Head-to-Head on Unemployment Benefits
Two views on extending unemployment benefits. On one side, a UGA professor and the Soros-funded Center for American Progress recommend automatic extensions. On the other side is economist Arthur Laffer's contrary view.
Bookmark and Share

From the University of Georgia's Jeffrey B. Wenger

Then there’s the problem of unemployment benefits: Congress must vote on every extension and, with the latest impasse between Senate Republicans and Democrats, more than three million out-of-work Americans could lose their benefit payments by the end of the month. In the worst job market in decades, families won’t have money to buy food and maintain health coverage, to keep up with mortgage payments and credit card bills.

It wasn’t always this way. In 1970, Congress passed the Federal-State Unemployment Compensation Act, which established an automatic trigger: whenever unemployment increased to a certain point at a national or a state level, benefits were extended by 13 weeks. The entire article is here.

From economist Arthur Laffer:

The current debate over extending and increasing federal unemployment benefits encapsulates the disagreement between the Democrats in power in Washington and their Republican opponents. What the consequences will be of raising unemployment benefits in today's depressed economy is at issue.

The most obvious argument against extending or raising unemployment benefits is that it will make being unemployed either more attractive or less unattractive, and thereby lead to higher unemployment. Empirical research supports this view. More here.

What Can You Do?
We're working to bring the financial truth to the elections, and we need your help!

 
Sign up today for e-letter updates and information on how you can get involved in Truth in Accounting.
Where does your presidential candidate stand?
 
Home | About | Facts | News | Videos | Blog | Contact | Donate | Privacy Policy

© 2008 TRUTH IN ACCOUNTING

Nology Interactive - Web Design - Hosting - IT Services