Jobless benefits end for 230,000 this weekend

posted at 10:41 am on May 11, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Eight states will cut off long-term jobless benefits this weekend, which comes from an agreement in Washington to dial down the length of benefits from 99 weeks to 79.  The move will add more than 230,000 to the numbers of those cut off in 19 other states, bringing the total this year to over 400,000 who have been dropped before the end of the 99-week provision.  But Congress isn’t the only driving force behind the change.  Thanks to the oddities of the jobs data, the federal formula for jobless funds have shut down the support:

Most states provide 26 weeks of benefits, and the federal government provides the rest, partially through a complicated formula that requires jobless rates to be both high and increasing to reach the benefit limit.

But the nation’s jobless rate has been steadily declining — from 9.1 percent in August, to 8.1 percent last month — causing the maximum benefit period to contract in most states. The extended benefits were reauthorized in February, but efforts by some Democratic lawmakers to adjust the formula in a way that would have kept the 99-week limit intact were unsuccessful.

Although unemployment rates are declining, job growth remains weak. More than 5 million Americans have been out of work for at least six months, and the average duration of unemployment for the 12.5 million jobless Americans is 39 weeks, according to the Department of Labor.

The nation’s jobless rate may have been steadily declining, but not the number of jobless people in the potential workforce.  That’s part of the problem with reporting on jobs numbers over the last three years.  The previous 27 years saw either a steady increase in the percentage of people participating in the workforce or a steady plateau in the measure.  Here once again is the 30-year chart for the civilian population participation rate, which sets the denominator for the equation that produces the overall unemployment rate:

For 20 years, that rate held very steady, which made the overall unemployment rate a very reliable indicator of job growth and job destruction in the US economy.  The sharp drop in the participation rate changes the context of the jobless rate.  Don’t forget, as I mentioned in my column for The Fiscal Times yesterday, that our population added at least 4 million people as eligible to the workforce over the last three years of recovery.  Even though we have appeared to regain the jobs lost since January 2009 in this chart, the context of population growth shows that we haven’t even really kept pace with the post-crash loss:

One can argue that we have made up the ground lost in 2009 on jobs, or at least had until March and April of this year. That ignores the problem of population growth.  Economists differ on how many net additions of working-age adults occur on an average each month, with a range from 100,000 to 160,000.

Even at the low end of the range, we would have added 3.9 million working-age adults to the workforce over this period of time, and at the more-accepted benchmark of 125,000 per month, that number goes up to 4.68 million. As this chart shows, just by getting back to the start of 2009, we are now 4 million jobs or more further in the hole.

We have added more than 7.9 million people to the category of workforce-eligible persons not in the labor force since 2009, and the most rapid increase has come post-recovery:

Those numbers continue to climb.  In that period, more than five million have moved to disability insurance (another 225,000 in April alone), most likely after their jobless benefits ran out, while another million still want to find work while not formally participating in the labor force by looking for work.  Thanks to that exodus — and thanks to that exodus alone — the jobless rate has fallen to a level where even more people will get thrown out of the workforce.

The Washington Post only notes the aftereffects of this problem while repeating the contextless claim that “the nation’s jobless rate has been steadily declining”:

The GAO estimates that 2 million people exhausted unemployment benefits as of early 2010, and although some had spouses or accumulated assets for financial support, nearly one in five fell into poverty. An additional 3.5 million exhausted benefits in late 2010 and 2011, the GAO reported.

“These cuts are coming faster than the economy is improving, which means more workers will have to survive without any jobless assistance, and families will have less money to put back into the economy,” said Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project.

The real problem is that we have added only 1.862 million jobs since the June 2009 recovery while adding 4 million people to the eligible workforce.  We have spent the last three years falling behind, not catching up, and the media seems incapable of connecting those dots.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Still falling backwards. Forward! Dang it! Forward! WTF !

Bmore on May 11, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Maybe I’m just spitballin’ here, but I bet Booosh had something to do with this! Or Heterosexuals.

search4truth on May 11, 2012 at 10:46 AM

So the unemployment number will go down some more.

Just think – if 0bama can figure out a way to make everyone lose their jobs, the unemployment rate will eventually reach ZERO

cane_loader on May 11, 2012 at 10:46 AM

We have a lot of bad economic coming out the next 6 months:

*Inflation
*Gas Prices
*Unemployment
*US Debt
*US Credit ratings
*Slow Down in Europe
*Obamacare costs
*Income Tax increases on business
*Another class of college students with no jobs
*QE 3 devalue

Oil Can on May 11, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Maybe I’m just spitballin’ here, but I bet Booosh had something to do with this! Or Heterosexuals.

search4truth on May 11, 2012 at 10:46 AM

lets start a new trend…

OOOBBBAAAMMMMAAA did it!

upinak on May 11, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Inevitable.

