GOP at it again with unemployment benefits...

[R13]

they are really screwing their self out of the elections this year, the Economy is still going to be the #1 issue...if it continues to get better, their NO's on things like this in healthcare will bury them.


In the wake of their health care defeat, Republicans in Washington would be wise to remember one famous definition of insanity as repeating the same behavior again and again but expecting different results. After all, there's hardly a politico in Washington, Republican or Democrat, who thinks Senator Jim Bunning's one-man filibuster of unemployment benefits last month reflected well on the GOP. So why are Senate Republicans doing it again?

Granted, this time around the agitator is the much more media-friendly Republican Senator from Oklahoma, Tom Coburn, who ? unlike Bunning ? is not known for flipping off reporters. Before the Senate adjourns for a two-week Easter recess on Friday, Democrats are hoping to pass another one-month extension of benefits ? the yearlong extension has been held up as differences are worked out with the House ? to tide over the unemployed until lawmakers can pass a more permanent solution. Coburn's objection is the same as Bunning's: that Democrats are not paying for the $10 billion bill. "I think it's unfortunate that potentially we may go home and not deal with it," Coburn said Thursday afternoon in a speech on the Senate floor. "I don't care how we pay for it as long as it's legitimate, as long as we don't add to our kids' debt. And so I'm open and willing to negotiate on any area of waste in the federal government that we could eliminate to pay for it." (See which U.S. jobs are now available, sector by sector.)

Democrats say that they consider this bill along the lines of (and much cheaper than) President George W. Bush's emergency war supplemental bills, which totaled trillions of dollars and were mostly unpaid for. "We really believe that unemployment situation is an emergency economic situation," Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, told reporters Thursday evening. "The Republicans do not accept that they want to cut off unemployment benefits or pay for it using stimulus funds which are being used to create jobs. It's a very shortsighted approach."

Republican leaders have not totally dug in their heels. They have actually agreed to proceed with a vote on the unfunded bill ? but most Republicans are expected to vote against the bill, and Dems will need at least one Republican to reach the magic threshold of 60 to overcome Coburn's filibuster and pass the bill. Even if they managed that, however, it'll take at least until Sunday evening to procedurally bypass the filibuster, and many Senators are impatient to go home or depart on long-planned trips abroad (the security for which is expensive to rearrange). (See pictures of companies in Austin looking for employees.)

So, while Reid and Coburn are trying to hash out an agreement ? Bunning eventually settled for a vote on an amendment that would have paid for the bill using unused stimulus funds, which failed ? other Senators are looking at leaving and then passing legislation when they reconvene April 12. "Whatever we do will be retroactive if we don't get it done now," Senator Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat, told reporters.

The problem with this solution is that some benefits start to expire April 5. And as the country learned the last time these provisions ran out last month during Bunning's filibuster, that means thousands of Transportation Department workers getting laid off, gaps in unemployment and health coverage for some of the most desperate Americans and bureaucratic nightmares costing millions of dollars for the necessary paperwork to retroactively apply benefits.
Bunning and Coburn both make a valid point: it is hypocritical of Dems to not practice what they preach on the deficit, and this would be the fifth unpaid bill to pass thus far this year. But making the point on the backs of the most needy is probably the wrong way to go about it. Especially when it underscores Democrats' complaints about GOP obstructionism on even the most pressing of issues. "I think Americans ? a majority of whom have someone in their orbit out of work ? are not very receptive to the idea of cutting off unemployment benefits in the midst of a bad economy," said Norm Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. "This strategy is not a winner."


Read more: Republicans Risk Losing Voter Support over Filibuster - TIME

[Gotch]

I saw this and thought about reviving the old thread, but didn't.

I suspected that Bunning may not be acting as a complete rogue when he did what he did. This pretty much confirms it. I believe there is at least a faction of the GOP that wants to just cut people loose to sink or swim, or in this case to starve or get by.

[R13]

(CNN) -- Extended unemployment benefits will temporarily expire for thousands of Americans on Monday because the Senate went on its spring recess without approving a one-month deadline extension.

The extension, which had bipartisan support, would have cost about $10 billion, but a lone Republican, Sen. Tom Coburn, said no until the costs are offset.

The Oklahoma senator objected to a commonly used unanimous-consent agreement to pass the bill under emergency conditions, even if it increases the federal deficit. Coburn wants to eliminate additional government spending to pay for the bill.

"The legitimate debate is whether we borrow and steal from our kids or we get out of town and send the bill to our kids for something that we're going to consume today," Coburn said on the Senate floor.

It's the second time a Republican has blocked a so-called "emergency extension" of jobless benefits.

Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning objected to adding to the deficit back in February.

"We can't do everything we'd like to do," Bunning said at the time. "We don't have the money."

