Democrats blast ‘unconscionable’ filibuster of unemployment benefits extension

Democrats are furious about what they call an “unconscionable” one-man filibuster of a measure that would temporarily extend jobless benefits. At stake are unemployment benefits and an extension of COBRA subsidies, as well as a short-term extension of the Highway Trust Fund authorization that expired over the weekend.

Kentucky Republican Jim Bunning said he wants the extension to be paid for out of unused stimulus funds. As long as the bill isn’t fully paid for up front, he said he’ll continue his filibuster.

Several Democrats released scathings statements condemning the hold — Reps. Jim Oberstar and Betty McCollum both called it “outrageous,” while Sen. Al Franken deemed it “unconscionable.” Sen. Amy Klobuchar said the measure has more than enough support to pass the Senate, adding in a conference call with reporters that Bunning’s hold “makes no sense at all.”

Oberstar spokesman John Schadl said 1,818 Minnesotans stand to lose their COBRA subsidies, which offset continued health insurance costs for the recently unemployed, and will face the choice between paying the full amount of coverage (between $500 and $2,000 a month) on whatever income they have left or simply going without. If they do decide to drop coverage, Schadl said, they aren’t allowed to restart it if and when the subsidy is reauthoraized.

Unemployment benefit reductions are somewhat tricky to gauge. Schadl explains:

“The Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development estimates that from 8,000 to 9,000 Minnesotans could be impacted by the failure to extend federal unemployment insurance. Since Minnesota has an additional emergency unemployment program that many of these people may be eligible for, it is unlikely that benefits will quit flowing in the next few days.  However, DEED officials say they are being faced with an ‘administrative nightmare,’ as they try to redirect thousands of recipients into the correct programs.  If the federal extension is not renewed, many unemployed Minnesotan’s will see the term of their benefits shortened by up to 13 weeks.”

The hold also forced the federal Department of Transportation to furlough 2,000 federal employees today, and suspend work on dozens of highway and transportation projects. None of those were in Minnesota, however, as a state Department of Transportation official said they had been planning for such a contingency.

“We’re OK in the short term,” said Mn/DOT spokesman Kevin Gutknecht. “We can still authorize and let projects, and we’re still doing that.” Asked what if the short term meant days, weeks or months, Gutknecht said “weeks.”

For his part, Bunning seems content to keep up the hold, though indications are that it will be overridden this week or cast aside by Senate leaders who may decide to move a bigger, longer-lasting bill that he won’t be able to procedurally object to.

Just don’t ask him about it.

ABC News reported that when one of their producers tried to question Bunning as he left his Hart Building office, Bunning responded by saying “I’m not talking to anybody” then saluting the reporter with one finger raised — you can guess which one.

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (3)

  1. Submitted by steven gray on 03/01/2010 - 05:31 pm.

    “umemplyment benefits” in the _headline_? Maybe you guys could hire some of the copy editors the Tribune fired. I like your reporting, but really, even a spellchecker would have caught that!

  2. Submitted by Ralph Wagner on 03/02/2010 - 01:27 am.

    It is just ashame that this man is alowed to breath! As a Senator, he is one of the people responsible for the great transfer of economic wealth from our country to else where in the world. Instead of putting the best interests of all Americans first, he decided to put the best interests of corporations, lobbyists, bankers, and wallstreet first. This is not a depression nor is it a recession, but a culmitive effect of over forty plus years of offshoring/outsourcing never before seen in recorded human history! When our president and congress say were on a global economy, their saying that we must side with corporate greed at the exspence of the best interests of all Americans. Leaving our local communities broke, our states bankrupt, and not for the emporer’s new clothes, our federal gov. bankrupt! The Sen. along with several others should be charged with Treason against the United States. No one gave him the right to deal with communist countries, no one gave him the right to destroy the very fabric of what makes a country great. No one gave him the right to put the best interests of corp. America over the best interests of all Americans. We have just scratched the surface of what is yet to transpire. For every one major manufacturing job lost, ten service related jobs are affected. Right now, in most of your communities, the service related jobs are being sustained by the stimulas money(police, fireman, state workers, and teachers). Once the money stops flowing then what!!! When the congress says we should focus in on small buisness, that means that the corporate world does not want congress to implement fair trade laws instead of free trade. Alot of your small buisnesses depend on major manufacturing overflow and money for support of thier products to be produced! Forget about green jobs, I worked on green jobs. The windmills I produced/asembled, 95% of the parts were made in China and India, which account for 98% of jobs generated, the other 2% would be the jobs we recieve for installation and maintaining. I could go on and on about how we Americans got the royal shaft.

  3. Submitted by John Roach on 03/02/2010 - 10:26 am.

    Senator Bunning objects to government spending that isn’t “paid for”?

    I’m sure that if we looked at his record we would find that he consistently voted against all the appropriations for the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. No doubt he also voted against all of the Bush tax cuts. And I’m sure he objected extensively to the Medicare part D legislation.

    So, if that is the case, I wonder why he voted against the Pay-As-You-Go legislation that every single Republican in the Senate voted against this past January?

Leave a Reply