New Deal Bonus: Unemployment Compensation.
February 12, 2009 at 9:07 pm | Posted in Department of Labor, Historical, Labor | Leave a commentTags: Dorothea Lange, Economy, Franklin Roosevelt, John Steinbeck, New Deal, Peter Orszag, Photographs, unemployment insurance
Unemployment benefits aid begins. Line of men inside a division office of the State Employment Service office at San Francisco, California, waiting to register for benefits on one of the first days the office was open. They will receive from six to fifteen dollars per week for up to sixteen weeks. Coincidental with the announcement that the federal unemployment census showed close to ten million persons out of work, twenty-two states begin paying unemployment compensation. January 1938. (Photo: Dorothea Lange)
Here’s something else terrible (if you’re a Republican) that Franklin Roosevelt’s first administration did:
The program has two main objectives: (1) to provide temporary and partial wage replacement to involuntarily unemployed workers who were recently employed; and (2) to help stabilize the economy during recessions.
The U.S. Department of Labor oversees the system, but each State administers its own program.
There was continued bickering about the unemployment law creating a federal mandate to be administered by state governments, and in May 1943 Arthur J. Altmeyer, then chairman of the Social Security Board, wrote an article titled “The Advantages of Unemployment Insurance As Part of a Unified National Social Insurance Program” in which he stated:
The interview for unemployment compensation, San Francisco, California, January 1938. (Photo: Dorothea Lange)
Certainly no one would question that unemployment is at least as great a national problem as old age. So far as invading a field which historically has belonged to the States, the facts are that before the Social Security Act was under consideration, only one State had enacted an unemployment compensation law and it is doubtful whether that law would have remained on the statute books were it not for the fact that the present Federal Social Security Act creates an irresistible inducement for the States to enact unemployment compensation legislation. As a matter of fact, it was contended by opponents of unemployment compensation in 1935 that this Federal inducement constituted coercion and invasion of States’ rights. Certainly those who so contended cannot now logically argue that relieving the States of an obligation allegedly forced upon them in 1935 is an invasion of States’ rights. However, such discussions get us nowhere in deciding the basic question of what kind of an unemployment compensation system is best from the standpoint of simplicity, adequacy and financial soundness.
In November 2001 the Center on Budget & Policy Priorities (CBPP) published an article by Peter Orszag, now Obama’s Director of the Office of Management & Budget, wherein he argued that “unemployment insurance is a particularly effective stimulus”:
Bindle stiff, used to be logger. Side of Pastime Cafe. Idle three weeks before the opening of the Klamath Basin potato harvest. California, Siskiyou County, Tulelake. August 1939. (Photo: Dorothea Lange)
Those who oppose such temporary expansions in unemployment benefits often argue that the changes would merely reduce the incentives for workers to find jobs. In addition to ignoring the impact of the additional spending created by the expansion in benefits, this concern seems to be less relevant in a deteriorating job market. As the economy slows, longer spells of unemployment are more likely to reflect scarce job opportunities, rather than lack of effort in finding a new job. How many people would be willing to remain unemployed in the middle of a recession in exchange for an extra $25 or so per week?
The Bureau of Labor & Statistics has an article about events leading up to the establishment of the Federal-State Unemployment Compensation Program.
Migrant agricultural worker's family. Seven hungry children. Mother aged thirty-two. Father is a native Californian. Destitute in pea picker's camp, Nipomo, California, because of the failure of the early pea crop. These people had just sold their tent in order to buy food. Of the twenty-five hundred people in this camp most of them were destitute. February or March 1936. (Photo: Dorothea Lange)
UPDATE via Crooks & Liars:
(WaPo) It’s hard enough to lose a job. But for a growing proportion of U.S. workers, the troubles really set in when they apply for unemployment benefits.
More than a quarter of people applying for such claims have their rights to the benefit challenged as employers increasingly act to block payouts to former workers.
The proportion of claims disputed by former employers and state agencies has reached record levels in recent years, according to the Labor Department numbers tallied by the Urban Institute.
The Know-Nothings Score.
February 12, 2009 at 7:54 pm | Posted in Department of Commerce | Leave a commentTags: commerce department, Darrell Issa, Judd Gregg, Marsha Blackburn, US Census
Taking census, 1920
I could not understand for the life of me why President Obama had nominated Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) for the position of Commerce Secretary. According to the White House, Gregg asked for the nomination.
Thankfully, Gregg has withdrawn his acceptance of the nomination, citing “irresolvable differences” on economic issues.
It’s now pretty clear why Gregg accepted and why he has now changed his mind.
Republicans hoped to control the 2010 census through Judd Gregg. How do we know? Because they lost control of their collective bowels upon learning that the President would be closely monitoring the Census Bureau’s conduct of the census and Senator Gregg lost his desire to be Commerce Secretary.
At a White House press conference on February 6th a reporter asked Robert Gibbs, “Has the White House moved the control of the Census Bureau into the White House for the purposes of the 2010 census, and if so why?” Robert Gibbs basically said no, pointing out that the director of the census “works for the Secretary of Commerce, the President, and also works closely with the White House, to ensure a timely and accurate count. And that’s what we have in this instance.”
Despite the White House denial that the 2010 census would be done “in-house,” a great wailing and gnashing of teeth ensued.
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) called for an immediate investigation by the House:
“In the past few days, local elected leaders have expressed to me their grave concern that the census might be politicized. They worry that political influence from the White House will steer resources and representation away from the rural and suburban communities that I represent and towards larger urban areas. Honest and dedicated people direct the Census Bureau. The White House needs to let them get an honest count in 2010, free from undue influence.”
