Bunning Has Successfully Blocked Extension of Unemployment Benefits, COBRA Funding, and Highway Money
Feb 27th, 2010 | 87 responses
Now, at least, Sen. Bunning’s hard work is done and he can go home to a well-deserved rest and a truly awesome weekend:
The Senate failed late Thursday to extend programs for laid-off workers, jeopardizing unemployment benefits scheduled to expire over the weekend.
The benefits are part of a larger package of government programs, from highway funding to loans for small businesses, set to expire Sunday because senators couldn’t agree on how to pay for an extension.
The House passed a bill Thursday extending the programs for a month while lawmakers consider how to address the issues long-term. Senate Democrats repeatedly tried to follow suit Thursday night but they couldn’t overcome the objections of a single lawmaker, Republican Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky, that the $10 billion bill would add to the budget deficit.
The bill would extend unemployment payments to laid-off workers and provide them with subsidies to help pay health premiums through the COBRA program. It would extend funding for highway projects and spare doctors from a 21 percent cut in Medicare payments. It would extend a small business loan program, the National Flood Insurance Program and the copyright license used by satellite television providers.
The Senate adjourned just before midnight with no further votes scheduled until Tuesday. To avoid an interruption in benefits, senators would have to act quickly when they return, a task made difficult by Senate rules that let a single senator slow the process. Bunning vowed to fight the extensions as long as they add to the deficit, though he acknowledged they will probably eventually pass.
87 Responses to “Bunning Has Successfully Blocked Extension of Unemployment Benefits, COBRA Funding, and Highway Money”
I'll bet there are a lot of Americans who like 5 minutes alone in a room with this guy. Too baed he didn't just retire from baseball and fade away…
And all he did was insist that they demonstrate how they were paying for this. Oh the unmitigated horror of wanting to know how the bills would actually be paid. Thats all he asked for. Its a demand not often enough made by the people who spend other people's money.
How dare the bastard demand that something be paid for before it passes!!
Pretty soon he will not be willing to extend the federal debt limit to a new record high. What ever would we do?
No, certainly not deficit reduction!!!!
$15 million dollars went to 'build a bigger, better airport' for the town of Ouzinkie, Alaska, population 165, what would they do with a debt cap?
$7 million to build a bridge in Thedford, Nebraska, to help 168 residents avoid a 30-second wait at a local train crossing. The horror if they didn't have that stimulas money.
and those poor people at that $100,000 Martini Bar and Brazilian Steakhouse paid for with stimulas funds.
Gee what a beast this man is.
I agree and I'm a Republican! (An unemployed Republican widow with only 2 weeks more U. I. benefits.) I'm spending this weekend packing my belongings in preparation for giving up my apartment. I hate the rising national debt, but would rather see individuals with decades of good work history benefit, rather than most of the other contributing reasons.
Spoken like a person who hasn't applied for almost 300 jobs in the last 10 months.
I'm regressing to high school theatrics here, but –
“Ice BURN!”
Your lack of compassion is astounding.
We can increase our debt for wars…to save wall street…to cut taxes…but help those put into a terrible situation by the same people we bailed out….that is somehow out of the question. Of course I wouldn't expect much more from a Republican from Kentucky.
Let's set aside Jim Bunning for a sec. They guy's a tool, I totally agree with that.
But let me play devil's advocate here for a second. At what point does a government aid program like unemployment benefits and COBRA convert from a system meant to help people who've been hit by tough times into a system of dependency and a burden on the taxpayer? How do you determine the right time to pull back that help?
Let's look at the harsh, cold reality of jobs. Over the last two years, we had many “bubbles” burst. The stock bubble, the housing bubble, and the labor bubble. That's right: relative to the rest of the world, we were paid more than we were worth in dollars. The result: the bottom fell out and lots of people lost their jobs and now we have 10% unemployment. Basically, because of rampant debt (private and public) and a house-of-cards financial system, our very economy was valued higher than it really was, so everything crashed, and that includes the labor market.
So now we have this long-term “underemployment” problem. Good jobs are gone, seemingly forever, and folks are having to take lower-paid jobs or part-time work, if they get a job at all. It'll take years and years to get out of it, that's what so many economists are saying. And with overseas competition, a culture of Corporate offshoring, and all the failings of our government and education systems, it'll be a hard struggle for the jobless. I think those who are looking for jobs understands that reality all too well.
But for how long are we to pay unemployment benefits? At what point do we have to say “I'm sorry Mr. Programmer, but we simply can't afford to keep paying you to be unproductive” and end benefits? Not trying to be mean here, it's just a reality that we can't keep paying people who are not contributing to the economy. That'll lead to a culture of dependency and be an anchor on all of us.
