A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

Punishing the Jobless

Posted: Jul 11, 2010

Op-Ed Columnist

Punishing the Jobless

By PAUL KRUGMAN

There was a time when everyone took it for granted that unemployment insurance, which normally terminates after 26 weeks, would be extended in times of persistent joblessness. It was, most people agreed, the decent thing to do.

But that was then. Today, American workers face the worst job market since the Great Depression, with five job seekers for every job opening, with the average spell of unemployment now at 35 weeks. Yet the Senate went home for the holiday weekend without extending benefits. How was that possible?
The answer is that we’re facing a coalition of the heartless, the clueless and the confused. Nothing can be done about the first group, and probably not much about the second. But maybe it’s possible to clear up some of the confusion.

By the heartless, I mean Republicans who have made the cynical calculation that blocking anything President Obama tries to do — including, or perhaps especially, anything that might alleviate the nation’s economic pain — improves their chances in the midterm elections. Don’t pretend to be shocked: you know they’re out there, and make up a large share of the G.O.P. caucus.

By the clueless I mean people like Sharron Angle, the Republican candidate for senator from Nevada, who has repeatedly insisted that the unemployed are deliberately choosing to stay jobless, so that they can keep collecting benefits. A sample remark: “You can make more money on unemployment than you can going down and getting one of those jobs that is an honest job but it doesn’t pay as much. We’ve put in so much entitlement into our government that we really have spoiled our citizenry.”

Now, I don’t have the impression that unemployed Americans are spoiled; desperate seems more like it. One doubts, however, that any amount of evidence could change Ms. Angle’s view of the world — and there are, unfortunately, a lot of people in our political class just like her.

But there are also, one hopes, at least a few political players who are honestly misinformed about what unemployment benefits do — who believe, for example, that Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, was making sense when he declared that extending benefits would make unemployment worse, because “continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work.” So let’s talk about why that belief is dead wrong.

Do unemployment benefits reduce the incentive to seek work? Yes: workers receiving unemployment benefits aren’t quite as desperate as workers without benefits, and are likely to be slightly more choosy about accepting new jobs. The operative word here is “slightly”: recent economic research suggests that the effect of unemployment benefits on worker behavior is much weaker than was previously believed. Still, it’s a real effect when the economy is doing well.

But it’s an effect that is completely irrelevant to our current situation. When the economy is booming, and lack of sufficient willing workers is limiting growth, generous unemployment benefits may keep employment lower than it would have been otherwise. But as you may have noticed, right now the economy isn’t booming — again, there are five unemployed workers for every job opening. Cutting off benefits to the unemployed will make them even more desperate for work — but they can’t take jobs that aren’t there.

Wait: there’s more. One main reason there aren’t enough jobs right now is weak consumer demand. Helping the unemployed, by putting money in the pockets of people who badly need it, helps support consumer spending. That’s why the Congressional Budget Office rates aid to the unemployed as a highly cost-effective form of economic stimulus. And unlike, say, large infrastructure projects, aid to the unemployed creates jobs quickly — while allowing that aid to lapse, which is what is happening right now, is a recipe for even weaker job growth, not in the distant future but over the next few months.

But won’t extending unemployment benefits worsen the budget deficit? Yes, slightly — but as I and others have been arguing at length, penny-pinching in the midst of a severely depressed economy is no way to deal with our long-run budget problems. And penny-pinching at the expense of the unemployed is cruel as well as misguided.

So, is there any chance that these arguments will get through? Not, I fear, to Republicans: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something,” said Upton Sinclair, “when his salary” — or, in this case, his hope of retaking Congress — “depends upon his not understanding it.” But there are also centrist Democrats who have bought into the arguments against helping the unemployed. It’s up to them to step back, realize that they have been misled — and do the right thing by passing extended benefits.

;

I disagree with him on a few points but the major one is the following - Backwards Typist

[ In Reply To ..]

He said, "By the clueless I mean people like Sharron Angle, the Republican candidate for senator from Nevada, who has repeatedly insisted that the unemployed are deliberately choosing to stay jobless, so that they can keep collecting benefits. A sample remark: “You can make more money on unemployment than you can going down and getting one of those jobs that is an honest job but it doesn’t pay as much. We’ve put in so much entitlement into our government that we really have spoiled our citizenry.”

She is not clueless about unemployment. She is on point. The rule is that you don't have to take a job offer if it pays $X dollars below what you were paid on your last job. I've overhead a lot of unemployed people stating that they are making out better because they don't have all the expenses of going to work (gas, wear and tear on the car, lunches, etc.), and still have money to live on. They ARE choosing to stay jobless because they are offered jobs not making the same, or more, wages as before. ....and it's easier now to report joblessness weekly. All you do is pick up a phone and dial into the unemployment office. You no longer have to go in person. So...someone who may have been hurt; i.e., injuries that preclude getting unemployment because you are unable to work, no longer is a factor in the equation. (Ex: I collected back in the 70s and sprained my ankle. I was on crutches but had to go to the office to sign up week after week. Although my foot had nothing to do with my job, I was refused and could not collect unemployment for 6 weeks, then needed a doctor's excuse to start collecting again, which took another 2 weeks until they verified it.)

I can't understand why some of these bloggers don't believe this. Is it because they never had to collect and don't know the law, or is it they just want something to complain about/upset/cause conflict with people?

Excuse me. You and Sharron Angle are both clueless. - FYI sm

[ In Reply To ..]
When I was employed I was bringing home $2300 net monthly after taxes and insurance. My unemployment benefit is $1168 monthly after tax is deducted. You will notice that my benefit amount is exactly one-half the amount I was taking home before. Of course, I no longer have medical insurance, so I guess you could say I am making out better than when I was employed since I dont have to worry about paying the premiums. Instead, I only have to worry about getting sick, injured, having an accident, a new diagnosis, heart attacks, strokes, etc. (I have high blood pressure).

