Unemployment spat makes pawns of laid-off workers

Today's editorial notes that the political buzz saw over S.C. unemployment benefits is chewing up laid-off workers:

"This morning ... my son was laid off from work. He went to apply for unemployment benefits and was told that it'll be two months before Columbia processes the paperwork. Two months. Or is this Gov. Sanford's way of saying that he won't request a loan from the federales?" -- Letter to the editor

A lot of laid-off workers around our state are getting messages similar to the one above: We can't help you right now because the system is embroiled in political controversy.

To persons who lived paycheck to paycheck when they had jobs, this message is most disheartening. They need money for such basics as groceries now. But all the state has to offer them is a heaping plate of sick political drama: the war between Gov. Mark Sanford and the S.C. Employment Security Commission, the agency responsible for doling out unemployment benefits.

Sanford is outraged - outraged! - that the commission exhausted the state's unemployment fund late last year, thanks to the job losses that have decimated the state's work force. He has demanded an accounting of the commission's long-term money-handling, with an eye to determining whether workers ineligible for unemployment obtained payments anyway. The governor has no direct authority over the commission, which is legislatively appointed, but has threatened to fire its three members if they don't disgorge the desired information by the end of this month.

The commission members, in response, say they've given the governor all the information they're legally required to keep and provide while noting that he has no real leverage over them. That may be true in the statutory sense, but it's untrue in the political sense.

To keep making payments to the more than 100,000 South Carolinians entitled to jobless benefits, the commission must use money borrowed from the federal government. Under the federal law that governs such transactions, only the governor can ask for that money. Sanford is refusing to do that until the desired information is forthcoming.

Both sides conveniently skirt the root problem: that the state for nearly 10 years has not collected enough unemployment-tax money from employers to generate a healthy jobless-benefit fund. That's why it was refreshing this week when key private and public leaders broached the T-word - taxes - as a potential solution for this problem.

Frank Knapp, who heads the S.C. Small Business Chamber of Commerce, rightly notes, "Nobody wants to pay more taxes, but I don't know how you get around that." Otis Rawl, who heads the S.C. Chamber of Commerce, suggests indexing unemployment fund payments to inflation or job growth "to reflect and ensure that as wages grow, so do your contributions." And S.C. Rep. Bill Sandifer, R-Seneca, who is chairman of the House Labor, Commerce and Industry, says taxes should be considered along with other possible remedies for the problem.

Sanford's response? Forget it. "We're not going to sign off on any payroll tax increase," says his spokesman.

So: The governor is not going to borrow more money for short-term jobless relief. The governor has ruled out the only realistic long-term fix for the unemployment fund. Only when he spells out what he will do for the jobless workers of South Carolina can he hope to dispel the growing belief that he views them mainly as pawns.

Comments?

To persons who lived paycheck to paycheck when they had jobs, this message is most disheartening. They need money for such basics as groceries now. But all the state has to offer them is a heaping plate of sick political drama: the war between Gov. Mark Sanford and the S.C. Employment Security Commission, the agency responsible for doling out unemployment benefits.

Sanford is outraged - outraged! - that the commission exhausted the state's unemployment fund late last year, thanks to the job losses that have decimated the state's work force. He has demanded an accounting of the commission's long-term money-handling, with an eye to determining whether workers ineligible for unemployment obtained payments anyway. The governor has no direct authority over the commission, which is legislatively appointed, but has threatened to fire its three members if they don't disgorge the desired information by the end of this month.

The commission members, in response, say they've given the governor all the information they're legally required to keep and provide while noting that he has no real leverage over them. That may be true in the statutory sense, but it's untrue in the political sense.

To keep making payments to the more than 100,000 South Carolinians entitled to jobless benefits, the commission must use money borrowed from the federal government. Under the federal law that governs such transactions, only the governor can ask for that money. Sanford is refusing to do that until the desired information is forthcoming.

Both sides conveniently skirt the root problem: that the state for nearly 10 years has not collected enough unemployment-tax money from employers to generate a healthy jobless-benefit fund. That's why it was refreshing this week when key private and public leaders broached the T-word - taxes - as a potential solution for this problem.

Frank Knapp, who heads the S.C. Small Business Chamber of Commerce, rightly notes, "Nobody wants to pay more taxes, but I don't know how you get around that." Otis Rawl, who heads the S.C. Chamber of Commerce, suggests indexing unemployment fund payments to inflation or job growth "to reflect and ensure that as wages grow, so do your contributions." And S.C. Rep. Bill Sandifer, R-Seneca, who is chairman of the House Labor, Commerce and Industry, says taxes should be considered along with other possible remedies for the problem.

Sanford's response? Forget it. "We're not going to sign off on any payroll tax increase," says his spokesman.

So: The governor is not going to borrow more money for short-term jobless relief. The governor has ruled out the only realistic long-term fix for the unemployment fund. Only when he spells out what he will do for the jobless workers of South Carolina can he hope to dispel the growing belief that he views them mainly as pawns.

Comments?