I don't know when that should happen, but we are going to have to make that call. If it'll take 5, 7, or 10 years to get unemployment back to 5%, there's no way we can afford to extend unemployment benefits that long. At some point, people will have to take a job, any job, and be happy to have it. Our nation is regressing, going backwards, and we can't prop it up by extending benefits from an empty coffer.
Gads, I'm depressing this morning, aren't I?
“Your lack of compassion is astounding.”
I agree, shannon. Hey Leo…. you're usually a little more tactful, bro.
Don't get me wrong….. I'm sure there are millions of people who don't want to work and just getting the check, but you have to feel for those who lost their livelihood, especially one-income families.
There's an idea! Force two-income families to give up one of their jobs and give it to someone with NO income. The two-income people could then sell one of their cars, not have to eat out every day, and save 25% of their budget on childcare!
What a concept!
Although I'm generally of a similar mindset about thinking of the long term social effects, in the present situation I disagree. Since so many jobs really have disappeared, there are large numbers of people who need extended unemployment benefits. To not provide that will only lead to a further downward spiral of the recession and more job losses because when so many people have no money to spend, consumer demand continues on a downward trend and more and more businesses are affected.
As far as Bunning…I don't know the details and again am generally of similar mindset to some of the other conservative commenters here abour calling to actually pay for the bills that are written, and to make sure all of the money is targeted correctly (no pork), but I still think he's being a tool. This isn't the particular time or the particular piece of legislation on which to draw a line in the sand.
If he wanted to make the point, then perhaps he could have given a floor speech about how he felt forced to vote for this because of the reasons I already mentioned, but at the same time felt that the folks who wrote the bill and those who'd added earmarks were taking advantage of the situation and that they were being irresponsible by not calling for spending cuts in other areas in order to pay for it.
One added note though about some of the comments…why is it acceptable in a case like this to imply that violence against this guy would be understandable? To me that's not much different than those idiots who said that the IRS had it coming to them when the deranged guy flew his plane into their office building.
There comes a time when one needs to set aside trying to score political points and show some compassion. This is one of those occasions. There will be plenty of more grandiose opportunities to make political hay and to get seriously down to the more constructive, long-term task of reducing the defict, balancing the budget, control spending, etc.
Now is the time to help those who are in some very dire straits.
Just an opinion
CStanley–
Republicans didn't pay for the wars they started.
Republicans didn't pay for the Medicare Drug Benefit, the largest entitlement program since the 1960's.
If there's some spending they paid for in advance, please provide some links
Republicans didn't pay for the Medicare Drug Benefit
And it's your opinion they shouldn't have?
Leonidas–
I might agree with you, if I knew the details proving your points, that spending $15 million to benefit only 165 people in Alaska and spending $7 million to benefit only 168 people in Nebraska qualify as outrageous.
But I'm sure you know that millions of people depend on unemployment benefits and COBRA.
Right?
If there's some spending they paid for in advance, please provide some links
Why are you asking me to provide evidence to back up an assertion I didn't make? To the contrary, the whole premise of my comment is that all of those spending sprees should have been paid for as well, and that's why Bunning is an idiot for choosing this point in time, and this type of legislation, to make fiscal responsibility an issue.
Dr J–
I'm not sure what point you think you're making. But I certainly do think that Republicans should have paid for the spending they instituted back when the economy was in good shape.
Do I think that these profligate Republicans are nothing but hypocrites today? You bet I do, Dr J!!! If you want to defend them and free-spending ways, go ahead and do it.
But there's much more to my complaint about the Republicans than their history of hypocrisy. If Republicans had actually been fiscally responsible back when they ran the government, the economic crisis we are currently in would not be so devastating.
If Republicans wanted to regain some credibility–in my view, at least–they'd put forth proposals to cut spending. They'd be specific about what they want to cut.
Instead, we get Republican Senator Bunning successfully blocking benefits that millions of people need to keep them solvent.
Dropping benefits for millions of people is not going to improve the current economy.
CStanley–
While it's true you called Bunning a “tool”, you also said this:
So thank you for clarifying.
This whole episode would actually be pretty funny if it weren't so sad. On one hand you have the Dems hammering away at Bunning claiming that he “doesn't care about the unemployed”. They make all of these threats about how they are going to break him and come to the rescue. And then this happens:
Someone please explain who is at fault in this circus. The guy who's managed to be a one-man wrecking crew or the spineless cowards who are afraid to do anything about it?
It…would spare doctors from a 21 percent cut in Medicare payments.
This 21 percent cut is actually built into the Democrats health care plan and is a large part of the budgetary shenanigans they used to make the plan deficit-neutral. The problem is no one actually expects doctors to take the pay cut and will eventually be reversed after the plan is pushed through.
Personally I think Bunning is being an ass (I would add an additional syllable to that but this is a family website) but this does spotlight the dishonesty inherent in the Democrat's health plan.
I'm not sure what point you think you're making. But I certainly do think that Republicans should have paid for the spending they instituted back when the economy was in good shape.