If benefits are extended without the $25 weekly stimulus money, the net amount will be $1068 monthly, or roughly 46% of my previous income. By your logic (and Sharron Angles) that would mean that gassing the car, wear and tear and lunch expenses represent 50-54 percent of my take home pay. NOT.

A few more clues for you. Texas UI recipients are required to make 3 job searches weekly. I make at least 3 job searches daily, IF I am able to locate 3 fresh listings. I have been doing this since Thanksgiving 2009. This means that I have submitted around 500 job applications since that time. Many times when I get listings from CareerBuilder or Monster.com, they will show you how many applicants have already applied for any given job through their website. Most of the time when I submit an application, I am up against between 20 and 30 other applicants, and that figure does not account for other applicants who have submitted applications through other job posting sources.

In 8 months I have been required to produce my job search logs 5 times and they have followed through on verifying ALL the job searches I claim to have made. After the first 5 weeks, the unemployment office informs recipients that they are are required to seek and accept jobs that pay up to 25% less than their previous jobs. If they refuse the work (because a 25% pay cut will not cover their expenses), they lose their benefits.

Please note that in the meantime my monthly expenses did not magically decrease by 50-54 percent. I sold my second car, my living room furniture and my washer an dryer along the way, in addition to having had 2 garage sales where I unloaded more than half my wardrobe, countless pairs of shoes, most of my jewelry, all of my books and all but about 12 of my CDs, which I am only able listen to in the car, since I also sold my stereo.

Because I get UI payments, I cannot qualify for food stamps. On several occasions, I have made the choice to eat instead of filling my prescriptions (7 of them). There is nothing, I repeat, NOTHING easy about being on unemployment. Ms know-it-all-Angle is wrong to assume that folks in my position are not willing to accept lower paying jobs...2 or 3 of them, if necessary. Fact is, the job offers are simply not there to accept.

By the way, did I mention the stress, depression, anxiety and nightmares? I think I also forgot to mention what a boost it is to my self esteem to hear politicians and other clueless partisan bloggers who presume to speak for me opine and dismiss my efforts as parasitic sponging off the hard-working Americans fortunate enough to still have a job, especially after having contribued to the tax coffers for more than 40 years and considering the fact that I am STILL PAYING TAXES out of my UI.

One more thing. I am not the exception to the rule. This is what the vast majority of unemployed Americans face every single day when they wake up in the morning, month after month after month. I can assure you that every last one of us, plus the millions of other unemployed who are not receiving benefits, will be taking a keen interest in the mid terms and will be showing up in droves. Casting our ballots is one thing we can all still afford to do and we form a fairly significant constituency the party of no has no hope of capturing.

The party of "No"? Well, good thing we had Obama - and his stimulus bill to the rescue.

[ In Reply To ..]
NOT ! The party of no is basically saying there is no more money! Obama might as well flush his own country down the toilet. He has not created ANY jobs, only promised we will be in more debt with no additional jobs! I was a democrat, but to me, they are the party now of "yes we can spend spend spend, even if we have NO idea what the heck we are doing". My husband is unemployed too. I feel for anyone going through this, but you may be really wrong about the upcoming election.

You must be one of those tax the poor to pay down the debt - kind of democrats.sm

[ In Reply To ..]
I made no predictions about the mid terms. I only stated with certainty what I know to be true about the ongoing activism of the unemployed and whose feet will be held to the fire over jobs creation and expiring benefits.

Pub obstructionism is and has from the first moment they were sworn in this term been as transparent as cellophane. They have no leaders, no solutions, no agendas and no strategies. All they know how to do is filibuster, stagnate, bluster, expel hot air, oppose and express their contempt for the president. You are delusional if you believe the lack of progress happened in a vacuum and the GOP have nothing to do with it.

Voters will not be basing their decisions on theatrics. Issues and the economy are still the name of the game, and if you think the majority of them are worried about the national debt, think again. Rent, mortgage, job security, stifled wages and salaries, making ends meet, paying bills, gassing the car, health care, education, etc. place the debt at the bottom of the heap.

Your frustration over what you perceive to be no progress under Obama helps illustrate my point nicely. The demand for instant gratification renders that burgeoning national debt crisis somewhere down the road a moot point. By the way, the GOPs sudden concern over the debt seems a bit disingenous, given the lack of concern and restraint they demonstrated over the previous 8 years, dontcha think? So long as the money was being thrown at mortgage lenders, bankers, Wall Street, corporate America and the war chest, they dont seem to have a problem, but as soon as Main Street America enters the picture, its "Whoa Bessie," but then again, this comes as no suprise, considering who they are and what they stand for.

What abut Dem Obstruction during the last 2 years of the prior administration? - Backwards Typist

[ In Reply To ..]
The dems ruled the Senate then and nothing got by them, either.

Don't forget, a bill was passed a few months ago (Pay As You Go), which the dems voted for; yet, 2 days later, they pushed through legislation to spend more money; i.e., breaking that law.

O doesn't help by splitting the parties and aggravating the situation. He is NOT for bipartisanship. You could see that from the beginning. This fighting among the Senate leaders is exactly what he wants. He wants total control, from the House to the Senate and if people don't wise up and research backgrounds and candidates well enough, we will slip into a government no longer following the Constitution, but on a direct path to...and I hate to mention this...a dictatorship, as in Venezula, Cuba,Iran, North Korea, etc.

Is that what you really want?

