Emily Arrowood, who previously worked for the Democratic National Committee (it’s not even hidden, it’s in her bio) asserts that:
Fox News suggested that unemployment benefits and other government assistance programs contribute to the nation’s unemployment numbers, and even claimed that people are quitting their jobs to become eligible for benefits. In truth, unemployment benefits stimulate the economy and create jobs.
No, if you’re receiving unemployment it means you don’t have a job. How does sitting at home and collecting a paycheck stimulate the economy? And furthermore, if you can collect more on unemployment than you would by working, why wouldn’t anyone just collect unemployment?
But Econ 101 be damned.
Arrowood continues, stating that “[i]n 2010, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) determined that increasing aid to the unemployed would have a bigger impact on the economy than reducing taxes.”
Here’s what the CBO says:
CBO estimates that [increasing aid to the unemployed] policies would raise output cumulatively between 2010 and 2015 by $0.70 to $1.90 per dollar of total budgetary cost.
CBO estimates that reducing employers’ payroll taxes would raise output cumulatively between 2010 and 2015 by $0.40 to $1.20 per dollar of total budgetary cost.
So according to the CBO, cutting just one tax, among the smallest of business taxes, can be equivalent to the economic gains of increasing unemployment benefits.
Imagine how much the economy could grow if they cut more business taxes!
Arrowood then cites, “The Economic Policy Institute’s Lawrence Mishel explained that unemployment insurance is ‘such good stimulus’ because ‘virtually every dollar spent on extending unemployment insurance benefits goes directly, and immediately, toward the purchase of local goods and services, providing an extremely efficient demand boost.’”
Arrowood neglects to mention that Lawrence Mishel runs the liberal Economic Policy Institute and is cited as a “progressive economist” by no less than Paul Krugman.
So Arrowood’s proof of the economic gains from unemployment benefits is a misappropriated study and a biased economist.
Arrowood marches on:
What’s more, the notion that one could quit work in order to receive unemployment benefits is nonsensical — In order to be eligible for unemployment insurance (UI), the Labor Department makes clear, you must be “unemployed through no fault of your own (determined under State law).” And importantly, as CBO explained, “To maintain eligibility for benefits while unemployed, UI recipients must search for a new job and, in some states, must accept a reasonable job offer.” Despite the facts, conservative media have a history of denying the realities of unemployment benefits.
First, if you quit your job for just about any reason outside of walking in and telling your boss to fuck off, you can qualify for unemployment.
Second, you have to search for a new job…within 73 weeks. That’s a year and a half when you can maintain unemployment and receive benefits, also known as a sabbatical plus five vacations.
This isn’t conservative media denying any realities, this is real info from the Department of Labor at state and federal levels.
If anyone here has an agenda, it’s Emily Arrowood, former employee of the Democratic National Committee. Warping facts, using biased statistics, and ignoring objective government data to push a point of view isn’t a strong argument, it’s propaganda. And the media does it time and time again with less and less shame.