Oh, what the hey… let’s extend the bennies to 199 weeks…

//

Logus on May 11, 2012 at 10:47 AM

We have spent the last three years falling behind, not catching up, and the media seems incapable of connecting those dots.

It’s almost as if the media wants to cover up bad economic news.

I wonder why?

/sarcasm

MidniteRambler on May 11, 2012 at 10:48 AM

It’s almost as if the media wants to cover up bad economic news.

I wonder why?

/sarcasm

MidniteRambler on May 11, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Cause they like shiny things?

Bmore on May 11, 2012 at 10:49 AM

I wonder how many of those folks have been working under the table for quite some time and have been taking the unemployment check up to the maximum 99 weeks? Sure a lot of them haven’t been, but you know that a lot of them have.

The public morality on taking “free” money from the government through benefit fraud has just evaporated in the last 25 years….

cane_loader on May 11, 2012 at 10:50 AM

….which means another 230,000 people will simply cease to be according to the magicians at the Dept. of Labor that compute the “unemployment figures” for preezy king putt.

GrassMudHorsey on May 11, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Just think – if 0bama can figure out a way to make everyone lose their jobs, the unemployment rate will eventually reach ZERO

cane_loader on May 11, 2012 at 10:46 AM

The easiest way to have unemployment reach zero is to fire the Zero…

Archivarix on May 11, 2012 at 10:50 AM

OOOBBBAAAMMMMAAA did it!

upinak on May 11, 2012 at 10:47 AM

The truth is NOT an option. You should know that. There’s probably an executive order somewhere detailing it.

Oldnuke on May 11, 2012 at 10:51 AM

At least there is this. The unemployed should really enjoy this read, I’m thinking.

Bmore on May 11, 2012 at 10:53 AM

If Clinton were President, he’d give a heart rending speech and win votes on the economy. He’d approve the oil pipeline and sandbag it after the election. Obama pivots to irrelevant nonsense to distract. Clinton’s right, Obama’s an amateur. Thank goodness Clinton isn’t making the calls.

Fenris on May 11, 2012 at 10:53 AM

A 7-11 clerk and I would make small-talk every time I came in, while I was taking care of business in California. I had had major surgery and so the topic of discussion one day was when he asked how much my medical premium was.

Once I told him, and told him I was paying it myself, he looked at me like I was crazy and asked why I was “wasting my money.” He said I could get it for free by applying for benefits.

I asked him who was paying for those benefits; he said “no one – it’s free!”

I then tried to explain how they weren’t “free,” but it went right over his head.

cane_loader on May 11, 2012 at 10:54 AM

What would Julia do?

Philly on May 11, 2012 at 10:55 AM

The easiest way to have unemployment reach zero is to fire the Zero…

Archivarix on May 11, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Yes… and no.

Were Romney president right now, the same unemployment rate currently being reported as falling, would consistently be reported as rising.

The media, by putting its finger on the scales, is destroying our ability to self-govern, by supplying twisted “facts” to the public.

This needs to be fixed, or we cannot fix America.

cane_loader on May 11, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Sure the economy is circling the drain but 0bama is for gay marriage!!

jukin3 on May 11, 2012 at 10:59 AM

I then tried to explain how they weren’t “free,” but it went right over his head.

cane_loader on May 11, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Which is why he’s a 7-11 clerk and will be till the day his benefits run out….or he dies.

Oldnuke on May 11, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Aren’t there always people on unemployment whose benefits end every week? It’s not like people sign up up for UIA benefits in groups of hundreds of thousands.

Bill Brasky on May 11, 2012 at 11:00 AM

He’s an immigrant to the land of free stuff.

cane_loader on May 11, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Just think – if 0bama can figure out a way to make everyone lose their jobs, the unemployment rate will eventually reach ZERO

cane_loader on May 11, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Joe Biden – “That’s right, I’m telling ya we need to increase the debt by borrowing to grow our way out of this”

Nancy Pelosi – “Unemployment benefits will improve the economy”

Your vapid observation is solid truth to their leaders.

DanMan on May 11, 2012 at 11:01 AM

One can argue that we have made up the ground lost in 2009 on jobs

Why on earth use that date.

