Congress Currently Has A Constitutional License To Commit Social Holocaust With Little Ramifications From Voters

Readers, I owe you a correction.  When I used the words "up hill" to describe the work needed on our part for Tier 5 Unemployment a month or so ago, I should have said "up a cliff and over a mountain".  Being more curious about the states hit hardest, the numbers, percentages, and researching the United States Senators who are saying they have no "political will".  If you consider some factors, it's easy to see now why they would say that and believe there would be no political repercussions.  Numbers are in the favor of Tom Coburn and Max Baucus and they know this.

I realize that my readers want action now and believe me, I appreciate that.  So do I - this is why I help as much as I can for Tier 5 Advocacy and so do you.  But take a look at these numbers with me and look at this chart compiled from data from the USDOL and the United States Senate.  I am not a Naysayer, I am just wanting to illustrate how difficult this actually is when you consider the raw data and the political factors that may be in play: 

(These numbers are a reminder of how much harder the lobbying needs to be pushing for Tier 5 Unemployment). 

#1.  Only 28 out of 50 states would receive assistance from a Tier 5 Unemployment Extension (assuming the legislation is written to reflect assistance for states that have 8.5% unemployment or more like Tier 4 was).  No wonder some of the individual states have began setting up WPA Projects.

#2.  Out of the 28 states mentioned that would even benefit, there are a total of 56 United States Senators.  (That number alone, even if they were all from the same political party all in agreement, is not enough to break a filibuster)  In order to get to an up or down vote on anything, 60 votes are required.

#3.  Out of the 56 Senators in the states that would benefit, 32 are Democrats and 24 are Republicans.  With this math, why even bother calling for unanimous consent when discussing issues related to unemployment?  The partisan bickering in Washington is too much for any unanimous consent on any issue.

#4.  Even if Democrats were able to get all of the other 27 Democrats and Independents to vote for something their state would not benefit from in an election year, they are still in need of 1 Republican vote to break a filibuster.  This scenario is our best option and the most realistic of how Tier 5 could happen.  We would need to get all Democrats to unite on this issue and then 1 Republican to break from the party.

#5.  Neither side will do anything to break the cycle of bad politics (and that's true on every issue - not just unemployment).  Even if an honest Senator changed his or her ways and wanted to break the cycle - the numbers are just not there.  There's also the political quagmire that if Democrats nod in favor of  more than 99 weeks that would send Rush Limbaugh the rest of the ammo he needs all the way into November to pick apart the Stimulus Bill more and helps validate the conservative label of those "Socialist, Communist Democratic Liberal Jews" running up the National Debt on a spending spree.  

Republicans in the high unemployment states cannot vote in favor of it because.  Because...  They have to contradict their "Vote Hell No" Campaign?  Your guess is as good as mine why they are voting "Nay".  They have made the calculation that the unemployed in their states would not vote for them anyway so they say, "Tough Sh__".  (To the credit of several Republicans in the high unemployment category, they have broke party lines and did the right thing).  But you do not have to hear the news from me that Jim Bunning is no friend to the long term unemployed and the Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell voted "Nay" on the last effort just to extend out availability dates for unemployment.

Democrats seem too concerned with increasing their poll numbers and holding their majority and Republicans have nothing to lose so they have nothing better to do than attempt sabotage in some cases, fear in others, and hypocrisy in the rest.  No one wins in this situation.  No political party benefits and most importantly the American people do not win.

If this nation were a true democracy, this blog would not exist.  We would not need to organize protests.  There would not be this Congressional hold up.  In fact, the way they all think about their own states only (and it is completely natural to think about your own state - but not when there is a widespread crisis like this),  most would better serve the country if they were State Senators and not United States Senators.  There's a time when a United States Senator must prioritize what is better for the country as opposed to what's better for their approval rating.  In fact, their concern over their approval rating is only going to make their rating go further down.  The American People want more unison, more action, and the political ads are already starting and the ads do nothing but divide and conquer when we have very real and very serious issues that plague the country. 

In a true Democracy, the two Senators from New York (with a much larger population) would trample the needs of the two Senators from Tennessee on this issue.  The population from New York State cannot be fairly compared against the population of Tennessee.  The bottom line is that a social holocaust is happening and based on the raw data, it's not only Constitutional but it also has little, if any, ramifications.  It would be unconstitutional for there not to be two United States Senators from each state, therefore this social injustice is 100% legal and there will be little, if any, consequences in the body that has most political power because that social injustice is completely Constitutional and the numbers are not there. 

Even if they get voted out, they will not see an unemployment line.  They have their next jobs already lined up.  Be that a Presidential appointment or as a Corporate Executive who owes them a favor.  How much job security do you think you would have if you voted to bail out a large financial institution like Goldman Sachs?  The larger punishment might just be making them all stay (although I understand the tough sell that is).  Making them stay and have to work this out would absolutely kill them on the inside - although they are too good of a politician to ever admit such a thing on a camera.

Think about it though.

We should treat our Senators like jurors are treated.  Let's lock all 100 of them up in the same room and demand they reach a unanimous verdict.  If they cannot reach a unanimous verdict, they all get replaced with other Senators (jurors) for a retrial.  Let's pay them $10 per day too just like a juror.  That method is good enough for our Judicial system - why not the Legislative system too?

Using both 2008 Presidential campaign slogans, if they could learn to put the Country First - that would truly be Change We Can Believe In.  For now it is still politics as usual with crisis after crisis emerging.  Someone on Facebook posted a statement very true and if I knew for certain that person would mind recognition I would post who but the statement was:  "It took the country more than ten years to get into this situation, it's going to take a whole lot more than 99 weeks to be out of it."

