

The Jobless Numbers: A Prologue to Farce and Tragedy

I am a big fan and great admirer of Robert Reich. After reading his latest article at the Huffington Post about the unemployment numbers, I felt compelled to comment. (It's worth mentioning he was the Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1997).

He stated in his article that "the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which measures the unemployment rate every month, counts people as unemployed only if they're looking for work. If they're too discouraged even to enter the job market, they're not counted."

Now examine that statement very carefully. What part (or parts) of that sentence just doesn't ring true?

First of all, after someone's unemployment benefits expire, where do they sign in, or who do they report to, to let somebody know that they're still looking for work after their UI benefits expire? How could the Bureau of Labor Statistics possibly know if they are looking for work or not? (Please don't tell me a CPS household survey.)

Secondly, how does someone "re-enter" the work force if they want to be counted? Does this only happen when they get re-hired for work again? This whole notion of the Bureau of Labor Statistics determining this is just plain silly and doesn't hold any credibility.

I wrote to the Bureau of Labor Statistics to ask them about this:

"If the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service and all 50 states' Employment and Security Division had computerized records of EXACTLY when we worked, what we earned, where we were employed, how much tax we paid (or owed), and when we were no longer showing earnings on a W-4 form, can't all this information be easily cross referenced and shared (in part or completely) with the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics?"

It seems this would be fairly easy to do. The Bureau of Labor Statistics would have an EXACT count, at any given time, of how many people are working and how many aren't. They could also say for certain how many people had exhausted all their unemployment benefits but still remain unemployed. And they could also determine EXACTLY what percent of high school and college graduates find jobs after completing school.

Also, I believe the CPA household survey is extremely obsolete and flawed in this day and age of technology.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics wrote me back:

"The QCEW program at BLS does part of what you suggest. They aggregate all the wage and salary data collected by the UI system. The methodology that you suggest for enumerating final exhaustions is a good one but you would also need to account for the high volume of churn in the UI system. Any claimants have been through the EUC 2008 system, as an example, two and even three times. To enumerate the final exhaustees, as you indicated, you would want those people who had received at least some UI during a specified time period, and then do not now show up on wage records and are not currently receiving UI. This has been proposed to some research consortiums. The primary issue is that the UI data (both wage, salary and benefit) is governed by some aggressive confidentiality laws so it’s not the case that anyone can simply get direct access to these systems."

Confidentiality laws? But, I digress...a little over two years ago (113 weeks ago) we had 15.7 million people unemployed in October of 2009 when the unemployment rate was at 10.2%. But as Robert Reich indicated, 10 million jobs were lost since the recession began, and because at one time, there were indeed 10 million people who were receiving either state or federal unemployment benefits. And by now they have all exhausted their jobless benefits (99 weeks was the max).

The Bureau of Labor Statistics says they "cannot determine the duration of unemployment for persons who had been unemployed for longer than 2 years for data prior to January 2011." Why can't they? Hmmmm?

They also say (as of December 2011) "The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 6 months or longer) was 5.6 million and accounted for 42.5 percent of the unemployed." Wow! Talk about under-reporting the jobless numbers! Two years ago we had 15.7 million, remember? And 10 million were once receiving UI benefits. How many net new jobs were created since October 2009?

NOTE: Per the current report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics... The BLS concludes that only 13.1 million (8.5%) are unemployed in a work force with a "participation rate" of 64%. 13.1 million is 8.5% of a workforce totaling 154.1 million people (154.1 million is 64% of 240.8 million if we had a "participation rate" of 100% for full employment). 240.8 million MINUS 154.1 million in 64% work force = 86.7 million Americans of working age that doesn't have a job. (Subtract those that are retired, on disability, etc.)

Barely 3 million net new jobs were created since October of 2009, so at the very least, 12.7 million Americans must have been out of work for over 2 years or more - - - yet the media is parroting the Bureau of Labor Statistics by saying "1.9 million have been out of work for 99 weeks or more". That is numerically impossible.

