UI benefits

Rep. Camp Defends Imposing Impossible-to-Meet Requirements on Those Seeking UI Benefits

/ The Old Crank

Back in December, when Rep. Dave Camp introduced H.R. 3630, he issued the following statement:

The unemployment program must do more than simply send out checks – it must help people get back to work. The commonsense reforms House Republicans and I proposed included items like requiring those who receive unemployment benefits to actually look for work and work toward a GED if they don’t have a high school diploma. The reforms also would provide states with the ability to administer drug screening programs if they so choose. Democrats only wanted to send out more taxpayer-funded benefits. Republicans want to get these Americans the training and resources they need to move from an unemployment check to a paycheck.

Putting aside the issue that imposing an educational credential requirement would, in Robert Greenstein’s words, “violate the basic compact that the UI system has embodied” since it began, there are tens of thousands of adult leaners in the U.S. today who would love to do nothing more than enroll in a GED class if they could. But, as noted by myself and others, virtually every state in the country has waiting lists for adult education programs, and many states have cut back on adult education services. There are around 160,000 people on waiting lists for adult education services in federally-funded programs alone.

Rep. Camp claims that Republicans want to provide Americans with “the training and resources they need” but this bill does not do that. At best, it creates a desperate increase in the demand for that training while providing absolutely zero new investments for them, leaving many laid off workers with no way to meet the requirements imposed by this new restriction.

Update on UI Extension Proposal

/ The Old Crank

A few weeks ago I wrote about a House proposal that would deny UI benefits to workers without a high school diploma or GED unless they were enrolled and making progress in a course of study designed to lead to a GED or another “state-recognized equivalent.” Congress eventually passed a two-month payroll tax cut and UI extension bill without this restriction, but I can’t think of any reason why House Republicans will not try to re-introduce this idea when they begin negotiations on a full-year UI extension later this month.

Yesterday afternoon I was encouraged to see that the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) has issued a paper on this issue and posted an article by Robert Greenstein strongly condemning the idea. Greenstein calls it “appalling even by current Washington standards.”

Greenstein’s piece, posted on CBPP’s Off the Charts blog, explains the basic injustice of the proposal:

The proposal would deny UI benefits to hundreds of thousands of workers — many of them middle-aged — who have worked hard, played by the rules, and effectively paid UI taxes for years and who then were laid off due to no fault of their own.

This would violate the basic compact that the UI system has embodied since its creation under President Roosevelt in 1935 — that people who have amassed a sufficient record of work, and on whose behalf UI taxes have faithfully been paid, may receive UI benefits for a temporary period if they are laid off and are searching for a new job.

Greenstein and the other authors of the CBPP report also make a good point that I did not consider in my original analysis: the new restriction would impact large numbers of older laid-off workers (according to CBPP, in 2010, half a million workers age 50 or over who received unemployment insurance lacked a high school diploma), and that for most of these workers, returning to high school or studying for a GED makes little sense.

They go on to note, as I did, that there are not nearly enough classes available in the U.S. right now to meet the current demand for adult education classes.

But as I wrote earlier, my view is that the bill that was introduced in December (H.R. 3630) would also deny UI benefits to some workers even if they are enrolled in adult education, because the bill required that those without a diploma or GED would have to be enrolled specifically in classes “leading to satisfaction” towards a diploma or a GED. This would appear to exclude those at very low literacy levels, who, even if enrolled in adult education, typically do not have the skills to enroll in GED or high-school level courses.

The bill also required more than just enrollment—it required workers to demonstrate “satisfactory progress” towards a diploma or GED without articulating how “satisfactory progress” was to be demonstrated. Again, I think the ambiguity and confusion that would result on how to do this would likely place even those fortunate enough to be enrolled in adult education at risk of being denied benefits.

CBPP also agrees with my assessment that the waiver language in H.R. 3630 was vague and inadequate. I think this point is going to be crucially important as the debate goes forward—I can easily envision lawmakers pointing to the availability of the waiver as justification for approving the restriction.

It’s encouraging to see CBPP attack this ill-conceived idea so vigorously. I am concerned, as I have written previously, that this proposal is just one example of an increasing effort to deny benefits and resources to undereducated, low-income adults.

Multiple Attacks on Adults Without High School Diplomas

/ The Old Crank

This week I’ve been writing about H.R. 3630—specifically the provision in the bill that would 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.”

Unfortunately, this is not the only legislation before Congress this week that would undermine adult learners without a high school diploma if approved. Early this morning, the House appropriations committee posted a version of their proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 omnibus appropriation package, and it proposes to eliminate Pell grant eligibility for less-than-half-time students and students without high school diplomas (known as “ability to benefit” students). (Page 791 of the section pertaining to the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, posted here.)

Many people without high school credentials attend postsecondary education, particularly via community colleges. I can’t easily get my hands on current data on this, but as far back as 2003-04 students without high-school degrees accounted for 2% of all college students, 3% of community college students and 4% of students attending for-profit colleges—and surely that number has gone up since then. Pell is one of the few—I believe possibly the only—federal financial aid available to them.

There appears to be a growing trend in Congress toward cutting off federal educational support for adults who need it the most.

National Coalition for Literacy Issues Action Alert on H.R. 3630

/ The Old Crank

(updated below)

Update on my post from this past Saturday on H.R. 3630, (“The Middle Class Tax Relief & Job Creation Act of 2011″), a Republican-sponsored House bill that, among other things, denies UI benefits to individuals who lack a high school diploma unless they are enrolled in classes that will lead to a GED or another “state-recognized equivalent.”

First, and most importantly, the National Coalition for Literacy (NCL) has issued an Action Alert for those of you interested in contacting your member of the House of Representative about this bill. The vote is scheduled for tonight, so if you want to do so, there isn’t much time. While there is very little chance that this bill would pass in the Senate, it’s still important to raise objections if  you are concerned about this bill’s approach to extending UI. Some kind of UI extension is going to pass this week, and while I have no reason to expect this high school/GED requirement to make it into whatever bill eventually is approved, it’s worth raising objections now if you want to increase the odds  that it does not return. (I serve on the board of NCL and worked with others in the coalition on the alert—if you have any questions or comments about it, feel free to let me know.)

Also, in my earlier post, I focused in on the high school diploma/GED requirement in the bill, but it’s worth pointing out that other groups have objected to many other provisions in the bill. If you are interested in those other issues, you may want to read this legislative update from the National Employment Law Project (NELP) on the bill.

NELP did raise a point in their analysis of the high school diploma/GED requirement that I did not think of, which is that unemployment insurance eligibility is supposed to be driven solely by loss of employment and employer payments into the applicable unemployment insurance trust funds on behalf of their employees—and not based on income level, educational attainment, or other characteristics of the unemployed worker. That’s a good point, and we included it in the NCL talking points.

I disagree slightly with NELP’s analysis of the waiver provision (see my earlier post). While the authors of this paper agree that the lack of clarity to the waiver provision makes it ineffectual, they assume that the burden referred to is the burden on an individual applying for benefits—not on the state in administrating the provision. I actually don’t think it’s clear at all. If anything, I think the language suggests the burden to be considered is the state’s administrative burden, which offers no protection to individuals at all.

All of which is to say I think this provision in the bill is even worse than the folks at NELP do, and they really hate this bill.

UPDATE (12/14/11): The House passed the bill last night, 234-193. Again, there is little chance this bill in its present form will pass into law. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has already vowed to reject it, and the President has said he would veto it anyway.