Politics of Jobless Claims: Is Two Years of Benefits Too Much?

July 1, 2010 -- Here's something Capitol Hill lawmakers in both parties generally agree on: With the jobless rate near 10 percent and the economy only sputtering toward recovery, unemployment benefits should be extended beyond the 99 weeks -- or nearly two years -- that state and federal benefits currently last in the hardest-hit states.

But out on the campaign trail, it's a different story -- some insurgent Republican candidates with libertarian streaks are arguing to scale back -- not extend -- the benefits.

In Nevada, where the unemployment rate is a staggering 14 percent, Senate candidate Sharron Angle told journalist Jon Ralston in a local TV interview Tuesday that unemployment benefits discouraged people from looking for work.

"The truth about it is that they keep extending these unemployment benefits to the point where people are afraid to go out and get a job because the job doesn't pay as much as the unemployment benefit does," she said, even though most people on unemployment receive less than 40 percent of their previous wages. (The maximum benefit in Nevada is $362 a week, far lower than the median household income there, which is more than $56,000.)

In Kentucky, where the unemployment rate is 10.2 percent, Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul told a radio interviewer that the unemployed were essentially getting "handouts."

"As bad as it sounds, ultimately, we do have to sometimes accept a wage that's less than we had at our previous job in order to get back to work and allow the economy to get started again," Paul said. "Nobody likes that, but it may be one of the tough love things that has to happen."