July 22, 2010 7:07 PM

Obama Changes Tune on Paying for Unemployment Benefits Extension

By
Mark Knoller
Topics
Economy ,
White House

President Obama signs emergency unemployment benefits legislation in the Oval Office of the White House.

(Credit: AP)
In signing the bill restoring unemployment benefits to 2 ? million Americans jobless for more than 26 weeks, President Obama is also adding $34 billion to the deficit and the National Debt.

That's the reason nearly all Republicans voted against the measure. They wanted the cost of the benefits paid for with unspent government funds or by other budget cuts.

The White House dismissed GOP concerns as partisan game-playing.

In two speeches over the last week, Mr. Obama argued that in the past, presidents and Congresses of both parties have treated unemployment insurance for what it is: an emergency expenditure.

"Suddenly, Republican leaders want to change that," he said.

He portrayed Republicans as hypocrites for demanding that jobless benefits be paid for but not applying the same standard to their call for an extension of Bush Administration tax cuts that will expire this year.

"So after years of championing policies that turned a record surplus into a massive deficit, including a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, they've finally decided to make their stand on the backs of the unemployed," the president said last Saturday in his radio/internet address.

But Republicans were quick to remind Mr. Obama what he said after signing a previous extension of unemployment benefits on November 6th of last year.

"Now, it's important to note that the bill I signed will not add to our deficit. It is fully paid for, and so it is fiscally responsible," he said.

So eight months ago, he said paying for the benefits was the right thing to do, but now he sees no need to do so.

Asked about the contradiction, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said he needed to examine what Mr. Obama said last November and would get back to this reporter. He didn't.

But the issue will come up again just after the midterm elections.

The bill signed today extends unemployment benefits only through November 30th. So there'll be another go-round on the same issue just around Thanksgiving.

Mark Knoller is a CBS News White House correspondent. You can read more of his posts in Hotsheet here. You can also follow him on Twitter here: http://twitter.com/markknoller.


Add a Comment See all 456 Comments
by sassyjuju August 4, 2010 5:02 PM EDT
My husband has only worked 6 weeks this year and about 4 months last year. His benefits are down to $154 a week. I am on disability and receive $1267 a month. Our mortgage holder and car loan people do not want to hear we are having issues making our payments. We donot want to file bankruptcy. Does anyone have a solution or answer for us?
Reply to this comment
by unknown2204 August 4, 2010 4:55 PM EDT
unemployed workers are people who actually did work and lost their jobs, they did not quit to sit on their butts and struggle for money.people that collect welfare sit on their butts and dont look for jobs to support themselves and just take the money out of our hard working peoples paychecks. I think you should pay hardworking american workers before you pay for the welfare.
Reply to this comment
by kaylaleanne July 27, 2010 11:12 PM EDT
okay so i have a question to everyone who probally understands the whole unemployment situation since i have no clue!. i was laid off in april of 09 and started toi recieve unemployment in july of 09 and i was on my first extention when they suspended my payments due to the congress thing. well now that congress has passed it, i filed every other week like i was supposed to and on the 18th i was told i couldnt file and that my benefits were exceeded and to file a new claim. So ? when this all goes threw hopefully soon will i get back pay fromt the time they suspended my benefits till the 18th. and will i be eligable to get anoter extention if i call?. also about how long is it going to take to recieve our back pay? and wil it just be one lump some ? as some call it. and my last question is are yu allowed to go to school while on unemployment if yu have a full eightg hour day still opened for work oppertunity cause i here yes and no from all over the place and i wasnt sure if anyone knowe the correct answer. i know i asked alot and probally didnt make sence but thanks to anyone willing to read and respond!
Reply to this comment
by jbp_angel July 27, 2010 2:13 AM EDT
To those awaiting their checks from this "extension", here is a bit of info for those who don't know.
This is NOT a new tier. I know if we believed it was, many others got their hopes up as well. The truth is that it only extends the time frame in which you can file/receive already existing tiers. This new law DOES NOT help those who have exhausted those tiers no matter how long they have been without work or how hard they have tried to find work.
The media should give more adequate information when reporting on this. As many news articles as I've read, and all those everyone I know has read, not one newspaper iterated that this is not a new tier.
Reply to this comment
by jbp_angel July 26, 2010 5:03 PM EDT
I don?t know if you actually read the comments but I would really like something looked into. My husband has been out of work since Jan., 2009. He exausted his tiers 1-3 benefits. He has only received roughly 72-75 weeks (he lost benefits 2 months ago), not the 99 weeks everyone is talking about. Yet, Utah states he doesn?t qualify for more. Can you tell me why some get 99 weeks and some don?t? Or is Utah jerking people around? If it is Utah screwing their claimants out of benefits, and possibly other states, who do we contact to complain?
We don?t even live in Utah, he was force to apply there because the trucking company he worked for was based there. We lived in WA at the time, and CA now (we lost everything and had to move in with family). Both WA and CA have pretty high unemp. rates.
Reply to this comment
by tly8860 July 25, 2010 6:12 PM EDT
To everyone that is on unemployment and is responding to these blogs. I just contacted my unemployment agency and ask what do I do now that the president has signed the extension. They said it won?t go into affect for at least 2 to 4 weeks. So that is more time families go without because the GOP wanted to play politics with our lives. So we can sit in front of our computers and complain. That might make you feel a little better to let off some steam but the Senators that are blocking the extension benefit bill are not reading these blogs. They don?t care. What we can do is take action. Start calling every Senator that blocked this bill for two months. Most of these guys that opposed the bill are millionaires, so you can see why they don?t care. To find your Senators contact info go to Senate.gov. Once you get their DC office number and fax number blast their phones with calls everyday. Some of them are saying unemployment benefits is just an incentive to not look for work and have even said we were lazy. So call and call and call.