That date is meaningless. Democrats like it because many of the job losses occured before Obama took office. But every other recession the job loss started at the beginning of the recession so that is the date used. Obama promised to fix the economy not just stop the recession. Obama never said sorry about those millions that lost jobs I do not want to help you because Bush was President then. That would have been heartless.

Well it is heartless to use the Jan 2009 date and meaningless. No good reason to use it. Use the 2007 date when the recession actually started.

Steveangell on May 11, 2012 at 11:02 AM

“Your mattress is FREEEEEE!”

(Sit ‘n’ Sleep ad)

My old pop loses his mind every time that guy comes on.

“Nothing’s FREE!!” Dad says.

cane_loader on May 11, 2012 at 11:02 AM

We have spent the last three years falling behind, not catching up, and the media seems incapable of connecting those dots.

Wake up Ed, you can be your very soul if Sarah Palin were president they would be screaming this 24/7. Remember what I keep telling you. Words have meanings.

Fifth Column Treasonous Media.

Words have meanings.

If the Fifth Column Treasonous Media accurately and truthful reported the unemployment situation, that the real unemployment rate in America is between 14 and 21 percent, Obama would have a better chance of getting the snow-cone concessions license in he11 than of being reelected.

The Fifth Column Treasonous Media, aka Marxism Incorporated will continue to lie, distort, deceive, manipulate and spin to whatever degree they believe necessary to keep Chairman Obama in office so that he can finish his fundamental transformation of America from a representative Republic into a Marxist Utopia.

SWalker on May 11, 2012 at 11:03 AM

RNC ad attacks Obama for ‘forgetting’ recession

Flora Duh on May 11, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Great ad.

Steveangell on May 11, 2012 at 11:06 AM

and the media seems incapable of connecting those dots.

Oh, they’re capable…just not willing. #bias

cicerone on May 11, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Maybe I’m just spitballin’ here, but I bet Booosh had something to do with this! Or Heterosexuals.

search4truth on May 11, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Yes, Bush did have something to do with it. He and Republicans in congress are mainly to blame, in fact. They increased government significantly and let the Federal Reserve finance it all with sharp increases in inflation. Obama was merely a second act that wouldn’t have happened, otherwise.

rickv404 on May 11, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Someone who know, tell me if I’m wrong, but if those 230,000 people now actually try to get a job, wouldn’t that make the unemployment number go up?

stenwin77 on May 11, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Obama was merely a second act that wouldn’t have happened, otherwise.

rickv404 on May 11, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Yeah, but 0bama’s second act is to World War II as Bush’s first is to World War I.

Mega-differences in the scale of destruction.

That’s like the suspect caught at the murder scene, “yeah, I blew his head off with a 12-gauge. But that other guy that got away hit him in the leg with the baseball bat, FIRST!”

cane_loader on May 11, 2012 at 11:11 AM

“These cuts are coming faster than the economy is improving, which means more workers will have to survive without any jobless assistance, and families will have less money to put back into the economy,” said Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project.

I’ve kinda been harpin’ on this. Obamavilles. The media hides the ugly facts to prop up their hero and avoid their own shame.

The misery cannot be wished away. The people cannot be distracted from it. We are reminded every time we open a bill, or buy groceries. Those of us that can afford food. The homeless and hungry need no reminder.

dogsoldier on May 11, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Someone who know, tell me if I’m wrong, but if those 230,000 people now actually try to get a job, wouldn’t that make the unemployment number go up?

stenwin77 on May 11, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Yes.

One pill makes you larger; one pill will make you small.

cane_loader on May 11, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Yes.

One pill makes you larger; one pill will make you small.

cane_loader on May 11, 2012 at 11:11 AM

And two blue pills are prescribed by Agent Smith President Obama…

SWalker on May 11, 2012 at 11:14 AM

But but gay marriage and free birth control. Pay attention to THOSE!

gophergirl on May 11, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Yeah, but 0bama’s second act is to World War II as Bush’s first is to World War I.

Mega-differences in the scale of destruction.

cane_loader on May 11, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Regardless, we wouldn’t have Obama without Bush and Republicans in congress on his watch, just as we wouldn’t have gotten Clinton without Bush’s father.

rickv404 on May 11, 2012 at 11:18 AM

rickv404 on May 11, 2012 at 11:18 AM

I agree with you. That’s all history, so I guess you’re not trying to make a larger point?

cane_loader on May 11, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Regardless, we wouldn’t have Obama without Bush and Republicans in congress on his watch, just as we wouldn’t have gotten Clinton without Bush’s father.

rickv404 on May 11, 2012 at 11:18 AM

You do know that from 2006 congress and the senate were democrat controlled, right? Of course you knew that, but admitting to the facts would destroy your little meme wouldn’t it.