You mean like - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
the $124 billion emergency funding for troop readiness (to support the surge), veteranâ��s care, Katrina Recovery and Iraq accountability, which W obstructed..err, I mean vetoed until they removed the withdrawal timeline measure? (Speaking of obstruction, which president was it that set the all-time record of pocket veto?) How about the Fair Minimum Wage Act? Foreign Investment and National Security Act? Implementation of 9/11 Commission recommendations? Protect America Act? Honest Leadership and Open Government Act? Water Resources and Development Act? Energy Independence and Security Act? Economic Stimulus 2008? Genetic Information Protection Act? The farm bill? GI Bill appropriations? Warrantless wiretapping? Housing and Economic Recovery Act? Emergency Economic Stabilization Act? Are these largely bipartisan efforts the nothing you refer to?

Paygo has been around since 1990. Bush allowed it to expire between 2002 and 2007. Wanna take a trip down memory lane and review what happened during that time (when pubs controlled the Congress) to the national debt? How about citing specific instances when dems vs pubs overlooked Paygo? We can go there if you like. In fact, that little exercise should be helpful in illustrating just how arbitrary the GOP is being with this sudden display fiscal responsibility they claim to be promoting. Can you think of any other time since the 111th Congress convened other than during unemployment extension considerations that the issue of Paygo has even been raised by the GOP? I cant.

Let Me Know Which Ones I Missed. - Backwards Typist

[ In Reply To ..]

Thunderstorm coming and must shut down now but here's what I've found so far.

Pocket Vetos: G.W. Bush -1 The highest pocket vetos Franklin Roosevelt with 263.

Regular Vetos: 11 with 4 overridden.

1. July 19, 2006: Vetoed H.R. 810, Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, a bill to ease restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Override attempt failed in House, 235-193 (286 needed).

2. May 1, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 1591, U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007. Override attempt failed in House, 222-203 (284 needed). A later version of the bill that excluded certain aspects of the initial legislation that the President disapproved of... H.R. 2206, was enacted as Pub.L. 110-28 with the President's approval. As for the Fair Wage Act, President Bush advised that the bill should include tax cuts for small businesses that could be harmed by the wage increase. The amended bill was passed on May 26 and signed by President Bush on May 27.

3. June 20, 2007: Vetoed S. 5, Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. No override attempt made.

4. October 3, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 976, Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 ("SCHIP"). Override attempt failed in House, 273-156 (286 votes needed). President Bush argued that such efforts were steps toward federalization of health care, and would "steer the program away from its core purpose of providing insurance for poor children and toward covering children from middle-class families."

FYI: In 1993, Hillary tried to get this to pass but the bill had to comply with the existing balanced budget agreement between Congress and the White House, something that Trent Lott said it did not. Pressure was on to reduce the amount of grants involved, with $16 billion a possible compromise; Hillary Clinton instead argued for $24 billion. The Clinton administration had a deal with the Republican leadership in Congress that forbade the administration from backing any amendments to the budget resolution. Thus, Bill Clinton phoned members of Congress and asked that they kill the children's health insurance provision when it came to the floor.

5. November 2, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 1495, Water Resources Development Act of 2007. Overridden by House, 361-54 (277 votes needed). Overridden by Senate, 79-14 (62 needed), and enacted as Pub. L. 110-114 over President's veto. President Bush vetoed the bill on November 2, explaining:

“This bill lacks fiscal discipline. I fully support funding for water resources projects that will yield high economic and environmental returns to the Nation and each year my budget has proposed reasonable and responsible funding, including $4.9 billion for 2008, to support the Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) main missions. However, this authorization bill makes promises to local communities that the Congress does not have a track record of keeping. The House of Representatives took a $15 billion bill into negotiations with a $14 billion bill from the Senate and instead of splitting the difference, emerged with a Washington compromise that costs over $23 billion. This is not fiscally responsible, particularly when local communities have been waiting for funding for projects already in the pipeline. The bill's excessive authorization for over 900 projects and programs exacerbates the massive backlog of ongoing Corps construction projects, which will require an additional $38 billion in future appropriations to complete.

This bill does not set priorities. The authorization and funding of Federal water resources projects should be focused on those projects with the greatest merit that are also a Federal responsibility. My Administration has repeatedly urged the Congress to authorize only those projects and programs that provide a high return on investment and are within the three main missions of the Corps' civil works program: facilitating commercial navigation, reducing the risk of damage from floods and storms, and restoring aquatic ecosystems. This bill does not achieve that goal. This bill promises hundreds of earmarks and hinders the Corps' ability to fulfill the Nation's critical water resources needs -- including hurricane protection for greater New Orleans, flood damage reduction for Sacramento, and restoration of the Everglades while diverting resources from the significant investments needed to maintain existing Federal water infrastructure. American taxpayers should not be asked to support a pork-barrel system of Federal authorization and funding where a project's merit is an afterthought.

6. November 13, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 3043, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008. Override attempt failed in House, 277-141 (279 votes needed).

7. December 12, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 3963, Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007. Override attempt failed in House, 260-152 (275 votes needed). SCHIP was created in 1997 as a ten-year program; to continue past federal fiscal year 2007, passage of a reauthorization bill was required. The first two reauthorization bills to pass through Congress would also expand the program's scope; President Bush vetoed them as improper expansions. A two-year reauthorization bill was signed into law by the President in December 2007 that would merely extend current SCHIP services without expanding any portion of the program. With the 2008 Presidential and Congressional elections bringing Democrats to a majority in both houses of Congress and to the Oval Office, SCHIP was reauthorized and expanded in the same bill through fiscal year 2013.

8., December 28, 2007: Pocket Vetoed H.R. 1585, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. A later version of the bill that changed a minor provision of which the President disapproved was quickly passed by Congress (H.R. 4986) and was enacted with the President's approval as Pub.L. 110-181 on 28 January 2008.

9. March 8, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 2082, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.Override attempt failed in House, 225-188.

