Progress Illinois

Last week, Rep. Mark Kirk joined five other GOP members of the Illinois congressional delegation in voting against a federal extension of unemployment benefits, a move that would help an estimated 4 million Americans whose aid is running out in a time of great need. In both an email to supporters on Sunday and an interview on WIND's John and Cisco in the Morning today, Kirk defended his decision by pointing to a provision in the bill that drops the longstanding requirement that applicants must have worked at least 20 weeks to draw federal unemployment benefits. He and his Republican colleagues claim that this would allow someone who had worked as briefly as two weeks to collect up to 52 weeks of unemployment checks.

Listen here:

Internal mp3

But while it's possible that someone who worked two weeks could ultimately collect federal benefits, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) recently explained why it's "misleading" to point to this scenario as evidence that the bill's coverage is overly broad:

No workers would qualify for extended benefits unless they already met the typically quite stringent requirements that states impose for receiving regular unemployment benefits. These requirements are an important reason why only 36 percent of unemployed workers nationally receive regular UI benefits. [...]

Only in rare circumstances could a worker with such a limited work record meet his or her state’s regular UI requirements, which target assistance on workers with a demonstrated attachment to the labor force. Moreover, workers with quite limited work histories who do manage to qualify typically get only a small weekly benefit and only for a very limited period of time (for many fewer weeks than the maximum 26 weeks).

Such is the case in Illinois, where eligibility requirements are comprehensive. Indeed, if you live in the Prairie State and you want to collect federal unemployment benefits for only two weeks of work, here's what you need to do first:

- Qualify for state unemployment benefits by spreading that two weeks of work over at least four consecutive quarters (three-month periods).

- Exhaust the benefits awarded to you by the state. Because of the limited duration of work, you'll probably receive the minimum payment of $51 a week. Though this is highly unlikely due to your limited work record, let's assume that you get 26 weeks of benefits -- the maximum length in Illinois. That would amount to a whopping $4,000 dollars over six months -- $1,200 dollars below the federal poverty level for the same time period.

- Now, after persisting for more than a year-and-a-half on $4,000 -- plus whatever you earned during that two weeks of work -- you're ready to apply for your federal extension. Of course, you'll qualify for a measly weekly benefit and for a duration equal to only half of the number of weeks allotted to you by the state.

As you can see, the scenario Kirk seems to be envisioning -- in which workers quit their jobs after two weeks to live off the taxpayers' dime -- is highly unlikely. And as the CBPP report points out: "the share of the additional benefits under the bill that would go to workers with very limited work records is almost surely miniscule."

The sensationalized image of a dependent "welfare queen" was once politically potent for the GOP and it seems they're going back to the well. But this time around, they don't have a leg to stand on. Kirk and his colleagues should come clean about the real justification for their vote.

For more on Kirk's fudging of the numbers, check out our previous post on his false claims about the uninsured population in America.

From Kirk's email to supporters:

Do you think taxpayers should pay for up to nine months of unemployment benefits after holding a job for only two weeks?

Sounds crazy, doesn't it? But it's actually what would happen under legislation that just passed the House. [...]

Instead of targeting relief for those hit hardest, the House approved a $14 billion spending bill to give nine months of unemployment benefits to people who held a job for as little as two weeks.

I support giving unemployment benefits to people who lost their jobs. In Illinois, you have a right to six months of benefits. In tough economic times, the federal government should offer three additional months. To get these extended benefits, both Presidents Clinton and Bush required that a person actually had their job for five months before qualifying for extended benefits.

It makes sense: to get extended unemployment benefits, you must have at least worked for a few of months.

But under the House bill, beneficiaries would be paid by taxpayers for more than nine months even if they only worked two weeks. This would be the first time in over 25 years that taxpayers would pay for people who did not work at least five months before unemployment -- in effect, turning our common sense unemployment system into something that could be abused.

Transcript of Kirk on John & Cisco in the Morning:

JOHN HOWELL (co-host): Talking here with Congressman Mark Kirk on AM 560 WIND. I know recently you voted for a plan to extend unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks. To qualify you needed to have that job for five months. That plan would cost about 7 billion dollars. But recently your friends there in the house voted for taxpayers to pay up to nine months of unemployment benefits to a person if they held a job for what, two weeks?

KIRK: Two weeks, and that's the real dilemma here. We want to extend unemployment benefits as we have before during tough economic times. And so in Illinois you have a right to 26 weeks of benefits. During a recession the congress, at times, has provided up to 13 additional weeks so you'd have up to nine months of unemployment benefits. But President Clinton President Bush, they both required that to get the long unemployment benefits you had to have at least had your job for five months.

The House of Representatives said: "no we want to provide these benefits to people who have had a job for as little as two weeks," and I think that doesn't make common sense. It also doubles the cost of the bill to taxpayers. And one of the great bipartisan achievements of the congress is welfare reform and ending a culture of dependency. We have a common sense unemployment insurance system and I think we ought to keep that key principle that to get extended unemployment benefits you at least should have had a job for a couple of months.

HOWELL: As a small business owner I'm going to think twice about hiring anybody (laughing) Anybody in this day and age when people need work! I'm going o think twice about hiring them out, if they only need to work two weeks before I have to provide them with unemployment insurance.

KIRK: Obviously if you're providing a large amount of more benefits to a greater amount of people you've got to raise unemployment taxes. And that means, as you raise taxes, you get less employment. And so I think that in this tough economic time, a temporary extension for people that held the job for a long time, that makes sense. But two weeks, that's probably not enough.