Extending Unemployment Benefits Would Create 300,000 Jobs, Report Says

Unemployment benefits to expire.

WASHINGTON -- Extending the current level of long-term unemployment benefits for another year would add 300,000 jobs to the economy, according to a report from the Congressional Budget Office.

The analysis released Wednesday from the nonpartisan office estimates that keeping jobless benefits would cost the government $30 billion. But it would also lead to more spending by the unemployed, boosting demand for goods and services and creating new jobs.

Federal long-term unemployment benefits are set to expire on Dec. 29 for more than 2 million workers unless Congress approves an extension. Democrats have called for reauthorization of extended benefits, but Republicans generally oppose more jobless aid without additional spending cuts to offset the cost.

More: Unemployment Rate Falls In 75 Percent Of States

''This report is more evidence that extending help to those who are seeking work is a better investment for our economy than extending tax breaks for those resting comfortably atop the economic ladder,'' said Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), a member of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Regular jobless benefits generally last up to 26 weeks for eligible workers who lose their jobs and are seeking employment. Since the recession began in 2008, the federal government has offered up to 47 weeks of additional benefits.

The CBO report found that for every dollar of jobless benefits that the unemployed spend, there is a $1.10 boost to the economy.

Any deal on reauthorizing some or all extended unemployment benefits is likely to be part of ongoing negotiations over avoiding the ''fiscal cliff'' tax increases and spending cuts that could send the economy back into recession.

Gaming The System - Jobless Benefits Ending Up In The Wrong Hands




Don't Miss: Companies Hiring Now



More From AOL Jobs

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum

106 Comments

Filter by:
Steve Sykes

Here is how reality works. If you tax something heavily (like working), you get less of it. If you subsidize something (like unemployment) you get more of it. It is "Motivation 101". If you want less unemployment, stop making it so friggin' comfortable and never-ending. If you want more employment, stop punitive taxation of it.

December 14 2012 at 9:31 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
ccurt78

My wife and I never in our lives collected unemployment, we both did work at jobs sometimes we did not like but we worked at something. Now we are trying to exist on Social Security, which becomes harder and harder as the cost of everything continues to increase and our income has not. We both would like to work now to suppliment our income, but due to health issues, We both have Cancer, we can not. It angers me to see people on unemployment for years, because they won't take any job that they consider beneath them. And they get more on unemployment than we do on Social Security.

December 06 2012 at 5:43 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
daalives2

Did the CBO also factor in how many jobs would be lost because the federal government bills the states for these extra benefits with interest which are then passed on to corporate America which then has to pay higher unemployment taxes for its employees?

December 06 2012 at 4:18 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
bandy4321

I know when I drew unemployment it was about 1/2 of what I was making and if you have bills to pay...the math does not add up. Actually there are jobs out there but when you get use to getting some kind of payment..well...why work. DUH! CBO is just laughable. To think this is our government working for us. GEEZ!

December 06 2012 at 4:07 AM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
bufordshlup

This is beyond stupid.

Someone got paid to write this?

December 06 2012 at 3:27 AM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
TODD

only in this great country can you have a paid 40 week vacation. God Bless Americia.

December 06 2012 at 1:25 AM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to TODD's comment
Andrea

Being laid off is not being on a paid vacation. At age 64, my position was eliminated, right in the beginning of the recession. I worked very hard every day looking for work, as hard as I've always worked over the 50 previous years that I worked and paid taxes. Every week, I had to prove up my job search efforts, too, in order to receive my unemployment benefit. Sure, there are probably freeloaders on unemployment. There are freeloaders in the workplace, too. But don't lump every unemployed person as being on a paid vacation. It just isn't so. Given my age, I was not hired by any of the hundreds of places I applied, despite my education and professional experience. Cheaper for employers to hire three 20-year olds, instead.

December 06 2012 at 4:12 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
samasonsr

Extending benefits for the unemployed (to help make the safety net a hammock for many) is a noble idea. However pay for it by cutting spending someplace else. Pay as you go. If there is a tax increase on the wealthy it is already spoken for. It is needed to reduce the deficit not pay for new spending.

December 06 2012 at 1:01 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Paul and Matilda

Is there anyone out there that stupid to believe that an "extension" of benefits would create jobs????That is a very partisan point of view....Maybe if the benefits(our tax dolars) stop feeding the gravy train maybe some of them will actually go out and get a job. I'm tired of supporting laziness. Workers pay taxes. Workers find jobs. The unions are pricing themselves right out of the job market. Bye Bye steel, Bye Bye auto, Bye Bye factories. Pretty soon we will outsource teachers and just about everything else. Too bad President Never-ran-a-busness doesn't really care about anybody but himself, we might have been able to move forward and the rest of the world wouldn't be laughing at US because of vanity and selfishness.....

December 06 2012 at 12:46 AM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Paul and Matilda's comment
bandy4321

That other person was Nancy Pelosi. I think she said that $1.00..get back $1.77 or was it $2.00?

December 06 2012 at 4:09 AM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
Major

One way would have been to have voted for Mit Romney. Too late, folks.

December 06 2012 at 12:20 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Major's comment
hiker287

Thank God that didn't happen--we use to have a repuke in the white house ---remember--i do

December 06 2012 at 5:51 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
nama holston

Gives meaning to the old adage, "Robbing Peter to pay Paul!"

December 06 2012 at 12:17 AM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply

Search Articles

Top Companies Hiring

Week of Oct 19 - 26
View All

Picks From the Web