10. May 21, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 2419, 2007 U.S. Farm Bill. Overridden by House, 316-108 (283 votes needed). Overridden by Senate, 82-13 (64 votes needed). Enacted as Pub.L. 110-234 over the President's veto. Due to a clerical error, this act was repealed by Pub.L. 110-246. 18 June 2008: Vetoed H.R. 6124, 2007 U.S. Farm Bill, re-passed by Congress to correct a clerical error in HR 2419. Overridden by House, 317-109 (284 votes required). Overridden by Senate, 80-14 (63 votes needed). Enacted as Pub.L. 110-246 over the President's veto. President Bush expressed opposition to the bill, and vetoed it because of its high cost and negative impact on poorer farmers; his veto threat enabled numerous Republican congressmen to attach pork to it, making the bill more expensive than it would have been otherwise, since Democratic leaders needed Republican votes to override the veto, while others argued that the bill should include more subsidies for renewable energy. In negotiations between Congressional legislators and the White House, President Bush indicated that the cap on payments to anyone making over $750,000 per year was still too high, and that if the cap were lowered to anyone making over $200,000, he would support the bill.

11. July 15, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 6331, Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act. Overridden by House, 383-41 (283 votes required.) Overridden by Senate, 70-26 (64 votes required). Enacted as Pub. L. 110-275 over the President's veto.

Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 - sm

[ In Reply To ..]

He vetoed HR 810 in 2005 and S. 5 in 2007.

In any case, I stand corrected on this as I mispoke. This is what happens when I post before verifying my info and the terms I use. Instead of pocket veto, I was thinking of signing statements, which in my opinion, W abused to the extent that he used it as a line-item veto weapon. You do recall when Bush issued Executive Order 13457, giving himself line-item veto power (link below) on January 29, 2008, which he did not use until the minute the democrats gained control in 2008 don't you? But I digress.

I confuse signing statements with line-item veto on account of the way W tried to use this tactic. I am going to get lazy here since my cats are screaming for their dinner and post a link to an article discussing W's record-breaking use of signing statements:

"...That changed under Mr. Bush, who broke all records, using signing statements to challenge about 1,200 sections of bills over his eight years in office, about twice the number challenged by all previous presidents combined…”

Obama Looks to Limit Impact of Tactic Bush Used to Sidestep New Laws http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us/politics/10signing.html?_r=2

Bush Gives Himself Line-Item Veto Power http://phoenixwoman.wordpress.com/2008/02/02/bush-gives-himself-a-line-item-veto/

Signing Statements - Backwards Typist

[ In Reply To ..]

SIGNING STATEMENTS

Types:

Constitutional: asserts that the law is constitutionally defective in order to guide executive agencies in limiting its implementation;

Political: defines vague terms in the law to guide executive agencies in its implementation as written;

Rhetorical: uses the signing of the bill to mobilize political constituencies.

In recent usage, the phrase "signing statement" has referred mostly to statements relating to constitutional matters that direct executive agencies to apply the law according to the president's interpretation of the Constitution.

President Reagan issued 250 signing statements, 86 of which (34%) contained provisions objecting to one or more of the statutory provisions signed into law. President George H.W. Bushed continued this practice, issuing 228 signing statements, 107 of which (47%) raised objections. President Clinton’s conception of presidential power proved to be largely consonant with that of the preceding two administrations. In turn, President Clinton made aggressive use of the signing statement, issuing 381 statements, 70 of which (18%) raised constitutional or legal objections. President George W. Bush has continued this practice, issuing 152 signing statements, 118 of which (78%) contain some type of challenge or objection.

During his presidential campaign, Obama rejected the use of signing statements. He was asked at one rally: "when congress offers you a bill, do you promise not to use presidential signing statements to get your way?" Obama gave a one-word reply: "Yes." He added that "we aren't going to use signing statements as a way to do an end run around Congress." On March 11, 2009, President Obama issued his first signing statement, attached to the omnibus spending bill for the second half of FY2009. The statement indicated that the President would ignore several provisions of the bill, including sections dealing with negotiations with foreign governments, restrictions on US involvement in UN peacekeeping missions, protections for government whistleblowers, and certain congressional claims of authority over spending. Since then, Obama has issued more signing statements.

No United States Constitution provision, federal statute, or common-law principle explicitly permits or prohibits signing statements. Article I, Section 7 (in the Presentment Clause) empowers the president to veto a law in its entirety, or to sign it. Article II, Section 3 requires that the executive "take care that the laws be faithfully executed".

Signing statements do not appear to have legal force by themselves, although they are all published in the Federal Register.

There are 2 ways to 'count' signing statements: the flat count and the number of disputed statutes. The NY Times used a different way to come up with their number that DOES NOT correspond to the correct way to 'count' these statements. No one knows how they came up with the number.

http://www.justice.gov/olc/signing.htm

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/signing-statements/?scp=3&sq=signing%20statement&st=Search

At issue here - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
is not the use, but the ABUSE of signing statements. Obama promised he would not use them to "get his way" as the question was proposed to him. I suspect the question was couched in such terms because the person asking it was concerned over Ws abuse and believed he had used them to "get his way."

Obama also clearly stated his intent to use signing statements if he believes a portion of a bill is unconstitutional. He has issued 9 signing statements affecting 14 specified provisions and 3 unspecified provisions of law in eight Congressional enactments. In this numbers game, of specific concern is the number of provisions affected by the signing statements. Though the 161 statements Bush used during his terms is not that unusual, the 1100 to 1200 provisions affected by them was. At the time, there was much controversy surrounding this abuse that was centered around Constitutionality issues of all sorts.

I am curious to know this. If his use of them was so above board, why then did he have to be dragged kicking and screaming into transparency when called upon to provide his signining statements records (see last link below)?

