off the charts
BEYOND THE NUMBERS
BEYOND THE NUMBERS
Three Things Worth Remembering About Unemployment Insurance
February 23, 2012 at 1:00 PM
Despite the recent deal to extend emergency federal unemployment insurance (UI), the two parties hold very different views of unemployment insurance, as my blog post this week for US News & World Report notes. I highlight three points to keep in mind in future UI debates:
- UI is a safety net, not a hammock. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan has warned of “a future in which we will transform our social safety net into a hammock, which lulls able-bodied people into lives of complacency and dependency.” Research, however, mostly supports the view that UI helps people through tough times rather than turning them into lazy slackers.
- UI is a cost-effective way to increase demand in a weak economy. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently said that “Slack demand for goods and services . . . is the primary reason for the persistently high levels of unemployment and long-term unemployment observed today.” CBO also found (see Figure 4 of the study) that UI is the most cost-effective policy for boosting slack demand of the 13 policies that it examined. Moreover, emergency federal UI programs add little to long-term deficits because they are temporary; policymakers have always let them expire once the unemployment rate has fallen significantly — though not until it is much lower than it is now (see chart).
- Reforms should help the UI system meet its goals, not undermine it. As the bipartisan, blue-ribbon Norwood Commission stated in the 1990s, “The most important objective of the U.S. system of Unemployment Insurance is the provision of temporary, partial wage replacement as a matter of right to involuntarily unemployed individuals who have demonstrated a prior attachment to the labor force.” The commission recommended several reforms that would strengthen the UI system while continuing to meet that primary purpose. But some other recent “reform” proposals — to impose an education requirement on UI recipients and allow states to divert UI funds for other purposes, for example — would weaken the UI system.