About a year ago, during business shutdowns because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government authorized an additional $600 a week on top of state unemployment compensation to help keep those who had lost their jobs afloat.
That expired in the fall. After some wrangling in Congress, the federal government now chips in $300 week in benefits to whatever the state pays.
But as the country has reopened for business, some say those payments are hurting the economy.
Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, for example, says there are far too many jobs unfilled because Arkansans are collecting more from unemployment compensation than they can make working. He contends the $300 weekly federal unemployment supplement is discouraging these people from going back to work.
Hutchinson announced last week the state will stop paying the additional $300 a week in federal unemployment compensation after June 26.
"As we emerge from COVID-19, retail and service companies, restaurants, and industry are attempting to return to prepandemic unemployment levels, but employees are as scarce today as jobs were a year ago," the governor wrote in a press release.
Arkansas joins at least 10 other states in dropping the additional $300 payments.
Critics say most of the job openings are for lower-paid service positions. And they say if unemployment compensation is more than what jobs are paying, the problem is the wage offered.
We want to know what you think. Is Gov. Hutchinson right to end the $300 weekly supplement to unemployment compensation? Or is the extra money still needed?
Send your response (50 words maximum) to [email protected] or visit texarkanagazette.com/question by Wednesday, May 19. You can also mail your response to the Texarkana Gazette Friday Poll, at P.O. Box 621, Texarkana, TX 75504 or drop it off at our office, 101 E. Broad St., Texarkana, Arkansas. Be sure to include your name, address and phone number. We will print as many responses as we can in next Friday's paper.
Last Week: Expanding Medicare?
Last week's question was about an idea floating around Washington to lower the age for Medicare from 65 to as low as 50. Should Congress consider lowering the age for Medicare eligibility? Or is it a bad idea?
Yes. The U.S. ranks among third world countries in life expectancy and all other measures of adequate health care. Like everything else, what matters is that heath insurance executives make their millions. We spend a much larger percentage of our gross national product to obtain much worse care. - B.F., Texarkana, Arkansas
From texarkanagazette.com/question
Yes. It would be nice to have the age lowered but I also worry about the cost and the potential to do more damage to the Medicare program. I think it's something that should be looked at and thoroughly researched before Congress takes any action on it. - L.W., Texarkana, Arkansas
No. We have enough problems with the Biden Admin. The last thing this country needs is more people overloading the system. - A.H., Chatsworth, Georgia
Yes. Most people don't live to see 65. Age should be lowered to 60. - D.M., Texarkana, Arkansas
No. I would like to know where the money orchard is that the Dems have planted? - S.B., Texarkana, Arkansas