When A Cut Isn’t A Cut
Only in the world of politics can words mean things very different than what we might think.
It usually comes during budget debates, where if one side doesn’t get as much money as they want for something, they accuse the other side of “cutting” funding…even though the total amount may be going up.
We’re now hearing that from Washington on the unemployment insurance issue. As part of measures to help Americans during the pandemic, Congress passed funding adding $600 per week to existing unemployment benefits, but that was limited to a four month period, which expires at the end of this month. In other words, if you were unemployed, you got your unemployment insurance check from the state, plus another $2,400 per month on top of that from the feds.
Some at the time noted it created a disincentive to returning to work, since that extra payment if extended for a full year would be $31,200…which alone was more than some were making at their jobs. But those folks were ignored because we were all panicking due to the pandemic.
Now that the funding is set to end after the designated four month period, those on the left are calling out those on the right for “cutting” unemployment benefits. It’s not a cut, because those state administered benefits are still there in full…the bonus amount ends. Yes, a reduction in overall funds…but it’s hardly a cut.
Sort of like if you paid your child an extra allowance in the summer because the child mowed your lawn…and they then expected it to continue even though there was snow on the ground. Then again, that bonus was tied to work, not lack of work…well, you get the idea.
Whether this extra benefit should continue or not may be an idea worth discussing…but to scream in a shrill voice that heartless Republicans want to cut unemployment is a cheap election year stunt…and incorrect.
