Unemployment Insurance: The Unacknowledged Consequences

Recently the Senate passed a $34 billion measure to extend unemployment benefits that had run out as of June 2010. Many called for this decision seeing it as a desperately needed step toward the reversal of the current economic recession. My initial reaction was one of shock as Uncle Sam reached into the deep recesses of his seemingly bottomless pockets to offer up this token gesture. Not only will it prove to be ineffective, but it is is irresponsible. Much of Washington obviously does not grasp the grave fact that this serves only to prolong the inevitable moment where real change will be required to correct this looming issue. That and the fact that it worsens the already sad state of the national debit which is currently in the vicinity of $13 trillion (yes, count them; that's twelve zeros).



This measure, largely viewed as a win for the Democrats, was undertaken due to the 9.5 percent unemployment rate and the Democratic Party couldn't be happier. "Millions are waiting for a fraction of their old income in checks that will help them keep food on the table this week, and keep a roof over their heads this month and keep the air conditioning on this summer," said Majority Leader Harry Reid. "Waiting for...their old income" seems to me to be the root of the issue I have with Congress' decision. I certainly cannot speak for every area of the country, but here in the mid-west there are jobs. Unfortunately for many Americans used to a $100k a year income, myself not included, and the lifestyle that that affords, the jobs available are less than desirable. In some states even, an unemployed person can collected as much as 99 weeks of unemployment. In the interest of providing perspective I will round up (by 5 weeks) and remind everyone reading that this nearly two years of benefits. Compare that to the average benefits from the early eighties of only about 55 weeks, and in less than three decades we have seen a one-hundred percent increase in jobless benefits. This has allowed the unemployed to possess a bolder "reservation wage" according to some economists. In a nutshell this is the minimum wage that a worker requires before taking a job. To those that fit into the category of the discerning job hunter, I advise learning the following phrase "would you like fries with that?" In tough times it is not the responsibility of the employed to bailout the unemployed while they hold out for that better job just around the corner.


Last year, when the recession first came into full swing, my wife found herself without a job. Within a month's time she was able to once again become gainfully employed (to use gainfully in a very loose interpretation of the word). She now makes a fraction of her former salary, but we make ends meet and have learned to live on a lower income. We now very seldom enjoy date nights out, instead preferring to cook meals at home and enjoy home entertainment as opposed to restaurants and going to the movies. The recession and lack of good jobs has affected my household too and yet I unwaveringly oppose an extension of unemployment benefits, and to an extension all forms of welfare; but that is better suited to a separate article at a later date. 


The real problem with extending the benefits is that it promotes the idea that it is the government's responsibility to take care of us; and by the government, I of course mean the government misappropriating the people's tax dollars. This nation was founded on the principles of individualism and limited government. To slowly erode those values in the interest of the faltering security the federal government can provide is to turn our back on the American ideals that built this country.