SWalker on May 11, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Regardless, we wouldn’t have Obama without Bush and Republicans in congress on his watch, just as we wouldn’t have gotten Clinton without Bush’s father.

rickv404 on May 11, 2012 at 11:18 AM

And we couldn’t have gotten bin Laden without Bush.

Nothing happens in a vacuum. I guess I’m not sure of the point you’re trying to make. Everything that happens is in response to something which happened before? I don’t think that’s really in dispute anywhere.

Washington Nearsider on May 11, 2012 at 11:20 AM

This president really is historic. Let’s vote for him again!

/sarc

gwelf on May 11, 2012 at 11:22 AM

If Republicans want to throw Obama an anchor, the house could pass a bill to extend benefits to 99 weeks this fall. Dems either pass it a raise the unemployment number before the election, or look heartless compared to Republicans.

WhatNot on May 11, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Yeah, but, but, but, we are headed into “Recovery Summer”!!!

. . .

. . .

. . .

Again.

Gunlock Bill on May 11, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Yes, Bush did have something to do with it. He and Republicans in congress are mainly to blame, in fact. They increased government significantly and let the Federal Reserve finance it all with sharp increases in inflation. Obama was merely a second act that wouldn’t have happened, otherwise.

rickv404 on May 11, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Indeed GW was worse than Carter in his second term. He lost seats in 06 for us and then got even worse like he wanted to destroy the Republican Party like he was enjoying watching the GOP burn while he fiddled.

Steveangell on May 11, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Pass it AND raise the unemployment….

*facepalm*

WhatNot on May 11, 2012 at 11:27 AM

We have spent the last three years falling behind, not catching up, and the media seems incapable of connecting those dots.

The Democrats “inherited” a good economy from the Republicans when the Democrats took majority control in January 2007.

We have spent the last FIVE years falling behind, and the media seems incapable of connecting those dots.

The Democrats like to blame Republicans for driving the economy into the ditch, but it was Democrats behind the wheel in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012.

Democrats have held majority control (2+ out of 3) of the three entities involved in budgeting and spending (the House, Senate, and Presidency) since January 2007.

ITguy on May 11, 2012 at 11:28 AM

rickv404- wouldn’t have Obama without Bush. Not sure I follow.

You would have had either Obama or Hillary. Either Democrat would have had tendency to grow government, regardless of what their predecessor had done.

Obama has shown a strong “government will cure all your ills” meme (see: Julia) without needing any “help” from George W.

Yes, George W. spent too much money, created another entitlement program and grew government. But, what does that have to do with validating Obama’s actions?

Johnny Crow on May 11, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Some of this is due to the aging population. Can anyone provide the figures for ages 16-65? My guess is the percentage will look even worse-that there is an even lower participation of people age 16-65 in the workforce now than in a long time.

This is a threat on many levels-if people aren’t working, they are frequently drawing benefits. Also, they aren’t paying for any of our society (government) costs. More and more federal spending is being paid for by fewer and fewer taxpayers, with lower income jobs.

In addition to looking at workforce participation, can anyone determine what real wages per employee, adjusted for inflation, are?

I’m thinking this economic crisis is deteriorating very rapidly, easily within 5 years. Unfortunately not enough voters may see this by November.

talkingpoints on May 11, 2012 at 11:34 AM

As long as these people are on unemployment, they’re still counted as part of the rate because they are still seeking a job. When they go off it will probably make the rate go down because a certain number of them will give up and no longer be counted.

This also creates a huge problem for the next president. When/if the economy picks up, a lot of these people that gave up will start looking again and the unemployment number will rise despite the turn around. This won’t be so bad for Obama because the media will spin it for him, but they’ll tear Romney a new one.

ReaganWasRight on May 11, 2012 at 11:34 AM

“Jobless benefits end for 230,000 this weekend”

Let’s face it, these louts are already discouraged job seekers therefore they’ll drop from the denominator and drive down the unemployment and participation rates further.

…unprecedented, indeed…

socalcon on May 11, 2012 at 11:36 AM

….which means another 230,000 people will simply cease to be according to the magicians at the Dept. of Labor that compute the “unemployment figures” for preezy king putt.