Coburn on Monday refuted the notion he single-handedly blocked the extension, noting that he voted to stay in session to work out the issue.
Video: Have doctorate, will work for Census
Video: Unemployment benefits to expire

"Congress had several opportunities to extend these benefits in a fiscally-responsible manner before our Easter break but rejected all of them. It's time for Congress to do what's right for both the unemployed and future generations and do the hard work of paying for important priorities," he said in a statement.

Bunning on Monday also pointed the finger at congressional Democrats for going on recess before agreeing to a solution that was fully paid for.

"I am disappointed that the Democrats continue to play political games to avoid paying for these benefits that are so important to the many struggling families across our nation who rely on them to make ends meet while they search for work. Clearly, the Democrats don't want to help the unemployed unless they can increase the deficit while they're doing it," he said in a statement.

Asked whether President Obama believes that the benefits extension should be paid for, Lawrence Summers, one of Obama's top economic advisers, said, "He believes that in an emergency, families who are depending on unemployment insurance to buy medicine for their kids should not have that unemployment insurance cut off."

"We believe that we need to approach these issues in their totality, with a fiscal framework that assures that we are getting to a much lower budget deficit," Lawrence, the head of the National Economic Council, said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union."

The unemployment benefits provision was a part of the Continuing Extension Act of 2010, which affects other programs, too. The Senate's inaction means lapses in funding for COBRA, Medicare payments to doctors and the National Flood Insurance Program, among other things.

The Senate is expected to take up the measure after lawmakers return from recess the week of April 12. Key Democrats said they hope to pass a retroactive extension, compensating the unemployed for a gap in funding. If approved, it would be the seventh time the deadline has been extended since June 2008.

Which programs did Congress leave unfunded?

For the meantime, Democrats are furious.

Sen. Byron Dorgan represents North Dakota. At 4.1 percent, the state has the lowest unemployment rate in the country.

"There are a whole lot of people in this country that are unemployed, and if ever there was a need to extend unemployment insurance, it is now. We can't do that to the most vulnerable people in this country," he said.

At least 212,000 Americans will be affected Monday.

Alexander Mitiuriev, an unemployed aerospace engineer, said Coburn's argument that the nation's children will carry the burden doesn't resonate with him because his kids are being affected right now.

"This is my children. For right now, they are affected," he said. "It makes no sense," he said, adding that his children need the money now.

Clovia Cox, a personal trainer who is out of work, agreed with Mitiuriev, saying that the future is on the line today.

"Having people give up their future dreams and trying to save money for a better working car or better career or a better education -- that is the future. The future starts now. It's desperate now," she said.

About 11.5 million people currently depend on jobless benefits. The average unemployment period lasts 32.1 weeks. Of those unemployed, a record 44.1 percent of have been jobless for 27 weeks or more.

Unemployment benefits expire for thousands - CNN.com

[CoeburnCane]

I believe there is at least a faction of the GOP that wants to just cut people loose to sink or swim, or in this case to starve or get by.

They all subscribe to the Judge Smails Theory: "The world needs ditch-diggers too."

[1inStripes]

They all subscribe to the Judge Smails Theory: "The world needs ditch-diggers too."

Which is true. Without ditch diggers, there are not ditches.

[sup-rbeast]

Call me whatever ya want, but in this country, student aptitudes should be gauged early on in the education process and students should be guided accordingly towards careers they can both do well at and prosper in.

[R13]

Call me whatever ya want, but in this country, student aptitudes should be gauged early on in the education process and students should be guided accordingly towards careers they can both do well at and prosper in.

Sounds good in theory, but I'd never want that. There's too many factors that the student has no control over, the teachers and school system would have too much control over a persons entire life. Or just a bad teacher(s) in an area, a bad home enviroment could and does influence a kids grades or a parent influencing the system to what they want their kid to do(which is probably what they don't want to do). That's what college is for, too much control over a persons entire future and end up with a lot of people living a miserable life.

[1inStripes]

I could see a modified version of it. Allow kids to take an aptitude test of this type of level around the age of 13. They can then be placed in a certain type of program that would be beneficial for their future abilities with the parents/guardians consent, or can still challenge themselves by stepping up certain levels.

[CoeburnCane]

I could see a modified version of it. Allow kids to take an aptitude test of this type of level around the age of 13. They can then be placed in a certain type of program that would be beneficial for their future abilities with the parents/guardians consent, or can still challenge themselves by stepping up certain levels.

Don't they kinda have that already? College prep vs. vocational school classes? Sounds like the same deal to me, w/o the testing.

[Counts]

I could see a modified version of it. Allow kids to take an aptitude test of this type of level around the age of 13. They can then be placed in a certain type of program that would be beneficial for their future abilities with the parents/guardians consent, or can still challenge themselves by stepping up certain levels.

Not sure you could do this with the way the SOLs are hated I could not imagion the outcry if a test (pre teen?) would put kids on a path that they or there parents might not like.


That being said I am all for getting those who do not want or have the abality to learn and in the progress bring down everyone unfortunet enough to be in there class OUT of those classes so...........Good idea but it will most likly never happen