U.S. unemployment benefits extension stalls in Senate

WASHINGTON Thu Jan 9, 2014 6:44pm EST

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) speaks to reporters after the weekly Democratic caucus luncheon at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, January 7, 2014. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) speaks to reporters after the weekly Democratic caucus luncheon at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, January 7, 2014.

Credit: Reuters/Jonathan Ernst

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Democrats on Thursday offered a new plan to revive federal unemployment benefits until mid-November and pay the $18 billion price tag with new spending cuts, but hopes of a bipartisan deal dissolved into bickering by day's end.

"The package does what the Republicans wanted," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, said on the Senate floor. He said the cost of renewing the jobless benefits for about 1.4 million long-term unemployed Americans would be "entirely paid for" and would contain "structural changes they (Republicans) were demanding."

But key Republicans promptly rejected the Democratic initiative to renew the benefits that expired on December 28, dashing hopes earlier in the day that the two parties were moving toward a compromise.

Indiana Senator Dan Coats complained that the cost of the new federal benefits would not be covered until years in the future.

"It's pretty hard to explain to anybody outside government, 'Let's spend the money now and we'll send you a check'" in a decade or so.

Coats was one of six Republicans who on Tuesday helped Democrats advance the debate on a three-month extension of the federal benefits that were helping the unemployed amid a 7 percent national jobless rate.

Democrats, who control the Senate 55-45, need the support of Republicans like Coats to overcome procedural roadblocks and win passage of any unemployment compensation bill.

The expiration of federal jobless benefits initially left more than 1.3 million long-term unemployed people without weekly payments that averaged about $300. Reid said that since then, the number has grown to about 1.4 million.

Democratic Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, one of the negotiators, late on Thursday declared on the Senate floor that "We are still trying to find a bipartisan approach" that can pass the Senate and House of Representatives.

Under the latest Democratic initiative, most of the $18 billion cost would have been offset by extending automatic spending cuts, known as "sequestration," meaning that the savings would be achieved in 2024, according to a Senate aide describing the plan.

A small amount of additional savings would have been achieved by tightening requirements for people who collect both jobless benefits and disability payments, Reid said.

Reid also said the measure would "reduce slightly" the number of weeks a jobless person could collect payments, which could have presented problems for some liberal Democrats.

Democrats had been pushing for a one-year extension of the expired benefits while Republicans have said they would go along with a three-month renewal, but only if the costs were covered.

(Additional reporting by David Lawder, Editing by Chizu Nomiyama, Jonathan Oatis, Cynthia Osterman and Ken Wills)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (14)
ralphos wrote:
One less atomic bomb should cover it.
I know one less space station.

Jan 09, 2014 4:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Easy way to pay for it, get rid of oil subsides. by my memory that accounts for more then $18 billion a year.

@ralphos, The Space Station more then makes up for the money spent on it in research/prestige. If anything we should spend more money on NASA.

Jan 09, 2014 5:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Randy549 wrote:
“The additional savings would be tacked onto the end, meaning that they would be achieved in 2024.”

Which means that they will never, ever, happen. Reid might as well have proposed something with no savings at all (which is what he did the last time he proposed this). “Paid for” should mean at least within the current budget cycle.

Jan 09, 2014 5:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.