Tier 5 is certainly possible and I would not be advocating so strongly if I did not truly believe that.  It's going to require a lot more United States Senators and a lot less State Senators to accomplish the goal though.  The political will exists in the fashion of a democracy but not in the fashion for a Republic. 

Why Have A Tier 4 That Is Only 6 Weeks?

If logic were to enter the equation, the question must be asked why Congress would create a Tier of unemployment benefits with only six weeks. This is by design and most economists expect Congress to add weeks to Tier 4 and/or create a Tier 5.

The problem is - no one knows when. The media is barely covering the lack of an extension of weeks in the latest extension. It was a small battle just to get the dates extended out for the existing tiers of unemployment and there is no current legislation seeking the extension of weeks or adding tiers.

There is, an increasing number of buzz...

It could be partially true, in Sen. Jon Kyl's words, that no one would ever seek employment if the program continued to be extended over and over. (Although it is very juvenile for him to think that the unemployed collect unemployment insurance by choice). It is more the truth in the words of Sen. Debbie Stabenow that for every dollar spent on unemployment, amounts to a $1.50+ of direct stimulus to the economy.

The abuse of the few have undermined the needs of the many. In an honor system, we would all just extend out unemployment to everyone until they got a job. "No need to show proof, Mr. Smith. You are a well-known, respected citizen." Those days left a very long time ago. Those days did not exist during the Kennedy Administration.

In this age of disinformation and persons deliberately abusing the system it creates the need for a system of checks and balances. It creates a need for someone to constantly inspect fraud, waste, and abuse. In some cases, it encourages someone who may have gave up looking for work a new lease on trying. In some cases, it will cause a family to default on their mortgage. I agree, the system is not fair. It does seem to be the American way.

Critics of unemployment insurance would argue it is creating an addition to welfare or socialism. There's nothing socialist about people losing their homes or being unable to provide food and basic necessities. It is a very real and serious threat many families are facing in this recession.

Ultimately, another extension (of weeks) will prevail. The advice of the economist will win the debate over the Republican who cannot fathom giving another cent to the unemployed. (As if the funds came directly from his pocket). Some of these conservatives could better suit their politics if they spent more time and resources helping to create jobs in their districts rather than criticizing every action from their opposition.

Politics will rein this year as midterm elections near. Regardless what Congress does this year - be it health care reform or creating jobs or omnibus bills that have a little of everything for everyone. Soon, everything will be on hold until after the mid-term elections.

No one knows when Congress will take up an extension of weeks of benefits. If they plan to pass the bill based on the trigger system and unemployment rates, yesterday would have been great.

Email, call, and write your representatives daily. US Unemployed is awaiting a response from Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich). She has been a champion for unemployment assistance and she may be able to shed some light on when Congress may take this up. There are no official updates. Only strong speculation and a lot of growing buzz around the issue.

We will keep you up to date.

19 Republicans To Unemployed - "Drop Dead"

EUC = Emergency Unemployment Compensation

We begin this story speaking about the 19 Republicans in the Senate who oppose assistance to the jobless. These Senators knowingly and willfully participated in delay tactics, obstruction, and denying assistance to the unemployed in a nation with a battered economy with millions of Americans desperate for assistance.

There is a reason the funds are called "Emergency Unemployment Compensation".

Would these same Senators deny funding if the country were under attack by terrorist(s)? Would they deny funding if an area was declared a disaster such as Hurricane Katrina in 2005? In their defense, they claim that this legislation is not covered under PAYGO.

This is where the hypocrisy begins. None of these Senators voted in favor of PAYGO. None of them. Why are they so persistent in a time of economic emergency to enforce PAYGO if they did not vote for that Senate rule?

Simple, partisan politics. They want the advantage in coming elections to tell the people they opposed government spending. However, their timing on their opposition is calculated and is conflicting.

Persons who receive unemployment compensation under any circumstance receive that assistance because they were laid off from their job due to no fault of their own. The funds they receive are taxable. Even the unemployed pay taxes if they are receiving this lifeline.

The irony - nearly all of the states which these Senators represent have double-digit unemployment numbers. If the unemployed in their states do not need these emergency funds - perhaps these Senators should tell the people why Wall Street and large banks needed a bailout.

These Senators will claim our deficit is too high yet they handed the current Administration an $11 Trillion debt. They will claim that unemployment funds are low and the states are cash-strapped and this is true. However, states were cash strapped all throughout the Great Recession. They will claim that small business cannot sustain the tax burdens; however, look at the business in their states.

Over 95% of the business which provided employment to their states are large-scale, multi-billion dollar industries which are more than capable of paying $100 per employee per year.

The bottom line is their objections are contradictory on all counts. Even if their objections are sincere - why do this to the unemployed? Of all of the legislation in Congress they want to delay or deny - objecting to emergency funds for the people who need the money the most is not only inexcusable but it is morally wrong. These Senators are penalizing the victims in this recession rather than the culprits. That fact should not rest well with the average American.

Each day, these Senators prove to be more in the interest of big money corporations and less and less in the interests of the people. These Senators represent the states with the highest levels of poverty, lowest levels of education, and highest levels of unemployment. This is something for their constituents to think about when they are up for re-election. These senators are not acting in the interests of their state(s) nor the country.

Here are the Senators who voted "Nay". They would be ashamed of themselves if they did not have to admit they were trying to get short-term political gain at the expense of Americans hit hardest by this recession.

Here are the names of those who essentially told the unemployed to drop dead.

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Coburn (R-OK)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Johanns (R-NE)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Sessions (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)

Voting NO on each and every issue is not leadership. These senators were elected by their constituents to lead. Americans need to memorize these names. These senators all proved on Tuesday they would prefer to side with big business.

Actions do speak louder than words. Their actions yell (in Mr. Bunning's words), "TOUGH SH__" to the unemployed.