Jeff Swiatek, writing for the Indianapolis Star, reports that the Daniels administration is considering rejecting federal money to pay unemployment benefits, citing concerns about strings attached to that money. In particular, a condition for receiving the $148.5 million is that the state offer unemployment benefits to two of the following three categories of workers: 1) Workers who quit their jobs to enroll in job-training programs; 2) Laid-off workers who have dependent children; or 3) People who quit their jobs for “compelling family circumstances,” such as domestic abuse.
The real debate is whether these policy choices are the right ones. If they are, then the legislature should make them and take the money while it’s available to help fund the transition. If they aren’t, then the legislature shouldn’t make them just to get the money.
I have to say that I’m scarred in this debate by my experience as a debt collector. There are plenty of people who just get in a tough place because of the economy. But, there seem to be a non-trivial number of deadbeats out there. Guys (and it’s almost always guys) who work a couple of months, live on unemployment for awhile, work a couple of months, then take a couple of vocational classes but never really finish the course, then work a couple of months, then maybe start applying for disability. These guys will usually owe child support and maybe be in and out of jail on low level offenses. Contact with these types of people has dampened my desire to expand unemployment benefits. But if they happen to be a relatively small part of the system, concerns over these abusers of the system shouldn’t drive the policy.
Anyone who has filed their own taxes knows that our government isn’t afraid of using complex rules for how money is taken/given. Why can’t we have more complex rules regarding the deadbeats you describe? Instead of it being a big pile-o-cash, can’t we have some qualifications that would push people acting in the way you described either out of contention for benefits or into a lower benefit bracket?
It’s just depressing when the best argument against something that would help a lot of people is that some of those people would just abuse it. A sentiment I’m sure you share.
I’m a bit confused on why this story exists. This debate already occurred last session. Democrats tried to get this language inserted into various bills numerous times and Republicans turned it down. The decision has already been made.