GrassMudHorsey on May 11, 2012 at 10:50 AM

…this is good news for JugEars!
The figures will be better!
.
.
…it’s the ECONOMY stupid…!!!

KOOLAID2 on May 11, 2012 at 11:52 AM

It’s almost as if the media wants to cover up bad economic news.

I wonder why?

/sarcasm

MidniteRambler on May 11, 2012 at 10:48 AM
Cause they like shiny things?

Bmore on May 11, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Squirrel!!!!

landowner on May 11, 2012 at 11:59 AM

If Romney wins in November, the economic news in January 2013 as reported in the LSM will suddenly become catastrophic!

Christian Conservative on May 11, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Unemployment rate drops; welfare roles swell.

Philly on May 11, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Jobless benefits end for 230,000 this weekend

That should result in another drop in the unemployment percentage. There will be millions more unemployed with spring high school and college graduations, but they don’t count either since they are not technically unemployed … although since they don’t have jobs, in reality they are unemployed.

bw222 on May 11, 2012 at 12:19 PM

The scary number is that there are 142,000,000 people working to pay taxes enjoy by the 350,000,000 citizens of the United States of America. Not including the 20,000,000 illegal aliens.

LoganSix on May 11, 2012 at 12:21 PM

….and 52% think Obama is doing a swell job with the economy.

CW on May 11, 2012 at 12:21 PM

230,000 losing benefits? Hey that means the “unemployment” rate will drop to 8%!

We’re getting there! FORWARD!

GarandFan on May 11, 2012 at 12:23 PM

At a certain point, there will be a WTF moment in this country. The numbers are just too large.
With all of these folks out of work, the idiot press/govt. will issue a report that unemployement has dropped to 7.5%.
No one will believe it.

Jabberwock on May 11, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Where are.the liberal commenters they love this stuff free money for nothing this is their bread and butter free money is the economy according.to them.

tom daschle concerned on May 11, 2012 at 12:54 PM

I asked him who was paying for those benefits; he said “no one – it’s free!”

I then tried to explain how they weren’t “free,” but it went right over his head.

cane_loader on May 11, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Obama bucks or sometimes called Obama’s stash … at least in Detroit ….

a couple of radio hosts got that when they asked people
where the bailout money was coming from …

conservative tarheel on May 11, 2012 at 12:57 PM

I asked him who was paying for those benefits; he said “no one – it’s free!”

I then tried to explain how they weren’t “free,” but it went right over his head.

cane_loader on May 11, 2012 at 10:54 AM

oh, don’t even get me started, I live in Cali too…there are people here (the moochers types, for whom the welfare is passed down from generation to generation, like a badge of honor) who count the days till they become eligible for unemployment benefits, plus they get the section 8 benefits/vouchers…needless to tell you how many good neighborhoods the ghettoid types trashed…the way the way they roll is get jobs (usually menial), work for a little while, leave said jobs and it’ all about welfare from there…the extent to which low-life californians (and I am talking about the ones in large conurbations, or as someone inspiredly put it on a thread, ‘the Dim vote plantations’) work and abuse the Cai welfare system is almost surreal…

jimver on May 11, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Well, the unemployment number might just go under 8% next week after these people drop off the “official” unemployment rolls. After all, the government only counts a person as “unemployed” if he is collecting unemployment benefits.

timberline on May 11, 2012 at 1:18 PM

During a period 12 years ago while I was disabled, I applied for a Section-8 voucher. I was told it might take awhile to make it to the top of the list. Every few years they send me an update. Still haven’t made it to the top, yet, though I wouldn’t use the voucher now.

But I stay on the list, just to see how long it takes!

cane_loader on May 11, 2012 at 1:18 PM

At least there is this. The unemployed should really enjoy this read, I’m thinking.

Bmore on May 11, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Is that Julia?

timberline on May 11, 2012 at 1:29 PM

During a period 12 years ago while I was disabled, I applied for a Section-8 voucher. I was told it might take awhile to make it to the top of the list. Every few years they send me an update. Still haven’t made it to the top, yet, though I wouldn’t use the voucher now.

But I stay on the list, just to see how long it takes!

cane_loader on May 11, 2012 at 1:18 PM

sorry to hear about that…and when you thought the ‘surreal’ thing can’t get even more surreal…I read recently that (I hope it’s just a local Los Angeles county thing and it does not encompasses all of Cali) criminals and people on probation have priority for section 8 benefits over the old and/or disabled ones, if you can imagine this…guess california reached the maximum of absurdity with this ‘policy’ :-(…

jimver on May 11, 2012 at 1:32 PM

The Democrats like to blame Republicans for driving the economy into the ditch, but it was Democrats behind the wheel in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012.

