Congress

House Unemployment Benefits Proposal Does Not Provide Any Resources, Just Restrictions

/ The Old Crank

In media coverage of the debate over the UI extension, some reports have highlighted statements made by House Republicans suggesting that their proposal somehow contains “resources” or “tools” of some kind to help those without diplomas or GEDs attain those credentials and get back to work.

This was a point made by Rep. Tom Reed (R-NY) during an exchange with Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) during a meeting of the House and Senate conferees who are meeting to negotiate a final bill to extend UI benefits for rest of the year. (You can read the entire exchange here, by the way.)

Here is the quote the Press & Sun-Bulletin of Binghamton, New York, pulled from that exchange:

New York Republican Rep. Tom Reed, of Corning, a member of the conference committee working on a final deal on the tax cut and jobless benefits legislation, said he supports requiring that people have a high school diploma or at least begin working on a GED while receiving unemployment benefits.

“We really need to talk about not just giving a check,” Reed said. “We need to give the tools to American folks so they can get back to work.” (my emphasis)

This is similar to the claim made by Rep. Camp when he originally introduced this proposal. The GED/high school diploma requirement, he said, was “a commonsense reform” designed to “get [the unemployed] the training and resources they need to move from an unemployment check to a paycheck.” (my emphasis)

This is nonsense. There is nothing in the House proposal that provides any resources whatsoever for addition training or adult education. All the House proposal does is cut off benefits to those who have been steadily working without GEDs or High School diplomas, until they earn one. There is no additional funding or any other resources being provided to help those workers obtain such a credential. Or ny other training or education opportunity. And, as has been documented elsewhere, there are around 160,000 people people already on waiting lists for adult education services in federally-funded programs alone.

In other words, this is a proposal to yank benefits away from workers who are otherwise qualified to receive them—not an investment in their skills. As I wrote earlier, all this proposal would do, at best, is increase the demand for adult education while providing no new resources for adult education classes, leaving many laid off workers with no way to meet the requirements imposed by the restriction.

Tim Noah: GED/High School Diploma Requirement for UI “Still A Bad Idea”

/ The Old Crank

A colleague pointed out to me this morning that Timothy Noah at the New Republic has been writing about the proposal to ban unemployed workers without a high school diploma or GED from collecting unemployment benefits since the House proposed this idea back in December. Here is an excerpt from his original post on the subject, from December 19th:

The GED requirement, on the other hand, is a new way to communicate that if you lack a job you must be deficient. Now don’t get me wrong. I’m as concerned as the next guy about the fact that the high school graduation rate hasn’t increased in decades. If you don’t have a high school diploma, or a GED, you’re going to have a very difficult time getting a job. But if someone is collecting unemployment who lacks either of these things we know that person managed to get a job in spite of this educational deficit–otherwise he or she wouldn’t be on unemployment. To require this person to enroll in a GED program as a condition of collecting benefits is in essence to say that you had no business being in the labor force to begin with. I can imagine that it might pose all sorts of practical problems simultaneously to start a GED program, look for a job, and jump through all the other hoops you need to to shake your unemployment check free from the state bureaucracy. Wouldn’t it make more sense to focus on getting yourself a job, and then enroll, if circumstances allow, in a GED program?

If you’re employed, have no high school diploma or GED, and aren’t enrolled in a GED program, you don’t get to opt out of the unemployment insurance program. You can’t tell your boss, “Hey, give that money to me, not to the state, because I don’t have a GED and I don’t intend to get one even if I lose my job.” You just pay into the insurance pool just like everyone else… I’m not suggesting that high school dropouts… be given such an opt-out; obviously that would undermine the solvency of the state unemployment insurance fund (which is probably pretty shaky to begin with). What I’m saying is that it’s unfair to impose conditions on drawing from an unemployment insurance fund that don’t exist when you’re paying into it. And it opens the gates wide to imposing all sorts of other petty conditions whose real purpose would be to further stigmatize and humiliate people whose sole offense to society is that they once had a job and then lost it. (my emphasis)

I agreee with the point I highlighted in first paragraph—but I think it’s worse than he describes. The other hoop you’d have to jump through is proving that you are in the right kind of class and that you are making “satisfactory progress” since the House proposal doesn’t define either. (See my post here.)

Here is Noah’s latest on this subject, from February 1st.

Great Example of Why House UI Proposal Makes No Sense

/ The Old Crank

Yesterday’s Las Vegas Sun published an excellent article by Tovin Lapan on the increasing demand for adult education classes among the unemployed in Las Vegas. The article includes a photo gallery of the long lines of people waiting to sign up for ESL classes at the Community Multicultural Center (CMC).

“We’ve seen an increase in demand for ESL classes in the last few years,” said Lyn Pizor, Community Multicultural Center director. “We typically run waiting lists in all ESL classes, and in the last two or three years those lists have gotten longer. There just aren’t enough spaces to serve the population.”

The majority of those in line, including Melchor, spoke of the need to learn English so they can find a new job. Many said they would pursue GED classes, a new offering at the center, after their English skills were up to par. (my emphasis)

The problem in Las Vegas, it appears, is not that the unemployed need motivation to enroll in adult education, but that there is not sufficient resources to meet the demand.

According to the article, CMC receives the bulk of its funding through the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). WIA Title II is the primary federal source of adult edcuation funds for adult education programs in the United States. Congress, which has not significantly increased fudning for Title II over the last decade, is now debating whether to cut off UI benefits earned by unemployed workers without a high school diploma or GED unless they are enrolled in a class to obtain one—even if they can’t enroll in one because Congress (and states) don’t adequately fund adult education to meet the demand.

Conferees Debate UI Extension Legislation – Lots of Debate Over GED/Diploma Requirement

/ The Old Crank

Senate and House conferees have been meeting this week to resolve their differences on the Social Security payroll tax cut extension, the unemployment insurance (UI) program, Medicare physicians payment fix — and a few other items — in the hopes of coming up with a compromise bill in the next few weeks. House Republicans have been pushing a proposal to deny UI benefits to individuals without a high school diploma unless they are enrolled in classes that will lead to a GED or another “state-recognized equivalent.”

You can watch today’s discussion here, via C-SPAN. A great deal of time was spent today debating the diploma/GED requirement. They are meeting again tomorrow. In the meantime, Sen. Baucus (D-MT) promised House Republicans that the Senate would have an alternative proposal ready in time for tomorrow’s meeting.

Meanwhile, the National Coalition for Literacy, which already issued an action alert on this issue, has now also circulated a letter to conferees (which, in the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I helped write) outlining why the House proposal is unfair and unworkable.

Also, see CLASP’s latest statement on the House proposal here.