足球上半场单双 年9月高口阅读上半场第一篇

年9月高口阅读上半场第一篇  

Congress began 2010 with a bad case of legislative déjà vu. Last year
it approved a $787 billion stimulus package meant to "create or save" millions of jobs. President Obama says the stimulus has saved or created as many as 2 million jobs so far. But even if that highly optimistic figure is true
in the real world
over 3 million jobs have been lost since the stimulus was signed into law – a dismal feat all financed with enormous debt. Now Congress is working on another stimulus package
but they're calling it a jobs bill. In December
the House passed a $174 billion "Jobs for Main Street Bill" that would use federal dollars to fund job-creating infrastructure projects
while extending unemployment benefits. Sound familiar?
Unemployment remains at about 10 percent and state unemployment insurance funds are running out of money. While the Obama administration works to artificially inflate the number of jobs
the unemployed face diminished opportunities and ine security. By 2012
40 state unemployment trust funds are projected to be empty
requiring $90 billion in federal loans to continue operating. Normally
state unemployment benefits pay jobless workers beeen 50 and 70 percent of their salaries for up to 26 weeks. But during this recession
Congress has extended those benefits four times. The result is that some workers can now claim benefits for 99 weeks. Now Congress may enact a record fifth extension. What would be wrong with that? Everything. The state-federal unemployment insurance program (UI) is an economic drag on businesses and states. And it's a poor safety for the unemployed.
UI
a relic of the Great Depression
fails workers when they need it most. UI trust funds depend on a state-levied payroll tax on employers. During boom years
these funds are generally flush. But during recessions
they can get depleted quickly. The bind is that to replenish their UI fund
states have to raise payroll taxes. That hurts the bottom line for businesses both large and small. Passed on to workers as a lower salary
high payroll taxes discourage businesses from hiring. During steep recessions
states face a fiscal Catch-22: Reduce benefits or raise taxes. To date
27 states have depleted their UI funds and are using $29 billion in federal loans they'll have to start repaying in 2011. Other states are slashing benefits. While federal guidelines remend that states keep one year's worth of unemployment reserves
many states entered the recession already insolvent. When federal loans are exhausted
the only option left is higher payroll taxes – a move sure to discourage hiring and depress salaries.
The increasingly small and uncertain payouts of UI are the opposite of ine security. The effect of UI's eight-decade experiment has been to condition workers to save less for a "rainy day" and instead rely on a system that provides no guarantee. UI limits personal responsibility to save; gradually
individuals find themselves in financial peril. Real reform requires putting employees in charge with individual private accounts and getting the government out of the business of creating illusionary safety s.
Unemployment Insurance Savings Accounts (UISA)
by contrast
give workers control of their own ine
eliminating the negative effects of the UI program on businesses and budgets. Adopted by Chile in 2003
UISAs are also financed via a payroll tax on individual workers and employers. The difference is the money is directly deposited into the individual worker's account. Basically a form of forced savings
UISAs allow individuals to draw on their own accounts during periods of unemployment and roll unused funds into their savings upon retirement. With the burden reduced on employers
wages rise
leading to greater contributions to the individual's fund. The federal government is removed from the picture
and all workers are guaranteed a savings account upon retirement.
UISAs liberate workers from uncertainty and improve incentives. When unemployed workers must rely on their own funds rather than the mon fiscal pool
they find jobs faster. Congress's repeated extensions of the current UI program may be well intended
but they may also be counterproductive. Like any deadline extension
additional jobless benefits diminish the job seeker's urgency
all at taxpayers' expense.
Today
expanded UI benefits mean higher state payroll taxes
which make it harder for employers to expand hiring or raise wages. UISAs
on the other hand
make the payroll tax on business part of the employer's investment in an individual worker
rather than a penalty for doing business. In 2010
it's time to say goodbye to the problems created by broken policies. Congress should start this decade with a promise for true economic freedom: Let businesses create jobs and let workers keep what they've earned.