Raleigh, N.C. — The state Senate on Tuesday gave key approval to a sweeping rewrite of North Carolina's unemployment system, including deep cuts to the size and duration of weekly jobless benefits.
The Senate voted 36-13 in favor of House Bill 4 on second reading. A final vote is expected Wednesday, after which the bill would go to Gov. Pat McCrory, who has already said he will sign it into law.
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, which would take effect July 1, 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 when state taxes paid by employers couldn't keep up with demand for benefits.
"(The bill) tries to take care of the unemployed, but in addition to that, it doesn't put an excessive burden on the employers," said Sen. Bob Rucho, R-Mecklenburg.
Senate Republicans easily defeated a series of Democratic amendments, including one by Sen. Martin Nesbitt, D-Buncombe, that would delay the changes until next January to avoid losing federal unemployment benefits for people who have been out of work for longer than six months.
The federal benefits were extended through the end of 2013 as part of the deal Congress passed on New Year's Day to avoid the so-called "fiscal cliff," but changing the state's unemployment program automatically voids that provision of the federal law.
Acting U.S. Secretary of Labor Seth Harris criticized the measure Monday, saying North Carolina would lose an estimated $780 million in benefits over the second half of the year, devastating tens of thousands of families and denting the state's economy.
Sen. Tommy Tucker, R-Union, said he didn't initially like the bill, but as a small business owner, he believes the unemployment changes are needed.
"I almost lost my business (in the recession)," Tucker said, noting he laid off 70 of his 104 employees.
With his business recovering – employment is back to 77 – he said he will pay $110,000 in unemployment taxes this year, and he doesn't want to see that amount grow in the coming years because of the state's unpaid debt.
"I want to get this monkey off business' back as soon as possible," he said.
Nesbitt and Sen. Josh Stein, D-Wake, argued that the state has options to repay the debt by late 2015 or early 2016 without sacrificing the federal benefits, such as issuing taxpayer anticipation notes in three years.
"What we're trading is a little extra in (federal unemployment) taxes, which goes back into our own pocket in 2016 for $780 million in benefits today," Stein said. "That is economic development for 170,000 people in 2013."
As their House counterparts did last week, Senate Democrats criticized what they say as a lack of balance in the bill, saying the unemployed would be shouldering most of the cost of repaying the debt.
"We're hurting our people," said Sen. Ellie Kinnaird, D-Orange. "We helped employers when they asked for help (by cutting tax rates), and now, why aren't we helping employees?"
Other amendments that were defeated would have eliminated the sliding scale for the duration of benefits, would have included exceptions for family hardships and would have called for benefits to revert to current levels once the debt had been repaid.
Sen. Floyd McKissick, D-Durham, even withdrew an amendment that would have set the maximum weekly benefit at $442 – halfway between the current $535 and the proposed $350 – and called on workers to pay a fee to help fund the change.
"I can see the handwriting on the wall," McKissick said.



![[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)
![[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 story is closed for comments. Comments on WRAL.com news stories are accepted and moderated between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday.
sure it's tough.......but that's a great motivator to get any job.
February 13, 2013 5:08 p.m.
Uh, what?
the STATE never paid more than 26 weeks.
All the extended benefits are federal.
The reason the STATE is in debt is they undercharged the businesses for years, so the fund to pay those 26 weeks was far too small to deal with an uptick in the number of people unemployed.
You might wanna learn how what you're talking about works before talking about it.
February 13, 2013 4:53 p.m.
Riddickfield February 13, 2013 4:30 p.m.------------------------------------ Some of what you say is true, but the effort to recovery the over payment didn't happen. The business, still have to pay a portion to the Fed's funds, which has it stands, no on in NC will get any of it. Fact, the workers, who are the one suffering, will pay back this money, while business who can afford it, are getting off the hook big time. The business knew they were going to get an increase, (back to what they were paying), but this don't even bring them back to what they paid percentage wize three years ago. This is a bad deal for NC, and is nothing but a polictical statement by the Republican to show how much they're willing to sell out the citizens of NC for Corp. profits.
February 13, 2013 4:52 p.m.
No, but when they went to 99 weeks and bankrupted the system now the money is all gone. Now they have to tighten the belt because there is literally NO MORE MONEY IN THE UNEMPLOYMENT SYSTEM. If Bev had stuck with the original 26 week unemployment plan we would not have to take such measures now. The system was set up for that, but Bev bankrupted it to the tune of $2.5 billion in debt. Sorry you got the short end of the stick.
February 13, 2013 4:30 p.m.
February 13, 2013 4:16 p.m.
Can you feel the GOP love? If you voted GOP, remeber that when times are tough and the morgage is past due. You have only yourself to blame.
February 13, 2013 2:58 p.m.
February 13, 2013 2:15 p.m.
Ever thought of trying to take more than one job? move to a place that is hiring? Are you kids getting financial aid or are you and your husband paying for all of college or some of it? Sacrifices have to be made in a awful economy. When the economy tanks and you lose your job your lifestly has to make drastic changes also. The goverment is not responsible for giving you enough money to sustain the lifestle you lived prior to losing your job
February 13, 2013 1:20 p.m.
February 13, 2013 12:42 p.m.
February 13, 2013 12:32 p.m.
I use to think that a good idea too. Until I found out how much it costs to put those gangs back on the road.
February 13, 2013 11:47 a.m.
I was laid off last April. I have applied for over 400 jobs and gotten 17 interviews. I want to work bad, but the jobs are just not there. When unemployment runs out, I will have to put my house up for sale. If it doesn't sell, foreclousure. With no job looks like I will be in the welfare and food stamp line with all the others.
February 13, 2013 11:45 a.m.
February 13, 2013 11:33 a.m.
One example is cashiers. The lowly cashier is quietly going the way of the Dodo bird. Grocery stores, hardware stores and other retail stores are installing automated check out lines. In a few years, there may be no cashiers. This is only one example.
Many jobs can be automated and as soon as it becomes cost effective, they will be. As rapidly as technology is progressing and costs of implementing it are coming down, this process is likely to accelerate. The social fallout will outpace policy.
Many of the new industries touted at the recent emerging issues forum will not create many jobs because the plants will be automated. Technology is eliminating far more jobs than it creates.
February 13, 2013 11:21 a.m.
This has to go up there with "Keep your government hands off my medicaid".
February 13, 2013 11:08 a.m.
@Starglow2005,
If my kids want to drive, they'll work to earn money to pay for their car insurance and fuel. I have a son and daughter in college now working full time. And no, I'm not getting anything from the government. I have since taken on a part-time job that nobody else wanted washing cars.
February 13, 2013 11:00 a.m.
February 13, 2013 10:52 a.m.
February 13, 2013 10:06 a.m.
Then your teenager can't afford to drive! If they are going to school, then ride the bus. If they are going to work....then they can pay thier own way.
February 13, 2013 8:37 a.m.
February 13, 2013 8:10 a.m.
February 13, 2013 8:08 a.m.
February 13, 2013 8:01 a.m.
Here they give up ~800 MILLION in FED money that would be in the state economy - and cast out thousands from said economy.
You all think this will result in "jobs" for NC by reducing business taxes? LOL!
Let us see a business tax break based on creating jobs IN THE USA - and extra tax for those businesses that are "outsourcing" overseas. Bet you won't see that - not from the Republicans - nor the Democrats - because there is no difference between either of them - except for whom is paying them.
The "notion" that people on unemployment are "on the dole" is misguided. These are people that have worked hard - and their taxes have been payed. I could see cutting benefits for those that have been on unemployment for over a year - but for the new people?
Oh yea - the tax on food is a good idea too - I like McCrory's explanation that this is "equitable for everyone".
What a tragic joke this guy is - I think he will be recalled.
February 13, 2013 1:19 a.m.
February 12, 2013 9:45 p.m.
February 12, 2013 9:12 p.m.
February 12, 2013 9:07 p.m.
Yeah...and I'll bet you don't have to pay excessive car insurance premiums for a teenage driver because the state of NC says you have to either. Add that to already high fuel costs and $289 per week won't even come close.
February 12, 2013 9:04 p.m.
February 12, 2013 9:02 p.m.
February 12, 2013 9:02 p.m.
No...what they're doing is just making it easier and much cheaper for corporate companies to lay off more NC workers and send those jobs to China and India for more profit while the execs laugh all the way to the bank to deposit their millions.
February 12, 2013 8:38 p.m.
February 12, 2013 8:31 p.m.
You see these caring, kind folks every Sunday, sittin' front and center with their halos flickering.....full of love for their fellow man!
"I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians....they are not like your Christ" Mahatma Gandhi
February 12, 2013 8:16 p.m.
It does if you don't have a clue how to manage and run a business
February 12, 2013 7:55 p.m.
February 12, 2013 7:51 p.m.
February 12, 2013 7:49 p.m.
Yes. $21 per month on businesses. Who got to enjoy really low unemployment taxes for years, which is the CAUSE of the problem.
Versus a $200 a WEEK cut to the unemployed, who spend every dollar of that money in the local economy to cover their basic bills.
THAT seems fair.
No, wait, the opposite of that.
February 12, 2013 7:42 p.m.
Crumps, it's hard to prove anything without a blind study, and we can't do that in this case. In drug tsting, you have two or three groups receiving different treatments,, none knowing who is getting what treatment. Can you prove that the economy would have been better or worse without the extended unemployment benefits? Seems like you have a crystal ball since you know for a fact that the extended unemployment has been a failure. Of course, it's also possible the economy would have been even worse off without extended unemployment. Can you PROVE it would not have been worse? I doubt it. Anymore than I can prove definitely helped. I'll leave that one up to the economist. Not Fox News.
February 12, 2013 7:42 p.m.
February 12, 2013 7:41 p.m.
Good idea, let's raise taxes on companies so even MORE of them won't open in North Carolina and provide jobs.
What the legislature is trying to do is make it APPEALING for companies to come here and put people to work. Not make it less appealing and keep people on unemployment benefits forever.
The climate for job creation needs to be improved. Only then will recruiting companies work. As of now we're competing with state's that have a better business climate, and we're losing. The Legislature is trying to change that.
February 12, 2013 7:37 p.m.
February 12, 2013 7:35 p.m.
And it's been that way for 150 years. Who built the majority of the transcontinental railroad? Chinese immigrants - they worked cheap and worked hard. New York City's great bridges and tunnels? Irish and Italian immigrants. Chicago's? Germans and Poles. Yes, all of our ancestors. We just choose to ignore that fact.
Our ancestors were legal though. I'm good with that today. But the American contemporaries of our ancestors were just as disdainful of hot, dirty, long hour work as we are today. And cutting off the unemployment benefits of people who largely lost their jobs thru no fault of their own is just plain mean spirited and short sighted. Republicans simply cannot understand what these people are going thru, because Republicans have never been thru it. They are wildly out of touch.
February 12, 2013 7:32 p.m.
My grandparents did during the Great Depression. Why shouldn't you? My dad and aunt was sent to live with a relative on a farm as kids, and had to work their tails off. Other kids were sent other places until things got better and they could return home.
What you can do: 1. Check your thermostat, if it's above 65 degrees turn it down and put on more clothes. My house is about 60 degrees now, and often gets to close to 50 at night, so don't say it's too cold. And shut off as much of your house as possible and don't heat the extra rooms.
2. Double-up with another family in a home, or rent out rooms. I have 3 bedrooms, and at times every one has been rented while I stay in the living room.
3. Eat like the third-world does at times. Rice, and maybe some beans/peas, as your entire meal. Rice as a main course.
4. If you make car payments, sell/trade the car and get a cheap used one.. ect ect.
February 12, 2013 7:30 p.m.
February 12, 2013 7:28 p.m.
February 12, 2013 7:24 p.m.
Prove it. That's about as common a falsehood as there is out there. You have no proof for your claim, you're just parroting an excuse not to observe the law and keep your lower-than-market-price subsidized services.
You want illegal cheap under-the-table-paid labor because it saves you money under what you would pay if American's held those jobs.
I run a small business, I have close friends that run construction companies and landscaping companies. When we have openings, we advertise and interview and we can't hire your normal American worker, cause they want the $50k a year handed to them, without the hard worker that's involved. They don't want the 10-14 hour days, working outside(rain, sleet, heat or snow). I only hire documented workers, but if they'll work I don't care if they swam across or not.
February 12, 2013 7:22 p.m.
Taxing the company who can better afford it, and who was the one who benefitting from taxes being too low that CAUSED the problem, makes a lot more sense."
Sorry, the bill has to be paid. Now, they are raising unemployment taxes on NC businesses too, and the feds are adding an additional increase as well until that $2.5 billion(remaining balance) is paid up.
Businesses pay state and federal unemployment taxes, they're getting hit too. Hit them too hard and it kills jobs. But that will happen when they're hit with the $2K per 30 hr/wk employees next year for the 'free' healthcare.....
February 12, 2013 7:19 p.m.
cutting the $ people have to spend via unemployment kills economic activity too.
Taxing the company who can better afford it, and who was the one who benefitting from taxes being too low that CAUSED the problem, makes a lot more sense.
February 12, 2013 7:12 p.m.
Next year, all businesses with over 50 employees (except McD's which got a waiver, I think Walmart did too, from the feds) will have to pay $2K per employee that averages 30 hrs/week. That's for that 'free' health care from the feds.
You think that won't kill jobs? Watch.
February 12, 2013 7:10 p.m.
February 12, 2013 7:10 p.m.
Prove it. That's about as common a falsehood as there is out there. You have no proof for your claim, you're just parroting an excuse not to observe the law and keep your lower-than-market-price subsidized services.
You want illegal cheap under-the-table-paid labor because it saves you money under what you would pay if American's held those jobs.
February 12, 2013 7:09 p.m.