And we also had many more layoffs since October of 2009. Add to that, we also had another 6 million high school and college graduates since that time as well. They ALL didn't just "drop out" of the labor force and move in to their parent's basement...they're just not counted. They've all just been swept under the statistical rug by the Department of Labor.

A few may have retired with reduced Social Security benefits if they were 62 or older, and some applied for Social Security Disability. Some might have left the country, and some could have started their own business. And some are being supported by others, as some passed away....but what about everybody else? Where did everybody else go?

According to www.shadowstats.com, the broadest official government measure of unemployment (U-6) is now at 15.2%. This includes "discouraged" workers -- if they've been "discouraged" for less than one year. The SGS unemployment figure of 22.4% includes the long-term unemployed and "discouraged." (I had earlier calculated almost 20% with 27 million now unemployed. That's 1 out every 5 working age adults.)

An update from the U.S. Department of Labor:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

"Effective with the release of The Employment Situation for January 2012 scheduled for February 3, 2012, population controls that reflect the results of Census 2010 [rather than 2000] will be used in the monthly household survey estimation process. Historical data will not be revised to incorporate the new controls; consequently, household survey data for January 2012 will not be directly comparable with that for December 2011 or earlier periods."

Re-adjusted seasonal adjustments and revised census data should make for some ghastly unemployment reports in the near future.

Both major political parties skew the statistics for political purposes. But the Occupy Wall Street movement isn't a figment of your imagination, they're protesting for a reason...the numbers prove it.

And if you've read this far, you'll appreciate this jewel from James Madison in 1882:

"A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."

My Related Posts:

• Where did 15 million jobless Americans go?
• 15 Million Americans Jobless Over 2 years
• Long-Term Unemployment is Here to Stay
• 6 Million Graduates Not Counted in Unemployment Rate
• The unemployed didn't just "drop out"
• Who will "Live Free or Die" in 2012?

The End of 99 Weeks for UI Benefits

UPDATE: January 4, 2012 - As far as I can tell, the UI cuts are coming from EB (State extended benefits), which come after federal extended benefits expire (EUC). In Nevada I think it's going down from 20 weeks of State benefits to 13 weeks. SEE THE GRAY BOX AT THE END OF THIS ARTICLE FOR MORE DETAILS. Someone I know in Nevada was on EUC and was just approved for only 13 weeks of EB, even though Nevada has a 13% unemployment rate. We were trying to find out why she didn't get all 20 weeks even though she got the max in regular State benefits (26 weeks) and four tiers of EUC (53 weeks) - - - 20 more weeks of EB would have given her all 99 weeks, but for some odd reason she'll only get 92. CURRENTLY -  WE HAVE NATIONALLY: Regular State    3,611,966 EUC                 2,926,135 EB                      571,848 SOURCE (scroll down) The Bureau of Labor Statistics claims they get no information from State unemployment offices when determining the unemployment rate, yet they have these numbers.

POLITICO: "Congress passed a two-month extension of the payroll tax break on Friday, sending the compromise bill to President Barack Obama, who will sign it into law. The bill cleared on a quick voice vote in both chambers of Congress with no objections. The deal only came after House Republicans relented Thursday afternoon and agreed to pass the two-month extension as long as Senate Democrats appointed conference committee negotiators. The legislation also includes an extension of unemployment benefits [the funding of the federal program for those who might normally qualify] a fix to Medicare reimbursement, and a tweak to the payroll tax system to help small businesses."

But the bill also marks the beginning of the end for a maximum limit of 99 weeks of unemployment insurance. Although the deal reauthorizes federal unemployment programs, it does not make a change needed to prevent the loss of 20 weeks of benefits in most states over the course of 2012. The reduction in benefits represents Democrats' quiet embrace of part of the GOP's proposed reforms to the unemployment insurance system.