Just asking what behavior you'd like to see in a case like this. If you're in favor of knowing how to pay for what we spend, and if you believe Republicans' record in this area is abysmal, surely Bunning deserves praise for a step in the right direction. You're lamenting Republicans' free spending and not failing to propose spending cuts, yet Bunning just did the opposite.
As for the specific issue, many struggling people here in Californian are facing drastic health insurance rate increases precisely because the government forced the insurance companies to extend Cobra benefits yet had no plan to pay for them. Anthem/BlueCross is getting pilloried over the issue, but the math isn't that complicated, and they've shown both to external auditors and to the insurance commissioner. So I agree with you, figuring out how to pay for things like this is extremely important.
If this is all about Bunning “not caring about the unemployed”, consider this little bit:
So, Reid knew this deadline was coming up and had the extension in that jobs bill, but decided to pull it out anyway? What kind of heartless man is he?
Dr J–
At the end of my comment I said this:
If you want to praise Bunning, go ahead. But–to quote one of CStanley's comments from earlier in this thread–I think “This isn't the particular time or the particular piece of legislation on which to draw a line in the sand.”
As far as COBRA goes, it's my understanding that this extension provides government-paid subsidies for COBRA recipients, so I'm not sure why that would would make rates go up. I don't live in California and haven't heard much about Anthem/Blue Cross, but a quick Google search pulled up this brief article from the California Independent Voter Network.
Here's a quote:
Jchem–
Reid and Durban should have resigned a long time ago. The Senate Democrats are, as a group, just awful. (Here's a link to me saying these things from a year and a half ago.)
But it's still Bunning who's using some undoubtedly time-honored rule to block this extension.
Reid isn't heartless, just incompetent.
George, I totally agree with you. But to me, it seems that this is an episode that displays perfectly how dysfunctional the Senate has become, whether the Dems or the Repubs are in charge. Reid had this extension in the jobs bill, but pulled it out; no one said a word about who did or did not care for the unemployed. Durbin made all of these threats to Bunning about how he was actually going to make him filibuster. They had him at the breaking point but gave up. What has been demonstrated is a complete lack of leadership, and anyone trying to turn this into a partisan “its all the other sides fault” is simply dishonest. The lesson to learn:
Anyone who is looking for work right now probably doesn't give a rat's rear who gets credit for making things better. They just want to work. And in one month's time, no one in government has been able to make it happen.
The problem with Bunning and other Republicans suddenly finding religion on PAYGO is the level of opposition they provided to the concept and how many years they completely ignored the concept when it came to their pet projects.
Actually the biggest cuts in Medicare under the Democratic plan is in a program that the CBO has confirmed as resulting in overpayment to private insurance companies.
Jchem–
I suppose you think I'm just a partisan hack. Still, here's another quote from that article you linked:
I added some emphasis.
As I'm sure you've heard, there's a party of no. And if you go back up this thread, you'll see a normally sensible conservative commenter defending Bunning by comparing this unemployment benefit extension to some $7 million dollar bit of pork barrel spending.
While my dismay is certainly equal to yours, I can't match your passion. Via con dios, my friend.
George, I never said you are a partisan hack; I was actually agreeing with the point you made earlier and especially with your comment on Polimom's old post. I'm afraid I've lost a lot of my passion for sensible political discourse. Every single post anymore, whether it be here or elsewhere in the blogosphere, seems to pick a side and do nothing but rail against the other. I admire those who have the energy to constantly defend their own, ridicule the other, and tell themselves they are doing what's right, regardless if it is or not. But I thought those people had names like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. It just seems that as much as they are looked at with disdain, much of the blogosphere seems ok with emulating them.
I guess to make a long story short, I'm not defending Bunning; KY will be much better served by someone else. But I just can't let the other clowns off the hook for letting him do what he's doing. Its essentially the dumb encouraging the dumber.
Hear, hear, jchem. I wish more of the authors and commenters were willing to see the faults on both sides. Even if you think it's worse on one side than the other, it's no reason to ignore wrongdoing on the part of the party that is somewhat less bad (in fact, you should realize that that's exactly what they're counting on you doing.)
OK, this is one of the times I'm going to have to agree but also say that the Dems too use PAYGO when it suits them and ignore it when that's convenient (anything can be made to be an emergency when necessary to create an exception.)
The Indiana-based WellPoint, Inc., California’s Anthem Blue Cross parent company, alone earned $4.5 billion in profits in 2009, up from $2.5 billion in 2008.
Yes, because of a one-time sale of a subsidiary. They lost money in California.
I agree that ending cobra on schedule will hurt some individuals, but I have no idea what impact it would have on the larger economy. Nor do I know what impact extending benefits would have, nor who would really end up paying for it, nor how that would affect the economy. Nor, I believe, does anyone else.
