Employment Report Underscores Need for Oregon Voters and Congress to Step Up
Chuck Sheketoff
Although offering the first glimmer of hope for recovery in the job market, today’s Oregon employment report confirms the need for three public policies: federal extension of unemployment insurance benefits, a federal extension of COBRA health insurance supports, and voter approval of the tax cut for the unemployed contained in Measure 66.
The Oregon Employment Department reported today that Oregon’s unemployment rate for December 2009 stood at 11 percent, essentially unchanged from the prior three months. In addition, the state saw job gains for the first time since July 2008, with the addition of 2,900 jobs in December.
This recession, long-term unemployment has become more common. In 2009, on average 26 percent of Oregon workers remained unemployed for 6 months or longer, the highest level seen in records kept since 1994. With jobs projected to remain scarce, the well-being of Oregon communities requires Congress to extend federal unemployment insurance provisions that would otherwise expire in February.
Congress can also help protect the unemployed and their families by extending the federal COBRA subsidy. COBRA allows certain workers to maintain job-based health insurance coverage for themselves and their families when they lose a job. For the unemployed, however, maintaining such coverage is often unaffordable, since the laid-off worker is responsible for all of the premium cost. That’s why Congress wisely enacted a subsidy for COBRA benefits as part of the Recovery Act last year, but the provision expires in February.
By acting quickly to extend unemployment benefits and the COBRA subsidy, Congress can help shore up the unemployed and their families as they face a uniquely challenging job market.
Oregon voters must also do their part to help unemployed Oregonians by voting “yes” on Measure 66 (and don't forget "yes" on 67) in the January 26 election. That measure would enact a tax cut for an estimated 270,000 taxpayers, representing about 17 out of every 100 taxpayers.
An extension of unemployment insurance benefits and COBRA subsidies and a tax cut for those who relied on unemployment insurance would not only help those impacted directly by the recession but also help stabilize Oregon’s economy.
Chuck Sheketoff is the executive director of the Oregon Center for Public Policy.
You can sign up to receive email notification of OCPP materials at www.ocpp.org
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jan 20, '10
Very nice article about medical insurance industry. But you could get medical insurance for your entire family at the best price from http://bit.ly/68ShhE if you spent few mins you can find a good plan.
Jan 20, '10
The "unemployed" have become such a carefully honed statistic, that it means little anymore about them, but more about short term industry trends. Does anyone track the real unemployment rate, the one that shows that 1 in 4 males qualified and wanting to work are not, as trends? I would argue that the stimulus package has been more than a flat curve, looking at the entire jobless population. There has been an uptick since September.
It seems that relief geared toward those that fit the statistical definition is more about making the stat look better than helping the ones that have been suffering the longest.
Jan 20, '10
IMO, the unemployment stats don't tell the whole story. It doesn't count the under employed or the unemployed that have fallen off the rolls. In addition, I believe the unemployment rate reported is the average. It varies depending on gender, age, profession, etc.
Jan 21, '10
Chuck,
Would you publicly relent on 66/67 if there was enough money in the coffers to cover the budget hole without the passage of 66 & 67? Or would you still argue that these taxes are necessary, not for the money, but for the fairness?
I'm just curious.
Jan 21, '10
Don Smith commented: ...Or would you still argue that these taxes are necessary, not for the money, but for the fairness?
Let me branch predict here that it wold be the latter... because if the current budget hole was covered we'd then be hearing about the ~1% cut in the General Funds budget. Then it would be all the 'cuts' administered in Kulongoski's budget.
Even if every $ every state entity asked for was provided it wouldn't be enough for then they'd just dream up all sorts of new things to spend money on. Which is part of why we today have a list of 'essential' things longer than it was 20 to 30 years ago. Yet somehow people in Oregon back then managed to survive and even thrive.
10:48 a.m.
Jan 21, '10
I've been thinking about the employment question a lot these past few years. My sense for a while has been that we're done with the levels of consumption we saw in the past. So, that means less need for as many stores, and as many workers to make/ship/sell said stuff. If that's the case then we'll probably not be returning to the levels of employment we saw in the past, and if that's true, then what's the longer-term solution to high unemployment? Do we create a WPA scenario and put people to work building necessary infrastructure, planting trees in the forests and such, and if so, for how long? One of the thoughts in the book "Hot, Flat and Crowded" talked about one of the cheapest and best investments we could make is in providing adults more continuing education. Whether on-line or in schools, there seem to be a lot of adults available for this, with lots of time on their hands. So, that's also one route we could be pursuing - increasing access to adult continuing education. I don't have the answers, obviously, but I do think it makes sense to start thinking of this situation as somewhat permanent, and possibly something that will "get worse". I've always been a Goodwill shopper, and need very little new stuff to keep me going. As more people join me in this way of living (just guessing that's what's happening), unemployment will probably increase. And underemployment, that's got to be huge, as well. I think it behooves us to not just focus on "job creation" for the sake of job creation and numbers, but to really consider how best to move forward given the new circumstances of less demand for goods. Also, I hope that Obama's record is not judged on job creation, both because he inherited a crappy hand, and also given that our society may have woken up from its consumption or bust mentality.
5:10 p.m.
Jan 21, '10
some background to my previous comment:
<id>In our surplus economy, though, many people could get by with significantly less income and more free time than they now have. The choice between more free time and more income is now critical to determining what sort of lives people lead. We can no longer afford to overlook it.
This choice between more free time and more income is also important to dealing with our most pressing environmental problems. For example, a recent study by economist Mark Weisbrot found that, if Americans worked as few hours as western Europeans, it would lower our energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent.14
A movement toward simpler living could help to reduce all our environmental problems. But that movement cannot become widespread until people are allowed to choose their work hours and to make a deliberate decision about whether they want to consume more or to have more free time. </id>
Downshifting and Work-Time Choice
Jan 22, '10
You can make the post closed to comments if there's not going to be a discussion. I hope you're not the 4th regular contributor to adopt "post and run" or "post and peek". I would have liked to have heard responses to all of the above. Excellent point/questions.
<hr/>