Democrats have held majority control (2+ out of 3) of the three entities involved in budgeting and spending (the House, Senate, and Presidency) since January 2007.

ITguy on May 11, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Whose fault was it that the Democrats got control in 2007?

Establishment Republicans is the answer.

Sure the DemocRATS spend even more but that hardly excuses it.

Now we have an Establishment Republican as our nominee. Why have we forgotten so soon the reason we lost control?

The Tea Party is trying to fix this but as long as we give Establishment Republicans control the public will keep the DemocRATS in power. It is time that the Establishment thinks about what is best for all of us. If the Establishment thinks that losing with candidates like uber liberal Mitt is the right course it is time to get rid of the Establishment Republicans completely. Make them totally unwelcome. If Mitt loses I say boot them out.

Steveangell on May 11, 2012 at 1:32 PM

White House lied, jobs died
By Michelle Malkin • May 11, 2012 09:49 AM

ITguy on May 11, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Whose fault was it that the Democrats got control in 2007? Establishment Republicans is the answer.

Steveangell on May 11, 2012 at 1:32 PM

dang, and I was thought it was Satan’s :-)…

jimver on May 11, 2012 at 1:38 PM

I thought that is…

jimver on May 11, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Rush was talking about this today after receiving a call from an IL man who saw a press release at his local UE office about the cancellation of the Extended Benefits. Apparently in Feb when the the Prez and Congress approved funding to continue ue benefits until the end of the year along with the “payroll tax cut,” they also agreed that the EB would be discontinued if the unemployment rate in the states went below a certain number. It’s all computed with smoke’n'mirrors and Obama voodoo math.

MahaRushie prognosticated that next week Obama will blame–and excoriate–the House Repubs, claiming it’s their fault cuz they insisted on it or no deal. Yeah, I’m sure Boehner and Cantor twisted Oblamer’s pinkie to force him to agree to it. He was mad and now he’s going to get even by using it as a campaign tool as he tries to convince us all that he cares about us and they don’t.

IL’s rationale for qualifying to discontinue the EB is a claim that it’s added 142,100 jobs since January 2010–yes, they’re computing on the job level of over 2 years ago and probably are not including the same number of people who were in the workforce then. They also claim that unemployment decreased in every metro area compared to a year ago, though it’s still 9.0% in the Chicago metro area–spinspinspin.

stukinIL4now on May 11, 2012 at 2:05 PM

but efforts by some Democratic lawmakers to adjust the formula in a way that would have kept the 99-week limit intact were unsuccessful.

Here is a compromise: rather than redefining the formula how about redefining the way we calculate the unemployment rate so that it recognizes all those who are without work. I am sure that the resulting number would be sufficient to extend those expiring benefits.

Laurence on May 11, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Expect June unemployment to drop to 7.9% as those people stop looking for work.

Steve Eggleston on May 11, 2012 at 2:29 PM

230,000 losing benefits? Hey that means the “unemployment” rate will drop to 8%!

We’re getting there! FORWARD!

GarandFan on May 11, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Actually 7.96%, which along with the normal reduction in the labor force will translate to 7.9% (though I can’t rule out 7.8%).

Steve Eggleston on May 11, 2012 at 2:30 PM

June’s Headline…….

Social Security disability claims up 230,000 for June.

pjean on May 11, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Next Friday you will hear that jobless claims are down 230,000 and that is great news for the unemployment rate.

Greed on May 11, 2012 at 5:52 PM

If Romney wins, which I hope he does not, Just wait until they do start reporting all of this. It will be revealing, but mostly, it will be massively destructive to the Republican party. Enjoy your just rewards Republicans for picking not only the worst possible pick from those available, outside Ron Paul, but the man least capable of arguing that he understands your pain! End of the GOP is on the way. It makes me sad, and happy at the same time. For one, it will be replaced with something new, hopefully something conservative. I do not think I can support the Republican party that has PROGRESSED so far so quickly that a man who considered himself to the left of Teddy Kennedy can become the standard bearer.

astonerii on May 11, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Those blaming this on aging population are wrong. There has been no discernible increase in early retirements for the duration of the downturn.

astonerii on May 11, 2012 at 7:12 PM