Washington, D.C. – A principios de este año, la senadora Catherine Cortez Masto se alineó detrás de Chuck Schumer y Bernie Sanders para pasar el supuesto proyecto de ley “de ayuda” de los demócratas. Pero, desafortunadamente para ella, este proyecto de ley lleno de gastos innecesarios no está ayudando a las personas recuperarse del impacto económico de la pandemia. Como predijeron los economistas y muchos senadores republicanos, pagarle a las personas para que se queden en casa está teniendo un impacto negativo en la economía de los Estados Unidos.
Incluso el presidente Joe Biden reconoció que no podemos seguir pagándole a las personas para que se queden en casa y es hora de que las personas vuelvan a trabajar:
“We’re going to make it clear to anyone collecting unemployment who is offered a suitable job they must take the job or lose their unemployment benefits.”
El Las Vegas Review-Journal’s Editorial Board escribió recientemente:
“No doubt there are myriad issues contributing to sluggish job growth. But it’s utter folly to assert, as progressives have repeatedly done, that higher unemployment benefits play little role in the equation even as employers report they’re struggling to fill openings for that very reason […] There was a place for expanded benefits during last year’s government-imposed business shutdowns. But that time has passed. Job growth and prosperity aren’t strong points for central planners.”
Es hora de que Catherine Cortez Masto le diga a los residentes de Nevada cuál es su posición. ¿Está de acuerdo con Joe Biden en que es hora de que los estadounidenses vuelvan al trabajo? ¿O apoya los aumentos de impuestos para las familias trabajadoras y las pequeñas empresas para poder pagarle a la gente para que se queden en casa y no trabajen?
Las Vegas Review-Journal Editorial: President acknowledges reality on jobless checks
Despite overwhelming anecdotal and intrinsic evidence to the contrary, Democrats have insisted that paying people more to sit at home than to work has no affect on human behavior.
And then came last Friday’s April jobs report. “The American jobs machine tottered last month,” The New York Times reported, “confounding optimistic forecasts of the labor market’s recovery.”
While the disappointing numbers — job growth fell from March and unemployment increased — represent just a single month of data, they put the Biden administration on the defensive. Republicans have maintained that generous jobless benefits passed as COVID relief encourage some Americans to remain on the sidelines rather than look for employment.
No doubt there are myriad issues contributing to sluggish job growth. But it’s utter folly to assert, as progressives have repeatedly done, that higher unemployment benefits play little role in the equation even as employers report they’re struggling to fill openings for that very reason.
On Monday, President Joe Biden finally acknowledged the problem. “We’re going to make it clear to anyone collecting unemployment who is offered a suitable job they must take the job or lose their unemployment benefits,” he said.
The president’s begrudging comments concede the Republican point: A nexus exists between worker motivation and liberal jobless benefits. Who knew? “Here’s the deal: Bad federal policy is making unemployment pay more than work,” said Sen. Ben Sasse, Republican of Nebraska, “and millions of jobs aren’t getting filled.”
Mr. Biden said his Labor Department would work with states to reinstate work-search rules for those who receive jobless relief. Nevada just last week took that step, but the Times reports that 29 states have yet to do so. Some states have even gone further. Montana’s governor has announced that his state would no longer accept the extra money from the feds.
Some progressives argue that businesses should just dig deep and pay higher wages if they can’t lure workers away from their unemployment checks. But this ignores the reality that numerous job creators also suffered greatly during the pandemic and can’t simply jack up their personnel costs to a level that those who have never met a payroll deem acceptable. In addition, the benefits themselves are causing the distortion.
“We are talking here about a labor market in which private businesses are competing with federal handouts,” Charles C.W. Cook of the National Review put it, “from a cash pit politicians are increasingly convinced is bottomless.”
There was a place for expanded benefits during last year’s government-imposed business shutdowns. But that time has passed. Job growth and prosperity aren’t strong points for central planners.
###