Obama Looks to Limit Impact of Tactic Bush Used to Sidestep New Laws
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us/politics/10signing.html?_r=2&ref=politics

Presidential Signing Statements Memo
http://graphics.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/2009signingstm.mem.final.rel.pdf

The Bush Administration's Adversarial Relationship with Congress --
as Illustrated by Its Refusal to Even Provide the Number of Signing Statements Issued by President Bush
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060714.html

I truthfully do not know that answer yet, but I'll see if I can find something. - Backwards Typist

[ In Reply To ..]
after I read your sources.

I checked your sources. I have a problem with anything - Backwards Typist

[ In Reply To ..]

the NY Times writes. They often stretch the truth (my opinion). My comments are in bold except the very last one at the bottom. I hope the server doesn't go down with all this info. LOL

What I found so far is the following:

“That changed under Mr. Bush, who broke all records, using signing statements to challenge about 1,200 sections of bills over his eight years in office, about twice the number challenged by all previous presidents combined, according to data compiled by Christopher Kelley, a political science professor at Miami University in Ohio.”

This in itself, is wrong. As I stated in an earlier post. Bush issued 152 signing statements, 118 which contained some type of challenge or objection. So, the President cannot object to language in a bill, or object to, say something unconstitutional or pork. We do not have the line item veto, which is something that is sorely needed to cut out pork and/or unconstitutional items.

Constitution: Article I-Section 7:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Here is where the problem comes in. Bush did signing statements objecting to parts of the bills presented, but signed it into law anyway. He should have sent it back to be reconsidered, but other presidents did the same thing, including Obama. Did he send these bills back to be reconsidered? That is a question that needs to be answered. If not, then he is also ‘guilty’ of misusing his authority.

Truthfully, I see nothing wrong with commenting on a particular part of a bill. It doesn’t usually mean they will not follow the law. It does mean they have misgivings that it may be unconstitutional and put their thoughts on paper.

Already, since Obama became president, he has made 10 signing statements:

1. February 17, 2009=Statement on Signing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: I do not see any objections in this statement unless it’s the whole document. I only skimmed this.

2. March 11, 2009- Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009: As I announced this past Monday, it is a legitimate constitutional function, and one that promotes the value of transparency, to indicate when a bill that is presented for Presidential signature includes provisions that are subject to well-founded constitutional objections. The Department of Justice has advised that a small number of provisions of the bill raise constitutional concerns.

• Foreign Affairs. Certain provisions of the bill, in titles I and IV of Division B, title IV of Division E, and title VII of Division H, would unduly interfere with my constitutional authority in the area of foreign affairs by effectively directing the Executive on how to proceed or not proceed in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments. I will not treat these provisions as limiting my ability to negotiate and enter into agreements with foreign nations.

• United Nations Peacekeeping Missions. Section 7050 in Division H prohibits the use of certain funds for the use of the Armed Forces in United Nations peacekeeping missions under the command or operational control of a foreign national unless my military advisers have recommended to me that such involvement is in the national interests of the United States. This provision raises constitutional concerns by constraining my choice of particular persons to perform specific command functions in military missions, by conditioning the exercise of my authority as Commander in Chief on the recommendations of subordinates within the military chain of command, and by constraining my diplomatic negotiating authority. Accordingly, I will apply this provision consistent with my constitutional authority and responsibilities.

• Executive Authority to Control Communications with the Congress. Sections 714(1) and 714(2) in Division D prohibit the use of appropriations to pay the salary of any Federal officer or employee who interferes with or prohibits certain communications between Federal employees and Members of Congress. I do not interpret this provision to detract from my authority to direct the heads of executive departments to supervise, control, and correct employees' communications with the Congress in cases where such communications would be unlawful or would reveal information that is properly privileged or otherwise confidential.

• Legislative Aggrandizements (committee-approval requirements). Numerous provisions of the legislation purport to condition the authority of officers to spend or reallocate funds on the approval of congressional committees. These are impermissible forms of legislative aggrandizement in the execution of the laws other than by enactment of statutes. Therefore, although my Administration will notify the relevant committees before taking the specified actions, and will accord the recommendations of such committees all appropriate and serious consideration, spending decisions shall not be treated as dependent on the approval of congressional committees. Likewise, one other provision gives congressional committees the power to establish guidelines for funding costs associated with implementing security improvements to buildings. Executive officials shall treat such guidelines as advisory. Yet another provision requires the Secretary of the Treasury to accede to all requests of a Board of Trustees that contains congressional representatives. The Secretary shall treat such requests as nonbinding.

• Recommendations Clause Concerns. Several provisions of the Act (including sections 211 and 224(b) of title II of Division I, and section 713 in Division A), effectively purport to require me and other executive officers to submit budget requests to the Congress in particular forms. Because the Constitution gives the President the discretion to recommend only "such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient" (Article II, section 3 of the Constitution), the specified officers and I shall treat these directions as precatory.

3. March 30, 2009- Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009: Section 8203 of the Act provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall appoint certain members of the Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor Commission "based on recommendations from each member of the House of Representatives, the district of which encompasses the Corridor." Because it would be an impermissible restriction on the appointment power to condition the Secretary's appointments on the recommendations of members of the House, I will construe these provisions to require the Secretary to consider such congressional recommendations, but not to be bound by them in making appointments to the Commission.

4. May 20, 2009-Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009: Section 5(d) of the Act requires every department, agency, bureau, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality of the United States to furnish to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, a legislative entity, any information related to any Commission inquiry. As my Administration communicated to the Congress during the legislative process, the executive branch will construe this subsection of the bill not to abrogate any constitutional privilege.

