July 1, 2010 8:26 PM

Republicans Filibuster Unemployment Aid Bill

By
CBSNews
Blank unemployment claim form on a desktop

Blank unemployment claim form on a desktop (iStockphoto)

For the third time in as many weeks, Senate Republicans on Wednesday successfully filibustered a bill to continue providing unemployment checks to millions of people.

But this time, since the slimmed-down measure attracted two Republican votes, its passage seems assured next month once a replacement is in place for Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., who died on Monday.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., a supporter of the bill, had to vote "nay" to take a procedural step that would allow for a revote. Even though the tally stood at 58-38, Democrats were in reality just one vote short of the 60 needed to beat the filibuster. Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska was the sole Democrat against the bill.

Immediately after the jobless aid vote, the Senate cleared for President Barack Obama's signature a measure to give homebuyers an extra three months to finish qualifying for federal tax incentives that boosted home sales last spring.

The jobless aid measure is one of the last remnants of the Democrats' jobs agenda, which has largely fallen prey to GOP concerns about the deficit. Although a hiring tax break passed in February, ambitious plans for new road construction, incentives for so-called green jobs, and, more recently, funding for cash-starved state governments and local school districts are languishing in the face of Republican resistance.

Save for GOP moderates Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Republicans uniformly opposed the $33 billion jobless aid measure because its cost would be added to the nation's $13 trillion national debt.

"The only reason the unemployment extension hasn't passed is because Democrats simply refuse to pass a bill that doesn't add to the debt," said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

The House is slated to vote on a companion jobless aid measure on Thursday, though the Senate's action renders it a futile gesture as Congress gets ready to depart Washington for its cherished 4th of July recess.

Without an extension, 1.7 million of the 7 million people who have been without a job for at least six months will have lost their unemployment benefits by the end of this week, according to the Labor Department.

"We have a basic responsibility to help our constituents respond to emergencies," said Reid. "We have a fundamental obligation not to deny them the help they need when they need it the most."

Obama has urged lawmakers to spend about $50 billion to help states pay for Medicaid programs and to avoid teacher layoffs, but Democrats in Congress have been unable to come up with the votes.

Governors made another plea Wednesday for money to help them avoid layoffs of state employees

"This is crucial for America and crucial to the citizens of our states," Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell said at a Washington, D.C., news conference with governors from New York, Maryland, Washington, Kansas and Michigan.

Rendell said Pennsylvania stands to lose $850 million in Medicaid money. Kansas Gov. Mark Parkinson said his state might have to lay off 3,600 teachers.

Many Democrats see state aid and unemployment benefits as insurance against the economy sliding back into recession. And most economists say extending benefits for the unemployed is a good way to stimulate the economy since the money is immediately recycled into the economy.

"It means they've got money in their pocket for the local grocery store, for the local gas station and the local hardware store," Labor Secretary Hilda Solis said. "It means more money in local economies and more job creation."

However, many Republicans and some Democrats worry about adding to the growing national debt.

"No one's disputing the value of these very important programs," said Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass. "But we also have to have tough choices and we also need to live within our means."

Brown and other Republicans want to pay for the unemployment benefits with unspent money from last year's massive economic recovery package.

The Democrats' unemployment bill would provide up to 99 weekly unemployment checks averaging about $300 to people whose 26 weeks of state-paid benefits have run out. The benefits would be available through the end of November, at a cost of $33 billion. There are no offsets in the bill, so the cost would add to the deficit.

It's a tough vote for some lawmakers who want to help constituents hit hard by the recession but are wary of being labeled big spenders.

Senate Democrats initially combined the unemployment benefits with the extension of the homebuyer tax credit. Once the combined measure failed, the Senate passed the homebuyer provision by unanimous voice vote.

Under current law, homebuyers who signed purchase agreements by April 30 must close on their new homes by Wednesday to qualify for credits of up to $8,000. The bill would give those buyers until Sept. 30 to complete the purchases and qualify for the credit. The House passed that measure Tuesday as a stand-alone bill.

AP
Add a Comment See all 49 Comments
by ejavam07 July 16, 2010 3:00 AM EDT
"Brown and other Republicans want to pay for the unemployment benefits with unspent money from last year's massive economic recovery package."