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) had a full-scale conniption:
“The Obama administration’s recent actions regarding the census are outrageous and unprecedented,” Issa said in a statement.
“Commanding the census director to report directly to the White House is a naked political power grab and transparently partisan,” he added. “The need for an independent Census Bureau is recognized by Republicans and Democrats alike — and every living former census director is on record supporting an independent Census Bureau.” (FoxNews)
The Republicans score multiple times with this one.
Point One: Their demand that a Republican be appointed to replace Gregg in the Senate was granted, making Democrats look like a bunch of pussies for agreeing.
Points two and three: Gregg’s withdrawal gives the Villagers more opportunity to chatter about the President’s “failed nominees” and about how the very-principled Senator Gregg couldn’t stand to soil himself by direct association with a Democratic administration, choosing to remain among the “loyal opposition” in the Senate where he could do more damage without having to do actual work be more effective.
And for bonus points, the public salting of the field has begun so that the 2010 census results can be declared unreliable and unfair.
I’m beginning to wonder where President Obama is getting some of these Cabinet suggestions from. Whoever suggested Gregg is no friend of the Obama administration or the country.
UPDATE: Nice. Apparently Gregg did not bother to notify the White House before he announced he had changed his mind about being Commerce Secretary.
Given that Gregg also announced that he would not be running for re-election in 2010, perhaps he’s just hoping to slide out before anyone looks at him any more closely.
UPDATE (2/13/09): My sense that this Gregg/Commerce nonsense is field-salting only increases. “The census has not been removed from the Commerce Department’s purview, as Ambers explains below. And past censuses have long been conducted with coordination from the White House staff.”
UPDATE (2/13/09): It took me a while but I finally discovered the basis of Republican hysteria about the census. As one would expect, it’s much ado about nothing. In fact, Ken Pruitt, who was appointed by George W. Bush and managed the 2000 census, has been asked to act in the same capacity for the 2010 census.
Samuel L. Rogers, Director of Census (1915)
(CQ Politics) After black and Hispanic leaders raised concerns over Commerce Secretary-nominee Judd Gregg ’s commitment to core functions of the Census Bureau, a senior White House official told CQ on Wednesday that the director would report directly to the White House.
That brought fire Thursday from Republicans, who accused the White House of attempting to gain advantage in the politically delicate process of counting Americans and of violating the law by circumventing the Commerce secretary. The decennial census is used to determine the apportionment of congressional districts among the states and federal funding for numerous programs.
The White House took a small step back from what the senior official told CQ, releasing a statement late Thursday that couched the relationship between the Census Bureau director and the West Wing as one in which the director would work with the high-level officials rather than report directly to them.
FURTHER UPDATE (12/13/09): FiveThirtyEight reports: “Emanuel said the idea for Gregg as Commerce Secretary had come to the White House through Harry Reid, that it was not the White House’s original idea.” Sam Stein of Huffington Post got confirmation of Reid’s involvement from Reid’s spokesman Jim Manley.
FURTHER FURTHER UPDATE (3/4/09): Oh, look! An inexplicably salted field!
Why Aren’t These People Already Unemployed?
February 12, 2009 at 5:25 pm | Posted in Department of Energy | Leave a commentTags: Department of Energy, Los Alamos National Laboratory, national security, Steven Chu
General panoramic view of Hiroshima after the bomb ... shows the devastation ... about 0.4 miles ... / official U.S. Army photo (1945)
(TPMMuckraker) It seems that the staff at Los Alamos National Laboratory is having trouble keeping track of its computers. A recent memo shows that currently 67 computers are missing and that 13 of them are confirmed lost or stolen in the past year alone. Furthermore, officials at the laboratory may have erred when they decided to treat the lost computers as a property management issue and not a potential lapse in cyber security. Among the losses is a laboratory BlackBerry that went missing in a “sensitive foreign country.” (Project on Government Oversight)
In December 2003 the nuclear laboratory facility was “praised” for its response to “discovering ten missing computer disks during routine inventories conducted in late November and early December [2003].”
What was the response which elicited praise?
Atomic Committee calls emergency meeting (Left to right: Sen. Tom Connally, David E. Lilienthal and Sen. Brien McMahon) February 3, 1950.
“Officials at the New Mexico nuclear lab notified the Energy Department and the University of California, which runs the facility for Energy.” Praising them for reporting the loss, as they were required to do, sets the bar pretty damn low.
Here we are, six years later, and these morons are just now figuring out that losing laptops and computer disks should be handled as potential risks to national security.
In early February Energy Secretary Chu recused himself from “contract, financial and certain work performance related decisions” at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore national laboratories, because they are managed by Chu’s former employer, the University of California.
This brilliant young man, appointed by the deciderer-in-chief in April 2008, continues as acting Deputy Energy Secretary.
Jeffrey F. Kupfer (Photo: DOE)
Prior to his appointment as Chief of Staff, he served as a Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy at the White House. He also served as Executive Director of the President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform. From 2001 through 2005, Mr. Kupfer was Deputy Chief of Staff and Executive Secretary at the Department of the Treasury. In 2003, Mr. Kupfer handled a temporary assignment as a Special Assistant to President Bush’s Chief of Staff.
Before joining the Bush Administration, Mr. Kupfer served as counsel for the U.S. Senate Finance Committee; a counsel for the U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs; and a trial attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice. Mr. Kupfer also clerked for Chief Judge Thomas P. Griesa in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Given the Energy Secretary’s recusal, I assume that the acting deputy secretary is in charge of overseeing management at the labs.
It’s a good thing I have already given up.
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.
Know Your Government 