5. June 2, 2009-Signing the Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission Act: In accord with President Reagan's Signing Statement made upon signing similar commemorative legislation in 1983, I understand, and my Administration has so advised the Congress, that the members of Congress "will be able to participate only in ceremonial or advisory functions of [such a] Commission, and not in matters involving the administration of the act" in light of the separation of powers and the Appointments and Ineligibility Clauses of the Constitution (Public Papers of the President, Ronald Reagan, Vol. II, 1983, page 1390).

6&7. June 24, 2009-Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (2 statements): However, provisions of this bill within sections 1110 to 1112 of title XI, and sections 1403 and 1404 of title XIV, would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments, or by requiring consultation with the Congress prior to such negotiations or discussions. I will not treat these provisions as limiting my ability to engage in foreign diplomacy or negotiations.

8. November 11, 2009-Military Spouses Residency Relief Act: I do not see the objection here unless it’s the whole document.

9. May 24, 2010-Signing the Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009: Another one where I do not see objections unless it’s the whole document.

10. July 1, 2010-Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2010: I do not see the objection here unless it’s the whole document.

I will do more research on signing statements, and those by Obama tomorrow or you may also read the above info. The source is below. Right now, I think we’re in another wave of thunder storms coming through and need to shut down soon.

P.S. this site also answers other questions on signing statements.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php?year=2009&Submit=DISPLAY

I need some time to digest this and - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
resurrect one of the articles on this I read before my previous post. It had to do with confusion between the total number of signing statements versus the NUMBER OF PROVISIONS in bills affected by the signing statements, which I tried to distinguish between in my previous post. I do not know what accounts for the discrepancy between my 161 and your 152 figures on how many signing statements Bush made, but my understanding is that the controversy arose over the latter aspect, i.e. the number of provisions in the bills they affected. That is where the 1200 number is coming from that you are disputing in your fist set of bolded comments. The articles I have read place that number (of provisions affected by SS) between 1100 and 1200.

I appreciate the effort you made to gather ane post this and would like to take some time to look it over before commenting. That reply may not show up until tomorrow morning (my computer-corroded eyes start going haywire after dark!) and could appear as a new post depending on how buried this thread gets between now and then.

You dont get it. O's useless stimulus was a poor attempt - at "instant gratification" -didnt work!.nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

No reason to get furious with me. I just stated what I heard - Backwards Typist

[ In Reply To ..]
from others. They don't seem to have the problems you have. Maybe it's because there are no jobs in our area and it means traveling 30 miles or more for a job.

You may not qualify for food stamps or Medicaid because you make too much on unemployment. That's sad and I'm sorry about that, but it's not because you're collecting UI. Evidently, you live in an area where the cost of living is much higher than here. Living on what you make on UI in this area is living high, and most are living on $500 or less with no problem.

So, I still stick by my statement that I heard that those on unemployment are making out pretty good since they don't have the expense of going to work.

Fact is that - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
81 percent of the US population live in urban areas. That 30 mile trek you describe is standard operating procedure in such places. From the center of my city, our typical job market area extends out about 45 miles in each direction. On his last job, my husband commuted 56 miles to work and 56 miles back every single day, before the work dried up. Folks who travel from one extreme to the other (south to north for example) can end up commuting 90 miles one way, and in this job market, it is not uncommon. You have to go where the jobs are. I stopped confining my job search to my city a couple of months ago in order to keep up the 3 resumes per day rate of job searches. My husband and I have seriously considered the possibility of uprooting from our home and moving away from everything we have ever known, including our families, for the sake of finding work. I would not be the least bit surprised if it ends up happening.

$500 a month, huh? That is what I spend on electricity, phone and internet alone and my city has a relatively lower cost of living than others, so the picture is similar for my fellow 81 percenters. That figure also represents what it costs us to feed ourselves and gas the car that stays home most of the time since I am unemployed and my husband drives his trucks whenever he can find work. We live in a small condominium in a working-to-middle class neighborhood and by no means do we have an extravagant lifestyle. Far from it.

I am sincerely happy for the people you know who can make out better on UI benefits and get by nicely on $500 per month. Just please realize that that is not the case for the large majority of unemployed who do not live in such circmstances. That might help explain why the suggestion that jobless UI recipients make out better than when they are employed might have a tendancy to tick off those of us who can speak from first-hand experience and do not rely on word-of-mouth from our neighbors and grossly out-of-touch pronouncements from our politicians.

Well, keep the hope. I just read where they are going to vote on it again this week. - Backwards Typist

[ In Reply To ..]
I've been trying to find out why they voted against it before the 7/4 recess, but I generally don't think it was because of unemployment. So far, I've found a couple bills that had so many amendments attached to it that it would have seriously impacted everyone in the country, those who are unemployed and those who are employed (which are very few).

Read this as to why UC did not pass before 7/4 - Backwards Typist

[ In Reply To ..]

The Senate's fourth attempt this month to pass an extension of federal unemployment benefits failed a cloture vote last night. The standalone bill would have extended benefits for six months.

The final vote was 58 to 41.

Two Republicans, Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, supported the measure, which gave Democrats 59 of the 60 votes they needed. However, without the vote of late Sen. Robert Byrd, Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson's no vote was enough to defeat the bill.

(Note: I also read where they don't want to vote on this again until they get a replacement for Senator Byrd.)

Ohio Republican George Voinovich might have voted yes, but his request that half the cost of the measure be offset with unused stimulus funds was refused by Senate Democrats, who insisted that the measure be passed as emergency spending and not subject to pay-go rules. Democrats believe the unused stimulus funds should be used for job creation efforts.

Due to Senate procedural rules, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was required to vote against the bill in order to allow for a future revote, reports the Huff Post, explaining why the tally was only 58-41 and not 59-40.

Republicans offered alternative bills, such as a proposal by Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown that would have paid for extended benefits with unused stimulus funds.