"We couldn't get it done otherwise," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said on the matter during a press conference.

On top of that, the House plan is loaded with riders that have nothing to do with unemployment, payroll taxes, or jobs.

Shortly after the House vote, the White House announced that Obama would give a statement at 12:15 p.m. and then, less than an hour later, leave for Hawaii, where his family awaits to celebrate the holidays. I heard his statement: It was brief and he didn't take questions...and he never mentioned cutting 20 weeks of UI benefits for the unemployed. Merry Christmas Mister President.

Seemingly everyone but Arthur Delaney at the Huffington Post had overlooked the fact that this short-term stopgap allows extended unemployment benefits to expire in several states:

A top ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives on Tuesday defended his party’s support for cutting 20 weeks of unemployment benefits, a position that has escaped much notice in the payroll tax cut debate consuming Washington. Democrats want the House to pass a Senate bill that would postpone the January expiration of federal unemployment programs for two months. But even if it is reauthorized, one of those programs will automatically phase out next year, unless Congress changes federal law to allow states to keep it, a provision not included in the Senate bill [...] The Extended Benefits program is the last stop on the unemployment insurance train for the very long-term jobless. It provides up to 20 weeks of assistance to workers who exhaust 53 weeks of federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation and 26 weeks of state benefits. But the Extended Benefits program is only available in states where the unemployment rate has risen significantly over the past three years. Unemployment has remained stubbornly high since 2008, but it hasn’t risen, which will make most states ineligible for Extended Benefits early in 2012.

It stuns me that the mainstream media or all the congressional politicians never mentioned this in any if their talking points.

It was re-affirmed again by Arthur Delaney when he writes how the Democrats defended the 20-week cut: A top-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives on Tuesday defended his party's support for cutting 20 weeks of unemployment benefits, a position that has escaped much notice in the payroll tax cut debate that has consumed Washington for the past few weeks.

"There are things in this bill as we pointed out that we had to make concessions on," House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Thursday in response to a question from the Daily Delaney Downer. "That's the process. We understand that. Unfortunately there are an awful lot of tea party activists who were elected to the Congress who don't understand compromise. That provision is one of the provisions that Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.) had concerns about."

As the only member of Congress who seemed previously to be irked by this, House Ways and Means ranking member Sander Levin has been appointed as a conferee in the House-Senate conference on the long-term bill. Hopefully he will make this a priority. He recently called the provisions in the Senate bill “wholly inadequate.”

And because the “look-back” on the Extended Benefits provision is three years, unemployment hasn’t increased in most of those states under the time requirements, which means that the 99ers will fall back to the 79ers -- but could gradually be reduced to the 59ers by the end of 2012. Here's how it is now until December 31, 2011.

26 weeks regular state-funded benefits
 +
Tier I - up to 20 weeks Federal benefits
Tier II - up to 14 weeks Federal benefits
Tier III - up to 13 weeks Federal benefits
Tier VI - up to 6 weeks Federal benefits
__________
     =  79 weeks sub-total
      +
up to 20 weeks State Extended Benefits ( SEB )
_________
= 99 weeks total MAX combined benefits

Originally, the Senate bill changed this to a four-year look-back, which would have preserved Extended Benefits in the high-unemployment states. As it is, it’s probably going to phase out, unless it gets changed in the one-year version before the end of February next year.

But 11 states will lose access to Extended Benefits in just the next two months – Minnesota, Michigan, Massachusetts, Maine, Oregon and Indiana in January, and Wisconsin, Tennessee, South Carolina, Rhode Island, and Ohio in February.

Important: Your State Unemployment Office website will have details on who qualifies for extended benefits and when and how benefits will be paid.

Just like the Republicans refer to ObamaCare as "socialized medicine", they think anything the government does collectively for the good of all is Socialism. To them, Medicare and Social Security is also Socialism. They think unemployment benefits is robbing from the very wealthy (or from those who have jobs) to give to the very lazy (those without jobs). And for those who rely on TANF (the very poor), this is the worst form of Socialism.

