EDITORIAL: Snyder's cuts to state unemployment benefits favor bottom line over problem solving
A press release sent Monday from Gov. Rick Snyder’s office, titled “Snyder Signs Bill to Protect Unemployed” could not have had a more misleading headline.
The governor approved a bill this week that was supposed to help unemployed workers by extending federal unemployment benefits for up to 99 weeks. However, without much fanfare, an earmark was slipped in the bill that limits state-funded unemployment benefits to 20 weeks, making Michigan the only state that offers less than 26 weeks of unemployment benefits.
Michigan has a 10.4 percent unemployment rate; only four states — Florida, California, Nevada and Rhode Island — have higher rates, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. That figure represents about 950,000 people. Reducing unemployment by six weeks would obviously save the state a lot of money.
But as has become a pattern in this early chapter of Snyder’s time in office, the bottom line is favored to fixing the actual problem, or helping the people suffering from said problem.
The problem with this plan is not necessarily the act of cutting unemployment benefits. Doing so discourages people from living off the state en lieu of working and encourages the unemployed to work harder to find a new job faster. But as far as dealing with unemployment, this should have had been designated “Step Two.”
“Step One” should have been taking more aggressive steps toward reducing the unemployment rate and creating more jobs. “Job creation” very well may be the phrase that has left Snyder’s lips more than any other.
If he had taken more time developing job growth and waited longer for unemployment to drop as a result, this cut would not seem as intense or cruel. If the job market in the state was better, or if the unemployment rate was at or below the national average, such a cut may still be considered extreme, but it would at least be justifiable.
As it is, this is clearly a matter of Snyder and the legislature trying to cut money from the state budget — in an earmark to a non-budget-related bill, no less — by putting even more hardship on the people that have been hit hardest by Michigan’s economic situation.
A statement from the Michigan Chamber of Commerce estimated the bill could save the state as much as $300 million yearly and is “a huge win for job providers.” However, the state government’s interests should be in helping and protecting working people and those who have lost their jobs — the people that need state aid the most.