While Democrats are blaming Republicans for obstructing the bill, Republicans are blaming Democrats for the bill's failure.

"The only reason the unemployment extension hasn't passed is because our friends on the other side have refused to pass a bill that doesn't add to the debt," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said after the vote.

Reid said that the Senate will revisit the issue on July 12 when it returns from recess. By then, a replacement for Byrd will have been named, and he should have the needed votes to pass an extension.

"We're not moving away from this issue," he said. "We'll be back to haunt [Republicans] for what they're doing to people who are in such desperate shape."

This is just the latest in a string of disappointing votes from the Senate this year for the unemployed. Journalist Annie Lowrey of the Washington Independent has a great piece today that chronicles the course of trying to get a long-term unemployment benefit extension through the Senate this year.

Lowrey reports that the Senate's next attempt to pass the extension in mid-July will likely be the last.

Senate staffers whisper that if this unemployment extension makes it through, it will be the last one. There will be no more torturous attempts to grant unemployment benefits to the 15 million unemployed. There will be no bills to add a Tier V for the million who have exhausted all benefits and still cannot find work. The benefits will end in November.

Meanwhile, before the Senate returns from its holiday break on July 12, another 400,000 Americans will join the 1.3 million people who have already lost their benefits, according to the Department of Labor.

That's bad news for the unemployed and the rest of us too. Some economists are lowering their projections for economic growth, saying that the expiration of federal unemployment benefits will weaken consumer demand and threaten the fragile economic recovery.

There seems to be a lot of confusion over - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
the procedure of naming Senator Byrds replacement. Governor Manchin has requested clarification on the possibility of having a special election in November rather than having this issue drag out until 2012. I am not sure when that ruling from the state legislature is going to be rendered (hopefully this week), but until then Governor Manchin is not going to designate a temporary appointee. Just another stall while politicians posture (this time, its the democratic governor, who has announced about a thousand times that he is not going to appoint himself!). Manchin is interested in running for that seat in 2012 but I have not heard if he would enter the special election this November, or even if he could, since he is the sitting governor.

You can highlight til the cows come home about the refusal of the democrats to compromise on the UI funding issue. It does not change the fact that it is the GOP who has predictably formed an oppositional block to every attempt at passage. The media has not given a single minute of coverage as to WHY the democrats are opposed to using stimulus money, so any explanation would only be speculative. Before I take a stab at that, for the record I would like to say that I am every bit as upset at their stance (and the posturing on both sides) as I am with the GOP en bloc nays.

The GOP has a history of stalling, objecting and filibustering on this issue. They also have a track record of extracting compromise, after compromise, after compromise from dems during the legislative process, only to end up voting against the measure despite the fact that their amendments have been included. I dont think the dems have any reason to believe that this instance would produce any different kind of results. I know I dont.

Here's what I know for sure. I will be exhausting Tier 1 benefits once I request the remaining $462 partial payment on July 18, despite the fact that I am eligible for Tier 2 and Tier 3 benefits. Unless they extend the deadlines until November, that will be the end of the line for me, with no job in sight. I am running out of things to sell and I am afraid if my husband has to take up the slack on the expenses, the money he has to divert away from his business may end up causing that to fold. That is how tight our ship is!

We are living on borrowed time that is rapidly running out. I am not just angry, but also downright scared and REALLY tired of being cast in the role of political football politicians kick around trying to score points. The uncertainty is the real killer and makes it exceedingly difficult to stay focused on looking for work.

I was just pointing out that it wasn't just the GOP obstructing UC - Backwards Typist

[ In Reply To ..]

You can read this article as well. This paragraph did catch my eye especially since Reid is trying to get re-elected. I will be looking at this act to see what's in it.

Stabenow introduced her bill this week and now it’s up to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) to see it brought to the floor for either debate or a “unanimous consent” vote.

Reid has said that he prefers to keep the unemployment benefits extension included in the broader “American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010″ and that he intends to set that bill aside and move onto other business for the next few weeks in order to pressure Republicans to vote for the entire package of provisions when he does bring it to the floor.

http://coloradoindependent.com/56508/lawmakers-playing-political-chicken-with-unemployment-extension

His strategy is neither here nor there - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
The article is 2 weeks old. At that point it was already apparent that he did not have the votes to pass the whole package. Whether he tried to push it though or delay it would not have made a difference in the outcome since no GOP member had the intestinal fortitude to break ranks. Personally, I have always felt that the UC part of the bill needed to stand alone, and especially be considered separately from the COBRA component of the Act which, as you will recall, the dems already have COMPROMISED on and eliminated entirely, along with the $25 per week federal stimulus payment. Did that change one single GOP vote? Of course not.

I do not know what is in Harry Reid's mind, but I would not put it past him to attempt to take a recalcitrant stance aimed at encouraging the House to come up with another stand-alone measure (which they did over the recess) that Reid knew might capture support from Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and perhaps Scott Brown.

You may have heard that Snowe implied she would support and even sponsor such an initiative in the Senate, knowing full well that it would go nowhere since McConnell controls whether or not it makes it to the floor. This looks like yet another empty, disingenuous gesture/red herring from that side of the aisle, especially in view of the fact that Debbie Stabenow and Al Franken had already been floating this idea in the House (the one that passsed over the recess).

Fact remains that so far we have a stand alone bill coming out of the house (for which Snowe will not be able to get credit) behind the full act which does not appear to be any closer to passage regardless of Reid's alleged attempt to pressure the GOP. End result is anybody's guess, but one thing is for sure. The GOP is running this play for all it's worth, obstructing and stalling 9 ways to Sunday, with eyes trained squarely on the fall election, and trampling all over millions of unemployed Americans in their effort to reach that goal. I am not denying that there are other factors at play here, but the obstruction is by far the one that is bringing the jobless to their knees. If you don't believe me, just spend a little time reading the comments that follow these types of articles ande hang around for an hour or so in the chat rooms filled with unemployed venting their frustrations.