But yet, at the same time, the GOP also thinks that subsidies for the very wealthy, Michelle Bachmann, big tobacco, or big oil is perfectly OK. They believe that making the corporations in the defense industry fatter than they already are is perfectly reasonable in this post cold war era. They also believe that by not supporting these subsidies is somehow "un-American". Just as the CEO of ConocoPhillips.

And why are the Republicans so adamant about defending and protecting the very banks that caused this recession?

In January 2009 a Republican sponsored bill called for a complete payroll tax holiday, meaning the tax rate would be reduced to ZERO. The current version, meanwhile, would keep the rate at 4.2 percent, rather than allow it to return to the pre-2010 level of 6.2 percent. (Presently it would cut the employer's contributions even more, by half to 3.1 percent). So why had the Republicans been against it now?

The GOP's current "jobs bill" is just more of the same: blaming the poor and unemployed for our economic problems, and included goodies to benefit big oil and corporations. Here is H.R.1745 (the Jobs, Opportunity, Benefits, and Services Act of 2011) that was proposed by Republican Dave Camp (Midland, MI) PDF. If you're a lawyer, you might understand it. Example:

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1202(b)(2) of the Social 4 Security Act is amended— 5 (1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ‘‘and’’ at 6 the end; 7 (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘, and’’ 8 and inserting a period; and 9 (3) by striking subparagraph (C). 10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 11 subsection (a) shall take effect as of the date of enactment 12 of this Act.

The GOP's bill includes spending cuts in government programs – not tax increases on "job creators" – to fully pay for extending the current payroll Social Security tax relief and unemployment insurance benefits...by "reforming" entitlement programs....such as cutting the total number of weeks for unemployment benefits. (See the bill at Speaker.Gov)

The bill permanently "reforms" the federal unemployment insurance program. The bill uses a two-step process to gradually reduce current maximum weeks of benefits, first from 99 to 79 weeks, then to 59 weeks. The GOP says that unemployment services should "focus on helping Americans get back to work". Even the Wall Street Journal, admits in its headline that jobs are scarce.

Currently Nevada (Democratic Senator Harry Reid's state) has the highest jobless rate of 13%.

But Republicans seem to think that the unemployed are just lazy...even unemployed Republican voters. Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah says: “I don’t see why you have to go more than 59 weeks...they just stay home and watch television.”

Republican Senator Jim DeMint (South Carolina Tea Party) said we should not extend unemployment benefits because "people are gaming the system and refusing to take jobs because they get unemployment benefits and food stamps."

There are dozens of examples of this attitude coming from the GOP, even though there are currently only 3 million jobs available for 27 million unemployed Americans if you count all the "discouraged workers. And in a country this large, how do you match 3 million people with skills with the jobs being advertised...especially if they're bound to their location by a rental agree, lease, or mortgage? Or they no longer have the funds to re-locate to another city or another state?

But regardless, extended compensation DOES NOT discourage the jobless from seeking out new work. A new report that finds workers who are eligible for benefits search for work more vigorously than workers who are not eligible.

"Since Congress enacted federal unemployment benefits, time spent looking for a job has tripled among the long-term unemployed who are out of work as a result of job loss," the report says. (PDF) (Article)

The amount of time the long-term jobless who are eligible for benefits spend looking for work increased 203% compared with previous years. For unemployed workers who are likely ineligible for benefits (because their unemployment was not caused by job loss) the amount of time they spent searching for work increased only 120%.

The GOP's jobs bill also requires all state and federal UI recipients to be in a GED program if they have not finished high school (with exceptions for older workers), and participate in reemployment services to help them get back to work. (Like working two months for free under the Georgia Plan).

That should be both discriminatory and illegal, as people who have already paid into the unemployment insurance system should still be eligible, as those restrictions weren't in place before they were laid off from their jobs.

