Raleigh, N.C. — The Republican majority of the House Finance Committee beat back efforts Thursday morning to soften legislation slashing jobless benefits as part of an overhaul of the state unemployment system.
After a 23-13 party line vote, House Bill 4 is expected to go to a floor vote Monday night.
The bill cuts the maximum weekly unemployment benefit from $535 to $350 and replaces 26 weeks of state-paid benefits with a sliding cap of 12 to 20 weeks, based on the health of North Carolina's economy. It also slightly raises unemployment insurance taxes on employers.
Analysts said the changes would help the state repay $2.5 billion to the federal government three years faster than leaving the system unchanged. North Carolina borrowed the money to pay jobless benefits during the recession.
"This is going to cost us jobs if we don't act," said Rep. Harry Warren, R-Rowan. "It's not an easy solution."
Other Republicans voiced similar regrets about cutting jobless benefits but said the state needs to get its unemployment insurance system on sound financial footing.
"We need to emphasize putting people back to work rather than compensating them for being unemployed," said Rep. Jeff Collins, R-Nash.
Proposed amendments by Rep. Paul Tine, D-Dare, to set the maximum benefit at $425 a week and raise taxes on employers a bit more and by Rep. Deborah Ross, D-Wake, to use a 1993 formula for calculating benefits were defeated by party-line votes. The GOP didn't even allow votes on two other amendments, calling them out of order.
Rep. Paul Luebke, D-Durham, pleaded with the committee for more balance to the bill. He noted that the benefit cuts amount to about $225 million taken out of the pockets of unemployed people statewide, while the tax increases on employers would total only $20 million.
"The unemployed were not at the table when this deal was cut. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise," Luebke said, calling the benefit cuts "reprehensible."
If approved, the changes would take effect July 1, ending federal unemployment benefits received by thousands of North Carolina residents who have been out of work for months. The benefits would have continued through the end of 2013 under a bill Congress passed on New Year's Day to avert the so-called "fiscal cliff," but changing the state unemployment benefits voids that provision of the federal law.
The committee debated the bill for more than 90 minutes before allowing four minutes of public comment by representatives of the N.C. Justice Center and the AFL-CIO.
"It's not balanced," Bill Rowe, general counsel and director of advocacy for the Justice Center, said of the bill. "Employees will be paying more than 70 percent of this debt in reduced benefits."
Rowe urged lawmakers to let the bill sit in committee for at least a week to give their constituents a chance to voice their opinion on the proposal.




![[READ STORY]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/news/national_world/national/2013/05/14/12445890/12446751-1368816960-100x75.jpg)
![[VIEW PAGE]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/news/local/2013/05/13/12441232/hahn-100x75.jpg)
![[READ STORY]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/business/2013/05/06/12417151/2457a21a00d94324b6fc448c8ec173d0-Photo-1-100x70.jpg)
![[GALLERY]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/entertainment/2013/03/28/12278304/LNL-100x75.jpg)
![[VIEW PAGE]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/traffic/2009/07/23/5645694/beltline-100x75.jpg)
![[GALLERY]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/entertainment/2013/03/04/12182235/12182236-1362457268-100x75.jpg)







WRAL.com welcomes your comments on this story. All comments are moderated prior to publication based on our posting guidelines. Please review them prior to posting and if your message is not approved.
This blog post is closed for comments.
February 1, 2013 10:14 p.m.
February 1, 2013 5:06 p.m.
I hate to point this out, but this mistake was made when Democrats were in office, and it was further compounded by Democrats holding office for decades who repeatedly lowered the rates of Unemployment Insurance premiums paid for by businesses in this state, letting the Fund for it get seriously low.
The Fund was audited a few years back by an independent company who advised them to up the rates. They didn't.
And someone in this state kept voting to re-elect them.
Why?
Are the vast majority of us really this dumb?
February 1, 2013 3:36 p.m.
"A 10.00 Job will be the norm." Who gets $10 an hour?
"Adjust your life style" What makes you think no one has?
"I feel sorry for people raised in entitlement life by the Govt,, That is over,,,Get out get a job, help your neighbor, Barter, Cut Back." Tell that to someone who's blind or deaf or elderly. Tell it to someone who worked and paid into the system already for 47 years and now is sick or disabled and is of retirement age.
"save" How does one save when one has little to nothing?
"One car, one phone ,one TV, set the thermo to 65 winter, 80 summer, open the windows spring an fall," Yeah, we already do that.
"plant a garden, get chickens" Many areas have restrictive covenants prohibiting that.
"Those of us over 50 have lived just as well with a lot less" Yep, and I'm blessed I did, because now I know how to live on little, but I also recognize there are those who didn't grow up like that and need help, if in no more than educating them how to do so.
February 1, 2013 3:32 p.m.
Shouldn't have to prove it when there's a Federal DOE who should be investigating this stuff by reviewing the paperwork required to be kept for one year by each and every employer.
If that paperwork showed people of all ages being interviewed and hired, then that employer is fair.
If that paperwork shows only the young being hired, perhaps not, and the investigator should begin to see red flags and ask questions.
The problem is, the Federal DOE isn't doing all of they could do to ensure no age discrimination is occurring.
February 1, 2013 3:28 p.m.
I agree.
And your story is the RULE nowadays, not the EXCEPTION, nor is it a story of someone laying back not doing anything to get a job, which is also an EXCEPTION nowadays.
If people would do their own research on this (or face the situation themselves) before commenting, not only would they look wiser, there'd be more compassion shown in their thoughts and comments.
February 1, 2013 3:25 p.m.
Well, as has been shared here DOZENS OF TIMES BEFORE, unemployment is supported by Unemployment Insurance premiums paid for by every single employer in this state having at least 50 employees or more.
Their premium amount is calculated based upon their layoff record; if they rarely layoff employees, their premium is low; however, if they have a lousy layoff record, their premium is high. They pay this premium regularly, either monthly or quarterly. The only way this would cost taxpayers is perhaps indirectly through the cost of doing business with these employers - so it pays to do business with companies having a good layoff record rather than a lousy one.
If the unemployment compensation is cut, many will then qualify for welfare/food stamps which are funded by taxpayers.
So, it seems this is just another way to ease the burden of employers in this state and shift it onto the taxpayer which is shameful to me, in many ways.
February 1, 2013 3:24 p.m.
February 1, 2013 10:58 a.m.
Well You have lost all credibility now. ..Otherwise would not be there???? Where the heck does it come from? Gov. Takes it from somewhere and if they did not take it, and take a cut for distributing it..."Raleigh Rocks 1
Better re-do your clueless check. Money paid in UI benefits is immediately put back into the economy as the newly unemployed decide which bills to pay. Otherwise the money would most likely be hoarded by the former job creator -who does not spend it to create a job. Or the funds are parked offshore. This is basic econ RR1.
February 1, 2013 9:12 a.m.
Grand Union
so you are trying to say that those who got off their rear and took advantage of opportunity should make up for those that didn't? lrfarms27572"
I know a lot of people who "earn" high incomes who spend an awful lot of time on their rear, while their subordinates scramble for barely better than sustenance wages. Accumulation of wealth does not necessarily equal hard work, nor does it necessarily equal moral virtue. The reverse is true also.
February 1, 2013 9:08 a.m.