To anyone that believes we are sitting on our butts and not looking; let me tell you what is going on. Two major things.

1) When companies were forced to lay off workers their goals didn?t change they were still in business to make a profit and if they had share holders they still had their yearly projection that was promised to the share holders. So what they did is just made the people they kept work harder and longer. Maybe had some people that were in management get back to physical work instead of just supervising. So if they hit their goals with less workers there is no incentive to rehire until their goals are too high their current work staff can?t reach it. So less labor and hitting quarterly goals creates larger profits.
2) I been in management most of my life and wither you are a manager of a small business or a big enough business that you have a Human Resource manager. Hiring can be very stressful. They are looking for a person that will be right for the company and stay and help the company succeed for a long time. So when they are looking at applications and interviewing people they have those criteria?s in mind plus they have a pay scale in mind. So they are not going to hire someone that was making $90,000.00 for a $45,000.00 a year job . Why? It is not just because they might be over qualified; it is will this person stay with us for the long term? or until a better paying job comes up. Yes, during the interview most applicants will say they are looking for anything right now and will be a loyal employee. The interviewer knows that as soon as that person gets called back to their old job or is offered a higher paying job they will leave 99.9% of the time. So part of there job of hiring is to find a person for the job that will stay and keep turn over down. That means be very careful who you hire because every person you hire cost a company around $3,000.00 to $5,000.00 in training. ? of that amount on the new hire and the other half for the person spending time training the new hire, plus the hours of paperwork done when there is a new hire. So every time you lose that hired person the company takes a loss. By the way high turnover is #1 on the list of losing your job as a manager or HR manager.

This doesn?t stop us from looking but just shows the reasons why we are not getting call backs from resumes or applications. It is just the facts, a SUBWAY owner isn?t going to hire a person that was making $50,000.00 a year and train them when they can hire a person that has worked in that field or prior work history pay scale is close to what he is offering. He just can?t waste time with turnover.


Lets not forget the 99ers ? Also don?t forget who caused the delay in the extensions vote them out!
Reply to this comment
by babooph July 24, 2010 7:26 PM EDT
Great he has the brains to change- our prior president had the delusional belief the GOD was telling him what to do& did not think of changing GODS will....
Reply to this comment
by Darr247 July 24, 2010 7:17 PM EDT
Your math doesn't 'add up.' $34 billion split among 2 million people over 26 weeks is more than $650/week... I don't know anyone making $650/week on unemployment - do you?
Reply to this comment
by galindok July 24, 2010 7:00 PM EDT
Just add up a few figures, and notice how the whole mess was brewed during the Bush years.

In January 2001 the national debt was $5.6 trillion. In January 2009 the national debt was $10.6 trillion. Today the national debt is $13.2 trillion. The 2001-2009 $5.0 trillion debt increase was spent by the Bush administration in providing a tax heaven for the richest of the rich, and funding two fully avoidable wars with no benefits to the American people.

The $2.6 trillion increase during the Obama administration has been entirely directed to mend the economic wreck the Bush administration promoted, and to aid American workers overcome the result of Bush's failed economic policies.

Being an outsider (I'm neither an American, nor live in the USA), I have no partisan bias.
Reply to this comment
by BoldChapeau July 24, 2010 6:53 PM EDT
The only time the Repuglicans are concerned about the deficit is when money will be spent to help anyone. I don't remember hearing any complaints from them during Bush's 8 years in office when the debt was run up on his endless wars.
Reply to this comment
See all 456 Comments
.

Follow Political Hotsheet

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook
  • Building You a Better Morning

  • CBS This Morning

    "CBS This Morning," anchored by Charlie Rose, Gayle King and Erica Hill, airs weekdays from 7 to 9 a.m. ET and at the same time in other time zones.
    Learn more...