I do know there are few problems so bad we can't make them worse, and I'm displeased with some of the outcomes Congress has achieved when it has tried to solve every problem and do so in a rush. That's not what the Senate in particular was designed for. I don't see a lone Senator's awkward questions as evidence of either his malevolence or a broken system.
Jchem–
I get it. Thanks.
Dr J–
As I said earlier, I don't live in California and don't know much about Anthem/Blue Cross beyond what I find from a few quick Google searches.
But I haven't found anything to indicate that COBRA is to blame, as you claimed farther up this thread:
It seems to me (from what I've read today) that Anthem lost money in California for a number of reason:
– They did a poor job of properly assessing risk in the previous few years.
– The costs of healthcare are, in general, rising.
– A lot of people lost their jobs and with that lost their health insurance.
– Anthem has already alienated a significant number of lower-risk members of its risk pool with the costs of it premiums, and they chose to leave.
– Also, in spite of the failures and losses for which they are responsible, Anthem spends lavishly on its executives.
It seems to me that the Anthem/Blue Cross problems in California are a good example of the need for health care reform.
George, here's another angle:
unlike any of the GOP bills he voted for without objection that raised the deficit and the debt. IOKIYAR
really too bad he didn't see the light 5 trillion dollars ago, huh? Oh, but those were GOP bills raising the deficit. IOKIYAR
deficit reduction. not in the GOP playbook when they're in power. Oh but now they're SO serious about it. Just as long as it comes out of the pockets of the needy, not the greedy.
Dr J–
As I read through the snark of the linked article, isn't the COBRA problem in California the result of state laws?
Also, they've shrunk their risk pool:
I don't live in California, but doesn't the legislature there have filibuster-style problems dealing with financial matters?
People on COBRA aren't “high-risk.” Why should they be treated like they're teetering on the brink of death? They didn't all collectively have heart attacks. They lost their jobs!
GreenDreams–
If I conflated COBRA with the shrinking risk pool, I apologize. Unfortunately, I am unable to go back and edit my comment to clarify.
So thank you for your comment.
Isn't the COBRA problem in California the result of state laws? Doesn't the legislature there have filibuster-style problems dealing with financial matters?
Exactly. Our system basically requires a simple majority to raise spending and a 2/3 majority to raise taxes. Between that and our random-spending-generator initiative process, our lavish public employee pension commitments, our gerrymandered districts that can elect only crazed zealots, and our tight term limits ensuring Sacramento will kick problems at most two years down the road, we're completely broke and unable even to declare bankruptcy.
If the rest of the country wants to study fiscal irresponsibility, we can offer a 156,000-square-mile microscope slide. Food for thought before enacting at a national level any policy we've already tried here, on COBRA or anything else.
Actually the biggest cuts in Medicare under the Democratic plan is in a program that the CBO has confirmed as resulting in overpayment to private insurance companies.
You are correct, but that has nothing to do with what I wrote. The Democrats are building a 21% pay cut to doctors into their plan that they have no intention of actually imposing. The only reason they are doing that is to make their plan look deficit neutral.
I have been in very similar situations, sjones. I wish you every possible lucky break — you are overdue for one. Please know that far more people here at TMV, and out in the world, in general, have kind and compassionate hearts for the struggles you and so many others are going through, than the other kind. I really believe that, even though it isn't easy to believe it on some days.
Carry on. Stay strong. You are not alone.
“really too bad he didn't see the light 5 trillion dollars ago”
I don't care why the druck puts down the bottle.
Well said, shannon. Bush “paid” for most of the Iraq war off the books with money that didn't exist. Bush's Medicare Part D legislation was not paid for. Bush's two huge tax cuts for the wealthy were not paid for. I am 100 percent sure that neither Bunning nor his supporters here and in Congress uttered one peep of protest about that.
Barky, there is much that could and should be said in response to your comment, but I will leave it at this for now. This:
has zero, zilch, nada to do with Jim Bunnings blocking reauthorization of funding, which expires tomorrow, for essential human needs programs in a deep recession. If you read the link in my post, you know that the House of Representatives dealt with the same problem of long-term funding by authorizing a 30-day emergency extension of the unemployment, COBRA, and highway funding so that they could have that time to come up with ways to get that long-term funding without cutting off life support for millions of Americans who are living in desperate circumstances, and who will experience real and serious harm as a result of the absence of that unemployment check, which will not come because Jim Bunning, who probably has more money than he knows what to do with, decided that egotistical grandstanding was more important than the real lives of real human beings.
God bless you for this, Christine. It has more force (in my view) coming from a conservative than coming from a bleeding heart liberal like me.
I am so happy to be able to agree with you on something without reservation!
My answer? Both, but first and foremost the guy who's managed to be a one-man wrecking crew. He bears the most responsibility for the increased suffering he's causing.