The GOP's jobs bill also allows states, if they desire, to perform drug screening and testing as a condition of providing UI benefits. Without probable cause, this should also be discriminatory and illegal as it doesn't apply to others who also receive federal dollars, such as those receiving government contracts, grants, and salaries, such as government workers.

Why don't we drug test members of congress and CEOs? Will everyone receiving Social Security also be subjected to mandatory drug resting? Why would the states want the burden of this added cost?

As part of the GOP’s Plan for America’s Job Creators, the measure also includes several other key provisions. One is that it accelerates a decision from Obama on the Keystone XL energy pipeline, requiring, within 60 days, for the permit to be granted unless the president determines the project is not in the national interest. (The Republicans, always concerned about big oil.)

The GOP claims that the measure "will create thousands of American jobs and increase America's energy security." The proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would carry the dirtiest oil on the planet from the Canadian tar sands across our country to ports and refineries along the Texas Gulf coast...from there it could be exported anywhere in the world.

The oil will most likely will be speculated on by investment banks like Goldman Sachs on the commodities market, driving up the price, and then sold to China. It won't be sold to us for "dirt cheap" and stored in our reserves.

The Keystone XL project would provide, at most, 6,000 temporary construction jobs, very few of which would be local hires, according to an analysis performed by the U.S. State Department.

Cornell University's Global Labor Institute did its own evaluation, concluding that the project would employ between 2,500 and 4,650 construction workers. "Most jobs created will be temporary and non-local," the institute says.

Even TransCanada, the Canadian pipeline company that wants to build the pipeline, has said it would create "hundreds" of permanent jobs. That's what TransCanada's vice president for pipelines, Robert Jones, told CNN a few weeks ago.

Other goodies in the GOP's "jobs bill", provisions that they dangle as "jobs" for their reason for this bill:

• The measure extends 100 percent business expensing through 2012 [continue corporate loopholes]
• Adds the EPA Regulatory Relief Act (H.R. 2250) which lowers the tax on businesses from 35% to 25% and allows them to bring back their overseas profits without being subjected to taxation (or lower taxation at 5.25%)
• Ratify trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea [outsourcing more jobs for cheaper labor]
• Making it easier to obtain visas [for the importation for those with degrees for cheaper labor]
• Less FDA restrictions for the medical device approval process and fees for prescription drugs [more profits for unsafe products]
• American Energy Initiative by passing legislation to expand energy exploration and production [more oil profits]
• Adopting a budget that reduces government spending by almost $6 trillion over the next ten years [by cutting Social Security and Medicare but not defense spending]
• Repeals $8 billion in ObamaCare {who cares about poor sick people?]
• "Reforms" the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program by closing the current “strip club loophole” to ensure that welfare funds cannot be accessed in strip clubs, liquor stores, and casinos by blocking welfare electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards from working in ATMs there. (I live in Las Vegas and cheap meals can be found in some casinos.)
• Changes the co-pay structure for civilian federal retirees ["structure" must mean "cuts"...like "reform".]
• Prohibits millionaires from receiving unemployment insurance and food stamp benefits (This one, I like.)
• And of course they want the tax breaks for the rich made permanent.

SOURCE: http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?postid=271892

Other quick facts about extended unemployment benefits (as of December 2011):

• According to a new report by the Obama administration, 17.9 million Americans have received federal EUC and state EB benefits since the inception of the programs in 2008. Currently 3 million are receiving EUC and 600,000 are receiving EB. SOURCE
• If you include other household members, more than 50 million people have benefited from EUC and EB, including almost 13 million children. About 1.3 million of these people might have lost their benefits by the end of January 2012. By the end of 2012, an additional 5 million people could exhaust their benefits. The White House Report - PDF
• Robert Redford writes: "Should we extend middle class tax relief and unemployment benefits at a time when our workers are struggling with hard times?"
• 7.4 million Americans are currently receiving either regular state or federal extended unemployment benefits. SOURCE
• 27 million unemployed Americans will not benefit at all from any amount of a Social Security tax cut. SOURCE

