This page was last updated on January 20, 2014.
No one owed a living; William H. Alexander; Beaver County Times; January 20, 2014.
I could be mistaken, but I believe this is the same person who signs his letters William Alexander (Beaver). This definitely is not William A. Alexander (Harmony Township).
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“It was interesting to read in last Monday’s Times about the plight of the electrician from Baltimore who is going to lose his $1,700 a month unemployment check from the taxpayers.
“This poor baby will not take a pension or a McJob or even use his skills as an electrician. I guess he has been living OK on the $1,700 a month (tax free) he has been taking from you know who, but he can’t seem to live on wages of available jobs.
“Sounds to me like he has a severe disability called, ‘Why work when you can get those other saps to support you?’ This is what is wrong with most of the government programs. They are grossly abused by those who think someone else owes them a living.”
[RWC] This critique is really to address the comment below on the BCT website.
Carl Davidson (CD) wrote (1/20/14 @ 8:53am), “First, WHA, when employed, we all pay into our unemployment insurance. Not the same as you suggest.”
[RWC] Not exactly. While true for basic coverage (about 26 weeks), benefits beyond that period come from state and federal general tax revenue. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “The permanent Extended Benefits (EB) program typically provides an additional 13 or 20 weeks of compensation to jobless workers who have exhausted their regular benefits in states where the unemployment situation has worsened dramatically (regardless of whether the national economy is in recession). The total number of weeks available depends on a state’s unemployment rate and its unemployment insurance laws. Normally the federal government and the states split the cost of EB, but the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act authorized temporary full federal funding, which is still in effect.”
I don’t want to let the “we all pay into our unemployment insurance” (UI) comment slip by. Normally, we’re told the employer pays the UI tax, not the employee. We’re also told about the mythical “employer contribution” to Medicare and Socialist Security taxes. This, of course, is BS and I cover it in the paper “Socialist Security and Medicare.” In this case, telling the truth about who really pays the UI tax helps CD tell the story that UI benefits are not a handout (except for the extensions). As soon as someone suggests the UI tax rate increase to cover the additional benefits, however, I’m sure CD will refer to the UI tax as employer-paid.
“Second, it’s rather well known that for every opening these days, there are three applicants in line. What about the other two?
“Third, you suggest the other two go into business. But to have a business, you need customers. And in a low-growth or flat economy like ours, the main way you get customers is to take them away from someone else in business, ie, destroy their jobs. There’s a reason the small business failure rate in the US is around 75% You ‘church’ [should be ‘churn’] jobs, but you don’t necessarily add to them.
“There is a partial and decent solution, however. It’s called the ‘Back to Work Budget’ , a bill by the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Funded by a financial transaction tax on Wall St, it would put anyone out of a job hired at at a living wage at the county level to build public infrastructure. Half the FAT revenue would also go into a pot to assist new startups, including worker-owned businesses.”
[RWC] This is the same stuff CD wrote in a comment he posted for “A true war on poverty.” That’s where you’ll find most of my BWB comments.
“Seems like a winner to me. What I can’t understand is why the ‘get a job’ chorus doesn’t get behind it?”
[RWC] Here’s a guess; “the ‘get a job’ chorus” actually read the documents published by the CPC instead of relying on CD’s misrepresentation.
“But here’s the bottom line. Capitalism requires some degree of unemployment. That’s why 3% unemployment is called ‘full employment.’ If it goes below that, the Fed makes monetary and other moves to discourage new hiring as ‘inflationary,’ meaning a shortage of labor would allow wages to rise, and hence prices as well.”
[RWC] Any “ism” with any kind of freedom “requires some degree of unemployment.” There’s more detail in my critique of “Tell Rep. Altmire Hands Off Social Security & Medicare Noon Wed. July 20th.”
“Good case for replace the Fed with public, stated-owned banks, if you ask me.
“So if you want everyone to have a job over the long term, there’s only one serious solution. Join with our Beaver county socialists, and work toward replacing the domination of finance capital and moving to a socialism for the 21st century.”
[RWC] Folks, “a socialism for the 21st century” is hogwash. All leftism variants lie on the same slippery slope and eventually end up at the same destination, complete control by government. With apologies to William Shakespeare, a skunk by any other name still stinks. With apologies to The Who, “Meet the new socialism/same as the old socialism” also comes to mind.
In Peace, Friendship, Community, Cooperation, and Solidarity. <g>
© 2004-2014 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.