Always read comments below articles - Backwards Typist

[ In Reply To ..]
Of course, many of them are radical comments which I do not take seriously.

choosing unemployment - is a way of life here in winter

[ In Reply To ..]
I live in the central US, way up north, and for decades this rural area has been filled with mostly males who take seasonal jobs in the summers (road, construction, etc.), and then take unemployment and ice fish/hunt all winter. Most of them have wives with FT jobs also. It's common knowledge and lots of young men here aspire to that lifestyle. I get angry thinking of all my tax $$ going to them.

Really? Standard, alternative and extended eligibility - is based on (sm)

[ In Reply To ..]
wages earned over previous FIVE calendar quarters of employment that exclude the first most recent quarter prior to the job loss. Use of standard, alternative and extended eligibility guidelines vary by state. Many of them do not offer th extended eligibility program.

Seems to me that summers in far northern states are fairly short compared to longer winters. I would be interested in knowing which north central state deems seasonal workers eligible for benefits who return year after year to make claims, especially if they have only worked a few months in the previous five quarters of the base periods.

Sounds REELY fishy to me. Forgive me if I am dubious of our claim. Do tell which state?

What a totally slanted bunch of baloney! Just another - way to slam the other side.

[ In Reply To ..]
Look...there is no more money. The states are broke, and at some point, unemployment runs out.. and I am saying that with my husband's benefits running out. It eventually has to happen!

What a load of bull. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Defense spending. Discretionary spending. War on Drugs.

Similar Messages:

Apr 12, 2010
Coburn and his ilk are poised to replay the Bunning debaucle of last month as the Senate goes to work today on debating ANOTHER temporary 30-day unemployment benefits extension in advance of the larger measure that would extend benefits until the end of the year. Dems are prepared to empower the pubs by ignoring their own Paygo measures, rather than diffusing the pub argument and exposing them for the obstructive hypocrites we all know they are as both parties line up to mak ...

Aug 01, 2013
This is NOT from The Onion- these people are serious. WTF???There’s good news where the Lord is concerned and bad news these days. According to the American Family Foundation of Kentucky, a right-wing Christian group, the United States has been going to hell since prayer was removed from the schools. Now, as part of a petition drive to put religious observation back in the classrooms where they believe it belongs, the Foundation has warned:“Prayer was in our schools for over 200 year ...

Mar 02, 2010
Smith started the day early having set his alarm clock (MADE IN JAPAN) for 6 a.m. While his coffeepot (MADE IN CHINA) was perking, he shaved with his electric razor (MADE IN PHILIPPINES). He put on a dress shirt (MADE IN SRI LANKA), designer jeans (MADE IN SINGAPORE) and tennis shoes (MADE IN VIETNAM).After cooking his breakfast in his new electric skillet (MADE IN INDIA), then he sat down with his calculator (MADE IN MEXICO) to see how much he could spend today. After setting his watch (MADE ...

Jun 24, 2010
my disdain for these people who continue to collect their sizable checks from multiple sources but would deny average Americans. Shame on them, and on us for allowing it. Republicans kill Senate jobless aid measure By ANDREW TAYLOR, AP34 minutes ago Loading... Share No Thanks Must Read?Thank YouYes 17 // Share | Email Story Discuss Print WASHINGTON — Republicans in the Senate have defeated an election-year bill to contin ...

Aug 19, 2010
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/political-economy/2010/08/unemployment_is_in_this_countr.html He needs to quit even speaking of this as a "recovery"... its not. ...

Aug 23, 2012
link to Market Watch ...

Feb 04, 2010
I don't know where this is going to end, but it looks like the big guys have given our jobs away. What happened to that trickle-down success politicians were promising us a few years ago? It isn't working. Politicians on both sides have sold us out, in my opinion. This isn't good, folks. New jobless claims rose unexpectedly last week to 480,000 as layoffs continue ...

Nov 05, 2010
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=12053876 ...

Oct 07, 2012
I hope this wasn’t posted before. If it was, sorry. I don’t like to duplicate other posts. Democrats seized on the Labor Department’s report Friday that the unemployment rate in September fell to 7.8 percent, dropping below 8 percent for the first time in 44 months. So surprising was the decline that it set off speculation among some conservatives about a cooked-booked October surprise. That’s not remotely likely as playing with the numbers to influence the election wou ...

Aug 05, 2010
Yep, quite the great recovery we are seeing. http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/05/news/economy/jobless_claims/index.htm ...

Oct 11, 2012
I missed this earlier today. This supports the 7.8% unemployment number that came out last week. Good news for all working Americans. WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of Americans filing new claims for jobless benefits slid last week to the lowest level in more than four and a half years, ...

Feb 11, 2013
Only described as "the shooter" by Esquire, he also charges that the SEAL who recently wrote a book about the raid, celebrated in the new movie Zero Dark Thirty, glossed over the shooter's role in promoting his own shot at the corpse of bin Laden. The long article in the upcoming magazine said that the shooter came forward to talk about the raid to bring attention to the lack of support offered by the Pentagon or administration for troops once they come home. Esquire said its story " ...

Feb 26, 2010
Typical yet still unbelievable. Sticking it to the unemployed http://www.ombwatch.org/node/10793 Kyl Threatens To Block Unemployment Benefits To Push Tax Cut For Multimillionares http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/02/25/kyl-estate-tax-ui/ ...

Apr 28, 2011
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110428-714720.html ...

Feb 05, 2015
The left like those faux numbers coming out of the White House. ...

May 26, 2011
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110526/bs_nm/us_usa_economy_jobs ...