Hey, how about one less jet fighter?
Reply to this comment
by CrazyRae July 15, 2010 11:06 PM EDT
GOP couldn't filibuster financial reform, since there were 60 votes for the reform. GOP does nothing but obstruct so this country cannot move forward. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac was in the middle of the housing boom, meaning that the bad loans private companies made Fannie and Freddie had to accept. Yes, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should have been reformed so they wouldn't have to accept the scandalist loans that the fat cats pushed through. You have to understand that the financial reform bill doesn't have a lot of what the Dems wanted, but they were willing to give some things up to get to 60 votes. If your congressmen are Republicans, find out why they did not vote for the bill. Find out if they are telling the truth or not!!!
Reply to this comment
by democracy3 July 2, 2010 6:45 AM EDT
Why are completely acceptable comments being deleted?
Reply to this comment
by dale19672 July 1, 2010 11:31 PM EDT
Filibuster must have more than one meaning. I thought it meant to delay a vote or procedure. The Senate voted. The bill didn't pass. It doesn't sound like a filibuster.
Reply to this comment
by anatolemaher July 2, 2010 2:36 PM EDT
The Senate of the United States has a peculiar rule, A party can filibuster(talk something to death ) a proposed bill if the other (proposing )party does not have a "supermajority" of 60 votes, when interminable debate can be cut off and limited to a reasonable, fixed period, like a couple of hours... This was the case here.
The bill was NOT voted on, only the process to start consideration of the bill which could have been filibustered to death.
You thought wrongly.
by realist51 July 1, 2010 1:27 PM EDT
lets see how many republican'ts will filibuster the next bill that has spending for the war in iraq and afghanistan. in it or like a previous post let the tax break go through. there was a post about making six figures and wanting a tax break believe it not you gotten a couple there was 2 bush taxcuts 01,03 and one under obama. but these same people will shout and cry about federal deficit and spending yet under bush and regan there was hugh deficit spending and taxcuts at the same time now its time to shut up and pay up never forget that alot of theses same republican legislators never filibustered any spending during the bush presidency. and now there tring to play the fiscal responsible party. so when they supposedly take back the house or senate what are they really going to do? oh yea Bohners idealogy is that what happen to the economy and how it is trying to be dealt with is like killing and ant with a nuclear bomb so what happen to 8 million people losing there jobs is no big deal? maybe he should be apologizing to the wall st group for asking them to pay us back for the bail out. or like the repub running in nevada just eliminate all entitlement programs but never mentions elimination of the taxes for them. the party of borrow spend and no.
Reply to this comment
by anatolemaher July 2, 2010 6:33 PM EDT
Republicans often identify themselves as "Conservative Christians with family values and Judeo-Christian principles so here is an applicable excerpt from the book of Amos, a Jewish prophet
"Hear this YOU WHO TRAMPLE UPON THE NEEDY AND BRING THE POOR OF THE LAND TO AN END
saying'When will the new moon be over THAT WE MAY SELL OUR GRAIN ...AND DEAL DECEITFULLY WITH FALSE BALANCES..

[[Sounds familiar, like the fat cats on Wall Street and the BP oil spillers and the prostitutes they bought in Washington DC?]]

Will they sleep soundly?
"The LORD has sworn
"SURELY I WILL NEVER FORGET ANY OF THEIR DEEDS. i WILL TURN YOUR FEASTS INTO MOURNING;, BRING SACKCLOTH UPON ALL LOINS AND BALDNESS ON EVERY HEAD.."

the millions of unemployed may suffer temporarily, those politicians who trample on them now will receive their due
by jlc2196 July 1, 2010 12:31 PM EDT
Bottom line we have been paying for governmental plans for years, Welfare, Foodstamps etc. With stricter guidlines and changes in the Clintons time, that changed. But, chaning unemployment and cutting out benefits on people that cannot find a job. I have been unemployed, on and off now for 2 years, I have taken anything that I can get, I have nearly lost my house to foreclosure, and Have not been able to keep food on the table, I go a job that was made by "stimulas" money the Obama set down to stimulate the economy, and the agency that has this money is so shady that they are just spending the money how they see fit, and I lost that job, and because they wanted to protect themself they manufactured/falsified paperwork to justify my termination.

So before everyone starts yesing and yesing about cuting off benefits, there are those of us that are looking, that are trying to keep our homes for our kids, keep food on the table, but are NOT able to get the help needed from the Social Services, So is it fair that I loos my home of 10 years and live on the street? I have worked and paid into the system. I am educated, willing to work, go out every day to look for work, but there is just NOTHING out there...
SO let the Congressmen/Senators and the government parties worry just one week about how to make a house payment or have to tell their child that tonight we are eatin Mac and cheese, or sit in the dark because you cannot afford the electric bill. These are the reality of MY WORLD, <<<AVERAGE USA>>>>
Reply to this comment
by chevyhotrod July 1, 2010 12:10 PM EDT
by democracy3 July 1, 2010 5:57 AM EDT
TARP was Bush's responsibility (look it up). Nice try, though.


President Obama and the Democrats voted in favor of TARP, look it up. Of the 700 Billion, Bush spent 350 Billion and left 350 Billion for Obama to spend.

Look it up, nice try though.
Reply to this comment
by adinreno July 1, 2010 11:08 AM EDT
They pass the homebuyers tax credit bill- But not the unempolyment bill- anyone buying a home dose not need help, once again lets help people with money not people without, What's wrong with this country GOD HELP US ALL
Reply to this comment
by run2jazz2 July 1, 2010 10:36 AM EDT
I want a tax cut! I worked my butt off these years to finally make it to a 6 figure salary where I thought I could put a little more towards savings and investments. Nope, not happening as I am taxed at a higher percentage now hitting that threshold.

If the Almighty himself can only ask for 10% why should government ask for more? I say that government should only get a flat tax from all American and learn to budget their money like everyone else.

It makes no sense with ALL the people that pay taxes in this country each day that we are broke? Don't add up Joe it just don't add up!
Reply to this comment
by ATLCurtis July 1, 2010 10:20 AM EDT
It is WAY past time to re-institute the Clinton era taxes on the wealthiest 2%. These people are making gazillions of dollars a year while the rest of us can barely scrape by. That will definitely help dig us out of debt. Trickle down economics is a joke and the republicans got us into this mess with these tax cuts for the filthy rich. Greedy is as greedy does!
Reply to this comment
by AlwaysSmiling July 1, 2010 10:41 AM EDT
Something my macro-economics teacher told us strikes a chord here. The top 1% of income earners (the wealthiest 1% in other words) pay 80% of the taxes that are collected. And you think they should pay more?

Sheesh, and thy-only_king thinks the unemployed are the only freeloaders around here.
See all 49 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook