Raleigh, N.C. — House Democrats came up short Monday night in several efforts to soften legislation that would slash jobless benefits as part of an overhaul of the state unemployment system.
The House voted 78-41 to give tentative approval to House Bill 4. A final vote is expected Tuesday before it moves to the Senate.
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.
Rep. Paul Luebke, D-Durham, called the bill unbalanced, saying workers would lose $2.7 billion in benefits over the next four years while employers would pay only $24 million in extra unemployment taxes.
"Workers are taking a major hit," Luebke said, calling the benefit cuts "indefensible."
Rep. John Blust, R-Guilford, said that comparison fails to note that the federal unemployment taxes continue to rise on North Carolina employers until the debt is paid off.
"If you want to create more unemployed in the future, just try not addressing this problem some more," Blust said, calling the bill "the best solution out of a bunch of bad solutions."
The Republican majority was able to defeat amendments by Luebke that would retain a 26-week cap on benefits, by Rep. Paul Tine, D-Dare, that would raise slightly more in taxes to set the maximum weekly benefit at $425, by Rep. Kelly Alexander, D-Mecklenburg, and Rep. Deborah Ross, D-Wake, to revise the formulas for determining benefits and by Rep. Duane Hall, D-Wake, to restore benefit levels once the federal debt is repaid.
Bill sponsor Rep. Julia Howard rebuffed each attempt to change the bill, saying that the issue comes down to allowing employers to use their money to create jobs or having them pay taxes with it.
"If you who campaigned on creating jobs in the state of North Carolina, this is the No. 1 bill that you're going to have this year," said Howard, R-Davie.
"To say this is a jobs bill when all it does is cut unemployment benefits is a bit disingenuous," said Rep. Joe Sam Queen, D-Haywood.
Rep. Winkie Wilkins, D-Person, asked to delay the changes to the system until January so that people who have been out of work for months wouldn't lose their federal unemployment benefits.
A bill Congress passed on New Year's Day to avert the so-called "fiscal cliff" extends the federal benefits through the end of 2013, but changing the state unemployment program voids that provision of the federal law.
Luebke noted that the state stands to lose more than $600 million by ending the benefits early to an estimated 80,000 families, adding that most of that money would go directly back into the local economy.
Blust said people still have five months to find jobs before those benefits end, and Rep. Robert Brawley, R-Iredell, said it's time "to stop worrying about the downside of everything."
Although Wilkins' proposal generated the most debate of the night, it failed like all of the others the Democrats offered.
Earlier Monday, worker advocates and members of the Legislative Black Caucus railed against the proposal, saying it would devastate families dealing with job loss and would end up costing the state money.
"People on unemployment are not lazy," said Beth Messersmith, campaign director of North Carolina MomsRising. "(They include) parents trying to care for kids who need those benefits."
A majority of North Carolina's unemployed are out of work longer than 26 weeks, so cutting the length of state benefits to 20 weeks doesn't make sense, Messersmith said.
Doug Dickerson, state director for AARP, said older workers take 13 months on average to find a job after being laid off. He called for lawmakers to make more "reasoned decisions" instead of taking "draconian steps" too hastily.
The Legislative Black Caucus also criticized the quick movement of the bill, saying the changes under consideration need more debate.
"Let’s slow this train down. It’s moving too fast," said Rep. Garland Pierce, D-Scotland. "The consequences because of this legislation are going to be dire, especially in our communities where people are already having a hard time with no jobs."
Noting the loss of federal jobless benefits, Rep. Rodney Moore, D-Mecklenburg, said, "It’s a travesty that we’re cutting this lifeline so drastically at a time when we’re just beginning to recover."
Fourth District Congressman David Price even weighed in on the debate, sending a letter to the General Assembly asking them to delay the bill so that federal benefits could continue through the end of the year.
"Now is not the time to abandon tens of thousands of North Carolinians who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own and who stand to benefit from federal policy if their state government does not stand in the way," Price said in the letter. "Nor can our state, with an unemployment rate of 9.2 percent, afford to remove the projected $650 million in economic activity that would result from these benefits this year."




![[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)
![[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)
![[VIEW PAGE]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/weather/2010/08/30/8212390/8362364-1286459151-100x75.jpg)
![[VIEW PAGE]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/weather/2007/07/30/1649447/1649447-1209833775-100x75.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 5, 2013 4:29 p.m.
February 5, 2013 4:27 p.m.
February 5, 2013 4:26 p.m.
As an employer you must pay SUTA (state) and FUTA (federal) unemplymnet "tax". Once state benefits are exhausted, the Feds will pick-up some additional weeks if certain state unemployment rate guidelines are met.
That said, the extension by the feds to 99 weeks (at one time), was outside this program. It was part of the "stimulus", and was funded from the general fund. Basically it was borrowed...
February 5, 2013 4:19 p.m.
"Only a discount on service. That has nothing to do with Obama. That isn't paid for with income tax either." --Junkmail5
It may be a state program, but I know that in NY, if you apply for Food Stamps, and meet certain qualifications, you receive a free cell phone with 250 free minutes per month, for as long as you meet the requirements.
This was within the past year. I had an elderly aunt (82 YO) who applied, and was given the phone. She recently stopped getting the food stamps, and had to turn in the phone.
Again, this might be NY state only, or it could be federal, but it was TOTALLY free.
February 5, 2013 4:15 p.m.
I call them imaginary, because the government does no such thing.
What they do do is offer a discount.
On service only.
To ONE household member.
And it's not "because you're on welfare" each state has different requirements.
And they don't give you a free phone.
And it's paid for by a tax on telecomm providers.
How are we not clear on this point yet?
February 5, 2013 4:12 p.m.
Sure they do, if you are already on certain programs for federal handouts, this one is available too, here's the application:
http://www.assurancewireless.com/Images/PDFFiles/CustomerInfo/English/AW_NC_CUSTOMER_CERTIFICATION_ENGLISH.pdf
February 5, 2013 4:00 p.m.
Actually, that's because he's frauding the system and his last employer didn't fight the fact that he applied for unemployment and received it. That is counted AGAINST the employer, and they must make up for those payments out of their UI account. It's part their fault and part his fault.
February 5, 2013 3:54 p.m.
A program that was started under Reagan after the break up of AT&T that was extended to include cell phones under George W. Bush.
What's it have to do with Obama?
February 5, 2013 3:40 p.m.
February 5, 2013 3:33 p.m.
February 5, 2013 2:51 p.m.
Uh... first, again, the government doesn't give people free cell phones, no matter what Rush Limbaugh told you.
For another- if you are OUT applying for and interviewing for jobs, you can't just "sit and wait" for the previous people you interviewed with to call you. Having a cell phone in that case is a HUGE advantage.
The antique land line you can get rid of if you want to save $, the cell is vastly more useful for job hunting.
No argument about cable tv being a luxury though :)
February 5, 2013 2:40 p.m.
And no nonsense about "needing" a cell phone if you're job hunting. That's an excuse to take free stuff. A landline works just fine. Sit and wait for the call.
February 5, 2013 2:27 p.m.
You mean like cooking meals for the elderly couple who worked all their lives and now one has cancer? Like mowing the yard of the people who had to abandon the house when the last worker finally lost her job, but we don't want it to look like a wasteland? Like providing free child care for the neighbor who feels lucky to be laying brick for $7/hr under the table? And putting on a cheerful face for all? Like reporting the marauders who come and park at the end of the road and clearly don't belong anywhere around here? Like teaching oneself new skills, just not at public expense?
Like applying daily for multiple jobs with hiring managers like YOU?
February 5, 2013 2:13 p.m.
I was in line at the grocery not long ago. I watched as a man pulled out a roll of bills, not ones and fives, but twenties, fifties, and higher, and paid for his 12 pack of beer. Then, his actual food he paid for in food stamps."
Perhaps what he was pulling out was his bank account. Some folks don't put their money in a Bank, they carry it with them or hide it at home in little mason jars in the back yard.
February 5, 2013 1:31 p.m.
February 5, 2013 12:40 p.m.
Collecting
February 5, 2013 12:39 p.m.
I fe
February 5, 2013 12:37 p.m.
You only collect unemployment if you are dismissed for a reason other than negligence. While you are collecting unemployment you have to report in once a week, among the questions you are asked are the following: Did you do any work last week? Were you offered any work last week?
Answering any of those questions with a lie is a crime.
Companies like those in Pharma are continually cutting jobs because they can, they know the employees they have left can be squeezed even harder.
NC cut taxes on corporations to encourage them to hire folks. How do those corporations respond? Oh boy, now we can cut more without paying for it.
I'm neither conservative nor liberal, I have issues with both sides, I do have to say that the conservatives excel at clouding most issues by spewing pure hate while liberals take the bait. But then I'm typing here so maybe I'm guilty of taking the bait too...
February 5, 2013 12:37 p.m.
February 5, 2013 12:31 p.m.
No, he's not supporting it either.
THERE IS NO FREE GOVERNMENT PHONE.
IT DOES NOT EXIST.
The _cell phone_ companies are giving away free phones. Not the government.
the only thing the government gives is a $9.25 a month discount on phone SERVICE.
And no, Obama doesn't have the power to "stop" even that.
You might wanna read the US Constitution sometime to understand why.
February 5, 2013 12:26 p.m.
February 5, 2013 12:24 p.m.
Because some of us think of what's good for the country FIRST, then think what benefits us personally. That's the difference between Reps and Dems.-morrigan
Your last two sentences are correct except for the word "because". Now, which is which?
February 5, 2013 12:22 p.m.
I think you just drowned in the shallow water.
The "obama phone" is something that has been around since W. It is not paid for by taxpayers, but by telecommunications company.
Try to understand things before you look sillier.
February 5, 2013 12:20 p.m.
February 5, 2013 12:19 p.m.
February 5, 2013 12:18 p.m.
"...where you steal from your employer all day. How sad." - Morrigan
If you folks have some new and thought-provoking ideas...or (gasp!) relevant facts to share about this news article, please do share them. Otherwise...
February 5, 2013 12:18 p.m.
IKR? Work and jobs are noble, until they sit down at their employers' desks, then they're just as "entitled" as the moochers they revile. Hey pelosi, tell me where you work and I'll apply for your job...including a link to this board!
February 5, 2013 12:16 p.m.
Except, it's not.
30 seconds on google would've told you how wrong you were.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp
No free phones.
Only a discount on service.
That has nothing to do with Obama.
That isn't paid for with income tax either.
Literally every single thing you have said is factually wrong.
February 5, 2013 12:15 p.m.
Not anymore. The reason UE is bein cut is because democrats borrowed $2B from the Feds to pay for it. Who paid that $2B? You have no clue what you're talking about.-amfamr1007
We know who FAILED to pay for it. The employers who dropped their rolls. Does that clue you in or where the $ should have come from?
February 5, 2013 12:14 p.m.
Are you really lying on your job applications? That's pretty immoral if you ask me. And if you get fired for having done that, you DON'T get unemployment.
February 5, 2013 12:14 p.m.
Lying on a job application will get you fired or worse.
If I have to fill out an application for working at Harris Teeter because I'm afraid of mooching off of everyone while I'm out of work, Harris Teeter probably isn't going to hire me if I have to write IBM or some other tech company on my application. Since they'd assume I'm still looking for another job in my career field and not looking to stay at a grocery store.
February 5, 2013 12:12 p.m.
In the first place, it's not always possible. How does an ex-IT pro lie and say she was a secretary? Because contrary to the myths here, not everyone thinks they're too good to take a 75% step down in pay.
In the second place, let's say you hand in your printed lie. But then you have to fill out the application truthfully and attest to same with your signature. Employers, bosses, dates, DUTIES and SALARY will be required information.
Remember, you WILL be found out; it's not like 20 yrs ago when you could fudge and not get caught because there was no Internet to speak of.
You never hear from them again or you're fired for cause (lying on application), leaving you worse off than before because now you've been fired (forget about another job for a looooong time) and you can't collect UE.
February 5, 2013 12:10 p.m.
I'm confused (and I'm not being sarcastic, I really have a question): I thought employers paid for unemployment through payroll taxes, in effect forward-funding unemployment. Don't the feds chip in with funding as well?
February 5, 2013 12:07 p.m.
February 5, 2013 12:06 p.m.
February 5, 2013 12:01 p.m.
February 5, 2013 12:00 p.m.
I lived it, so that is utter bs. And if they don't get U/E they are directed to go for the disability benefits. It's a system that is enabling the takers, and we are running out of givers.
February 5, 2013 11:58 a.m.
No they are getting check because they have unemployment insurance as part of their former job. Can I come burn your house down and then complain when you get a check to rebuild?????
and a check that is not far off minimum wage is going to encourage many not to get a job if they could? Talk about needing a grip on reality!
February 5, 2013 11:57 a.m.
February 5, 2013 11:53 a.m.
Also, if I were a hiring manager I WOULD NOT HIRE SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN SITTING ON THEIR HANDS FOR 3 MONTHS!!"
I think we have found part of the problem. What a poor attitude to have towards someone lookign for work.
And you can safely say who is and isn't "sitting on their hands for 3 months"? I can only hope that someone with your kind of attitude is NEVER put in charge of hiring ANYBODY. I wouldn't even want you buying paperclips with that chip on your shoulder.
February 5, 2013 11:53 a.m.
February 5, 2013 11:53 a.m.
February 5, 2013 11:52 a.m.
The "mess" and that 2.5B is because the tax on employers wasn't high enough, so there wasn't enough in the UE fund to cover everyone when the economy tanked.
It seems like the fairest solution would be to get the employers to cover the shortfall since they were underpaying for years.
Instead, the employer "cost" went up by... $21... a year.
And benefits to future laid off workers are being cut by almost $200... a week.
Somehow that's fair?
February 5, 2013 11:50 a.m.
February 5, 2013 11:49 a.m.
February 5, 2013 11:49 a.m.
Because some of us think of what's good for the country FIRST, then think what benefits us personally. That's the difference between Reps and Dems.
February 5, 2013 11:49 a.m.
February 5, 2013 11:49 a.m.
Me: This program has been around since Reagan and extended to mobile phones under Bush.
The only reason it's called the "Obama phone" is because of one ignorant person on youtube calling it such.
The myth that he started the program is just that; a myth.
February 5, 2013 11:48 a.m.
Grand Union
That's a line of you know what. He took WORKING vacations at his ranch. Not jetting off to Hawaii on the taxpayers dollars. Flying a separate jet for his dog and Bo.
February 5, 2013 11:47 a.m.