Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) has announced that he will not support the bi-partisan bill. To explain his position, Mr, Paul said: "(It is) our moral obligation as a society to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. Liberal pundits try to argue that Democrats are the only ones who care about the poor and unemployed, but the truth is, caring doesn't help unless it is linked to good policy."
what eye thynk: Mr. Paul seems to support the oft-voiced Republican opinion that people who are still unemployed after six months are unemployed by choice--that the benefits given to them by the government make them so comfortable they see no reason to go back to work. Without benefits to rely on, these people will be forced to go out and get a job, thus immediately reducing the number of unemployed to pre-economic collapse levels.
By denying benefits to those unemployed for longer than six months, Mr. Paul actually expects us to see him as a benevolent benefactor, a man willing to help the little guy learn to stand up on his own; for without the guidance offered by visionaries like Mr. Paul, surely these poor unemployed souls would remain mired in the false comfort of unemployment benefits, never to realize the joy and self-worth that a job could bring to their lives.
Okay, enough sarcasm.
To support his ridiculous position, Mr. Paul cited a study published by Rand Ghayad, doctoral candidate in economics at Northeastern University. Mr. Ghayad, upon seeing his study used to support Mr. Rand's argument responded:
"Paul cites my work on long-term unemployment as a justification--which surprised me, because it implies the opposite of what he says it does...
...Paul misreads my work to try to back up his argument. He says my paper, which shows that companies don't want to hire people who have been unemployed for more than 6 months, proves his point about long-term benefits...How does he figure this? Well, Paul thinks that 'extending long-term benefits will only hurt the chances of the unemployed in the job market,' because longer benefits will make them choose to stay unemployed longer--at which point firms won't hire them. But just because companies discriminate against the long-term unemployed doesn't mean long-term benefits are to blame. Paul might know that if he read beyond the first line of my paper's abstract...
...There is no evidence in my study, and almost no evidence elsewhere, that cutting unemployment insurance would increase employment much at all. There is some evidence that it would lower the unemployment rate, but only because people would give up looking for work, and no longer count as unemployed. So eliminating benefits for 4.1 million long-term unemployed people might hide some of the problems with our labor market. But it would do nothing to cure them. It would only cut off a vital lifeline for the long-term unemployed and their families.
According to Paul, 'caring about the unemployed doesn't help unless it is linked to good policy.' Of course. But good policy requires more than a cursory or selective reading of the research on unemployment."Mr. Ghayad summarizes his difficulty with Mr. Paul's position this way: "People aren't long-term unemployed because they prefer getting benefits. People are long-term unemployed because there still aren't enough jobs."
There appears to be enough support from both Democrats and Republicans to pass the benefit extension bill in the Senate. Whether it can get through the House is another matter. Let's hope someone in that chamber takes the time to "read beyond the first line" of the studies out there. Surely our long-term unemployed deserve that much respect.
No comments:
Post a Comment