The article in the Huffington Post: "Due to the timing of increased joblessness, in January, the program will expire in Minnesota, Michigan, Massachusetts, Maine, Oregon and Indiana. In February, Extended Benefits will drop off in Wisconsin, Tennessee, South Carolina, Rhode Island, and Ohio, according to an analysis by worker advocacy group the National Employment Law Project." In the HuffPo Hill Newsletter yesterday - "NIGHT DOWNER! Extended unemployment benefits for the very long-term jobless are expiring this month in Minnesota, Michigan, Massachusetts, Maine, Oregon and Indiana, per agreement between congressional Republicans, Democrats and the Obama administration." Besides Minnesota and Tennessee (which I find no mention of the two month extension), it appears the other states will still have benefits for another 2 months. I went to all their state's UI websites and provided the links below.  The websites, as expected, were obtuse with their information and difficult to navigate. I had to use their search engines in two instances to find information. I believe all 50 states make filing for benefits as difficult and as confusing as possible to discourage filing for unemployment claims. People who file UI claims in the states listed below are probably much more familiar with the websites and know their situation better that me. Minnesota - There are two extended benefits programs in Minnesota. Federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) – Congress has moved the phase out to the end of February 2012. Federal-State Extended Benefits (EB) – will "trigger off" at the end of the week of January 8th through 14th. You cannot be paid for weeks after the program "triggers off". If you are receiving benefits from the EB program, you will not be paid for weeks after January 8th through 14th. Michigan - Congress has passed and the President has signed an extension of the expiration dates for the Extended Benefits (EB) and Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) Programs through February 2012. Massachusetts - The Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 extends the expiration dates of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) and federal-state Extended Benefits (EB) unemployment insurance (UI) programs. The legislation extends the deadlines by which claimants can apply for EUC and EB benefits through March 6, 2012 but does not add any new weeks of benefits. Maine - Congress and the White House have come to agreement on a two-month extension for federal unemployment programs. Without this extension, the Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) program would have begun to phase out and the Extended Benefit (EB) program would have ended in early January. This extension means that the these programs will stay in effect for the next two months. The legislation did not add more weeks of benefits; it only extends the amount of time available to file a claim for benefits from these two programs.  Oregon - On Friday, December 23, 2011, the President signed a bill extending the Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) extension program. The bill does not add additional funds, or tiers, to the EUC program; it extends the filing dates in which an individual can apply for EUC, or move on to the next tier. The extension allows individuals to file a new EUC claim, or to establish a new tier of benefits, through the week ending March 3rd, 2012. Indiana - Congress has approved a two-month extension of the federally-funded extended unemployment insurance benefits. If you are currently receiving unemployment insurance benefits, you may continue to file your weekly voucher as normal. Wisconsin - Under federal law, Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefit extensions were set to expire on March 3, 2012. Tennessee - Unclear, no info found. South Carolina - State Extended Benefits prolong benefits up to 13 additional weeks. State Extended Benefits are available if you have exhausted all regular unemployment insurance and all Emergency Unemployment Compensation, First, Second, Third, and Fourth Tier on or after February 15, 2009.  Rhode Island - In January 2012, the Federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) program will begin to phase out. EUC is built on four tiers of benefits, with claimants completing one tier before advancing to another. Under the phase-out plan claimants will be allowed to continue to collect on their current tier of benefits, but will no longer be able to advance to the next benefit tier. Ohio - The legislation extends deadlines for the EUC program from December 31, 2011 to March 10, 2012. Eligible individuals may continue to collect benefits until August 15, 2012. This program continues to offer a maximum of 53 weeks of extended unemployment benefits. The new legislation did not add any more weeks of benefits.