Look closely, ladies and gentlemen, because the Republican party is the face of evil. How could anyone in their right mind oppose unemployment benefits during the worst recession in living memory? Simple: Because when a Republican says people won't look for jobs because they're on unemployment, he's really complaining they still have too much dignity to accept slave labor at slave wages.

Because as always, the GOP is about cheap, disposable labor with no legal protections. With the help of Blue Dog Democrats, they may eventually get their way. But for now, they'll try to strip away whatever shred of dignity a working person has left.

And really, we can't have that, can we? The little people might get ideas above their station:

A debate on the Senate floor Monday over unemployment compensation crystallized, at least for a moment, the divide between the two parties in Washington.

Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Republican whip, argued that unemployment benefits dissuade people from job-hunting "because people are being paid even though they're not working."

Unemployment insurance "doesn't create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work," Kyl said during debate over whether unemployment insurance and other benefits that expired amid GOP objections Sunday should be extended.

"I'm sure most of them would like work and probably have tried to seek it, but you can't argue that it's a job enhancer. If anything, as I said, it's a disincentive. And the same thing with the COBRA extension and the other extensions here," said Kyl.

You have to love how utterly shameless these Republican oligarchs are. In the middle of a massive recession, a Republican governor is complaining about "Rolls Royce" unemployment benefits in Indiana. By "Rolls Royce," I assume he means anyone who's getting enough money to pay for heat is living too damned high on the hog.

Maximum weekly unemployment benefit in Indiana: $360.

But that's not even news, is it? That the party that so happily poured billions of untracked dollars down the memory hole in Iraq is suddenly so thrifty when it comes to us cannot be a shock to any sentient being:

The recession's jobless toll is draining unemployment-compensation funds so fast that according to federal projections, 40 state programs will go broke within two years and need $90 billion in loans to keep issuing the benefit checks.

The shortfalls are putting pressure on governments to either raise taxes or shrink the aid payments.

Debates over the state benefit programs have erupted in South Carolina, Nevada, Kansas, Vermont and Indiana. And the budget gaps are expected to spread and become more acute in the coming year, compelling legislators in many states to reconsider their operations.

Currently, 25 states have run out of unemployment money and have borrowed $24 billion from the federal government to cover the gaps. By 2011, according to Department of Labor estimates, 40 state funds will have been emptied by the jobless tsunami.

"There's immense pressure, and it's got to be faced," said Indiana state Rep. David Niezgodski (D), a sponsor of a bill that addressed the gaps in Indiana's unemployment program. "Our system was absolutely broke."

The Indiana legislation protected the aid checks, Niezgodski said, but it came after a give-and-take this spring in which Gov. Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. (R) said the state had been providing "Rolls-Royce benefits" and several thousand union workers countered by protesting proposed cuts at the state capitol. In January, the legislature is slated to consider a bill to delay the proposed tax increases intended to refill the fund.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 640

PLAYS: 239

(Sen. James F. Byrnes - From Supreme Court to Secretary of State)

As the unemployment numbers keep creeping up, it's interesting to take a look at a similar situation 70 years ago, when Unemployment Compensation was a new thing (since 1935) and had it's detractors. There really were people who felt it wasn't the governments responsibility to take care of the unemployed - as there no doubt are now. Future Supreme Court Justice and later Secretary of State James F. Byrnes - on February 27, 1939 as Senator from South Carolina, addressed a radio audience to explain just what this unemployment compensation thing was all about.

Sen. Byrnes: “Unemployment assistance by government is not a new question. As early as 1894, ex-President Benjamin Harrison demanded that the federal government set up a work program to fight unemployment. In 1921 at the instance of Mister Hoover, then Secretary of Commerce, a conference on unemployment was held in Washington. Bills were introduced in the Congress but nothing was accomplished. Improved business conditions lessen the demand for Federal legislation. But from time to time during the years that followed, bills on the subject were introduced in the Congress. In 1929, our so-called ‘boom year’, the national income was eighty billion dollars. And yet, we had three million unemployed. With that national income today the number of unemployed would be greater than in 1929 because of the technicalogical changes. And the levying of a payroll tax tends to encourage these changes because the tax levied is upon workers and not upon machines.”

Seventy years later, it's still going. And they're still trying to cut the benefits.

This is the legacy of the Reagan era: keep hacking away at vital parts of the safety net so politicians can proclaim they didn't raise taxes. It makes as much sense as selling your car's spare tire and jack.

Republicans used tax cuts as a way to bludgeon Democratic opponents, and instead of making voters understand how vital these government services are, Democrats far too often agreed with the Republicans and raced to cut everything they could. And now, when we need it most, the unemployment system is literally falling apart.

Who could have predicted that if you keep slicing vital services, you wouldn't have them when you need them?

WASHINGTON — Years of state and federal neglect have hobbled the nation’s unemployment system just as a brutal recession has doubled the number of jobless Americans seeking aid.

In a program that values timeliness above all else, decisions involving more than a million applicants have been slowed, and hundreds of thousands of needy people have waited months for checks.

And with benefit funds at dangerous lows even before the recession began, states are taking on billions in debt, increasing the pressure to raise taxes or cut aid, just as either would inflict maximum pain.

Sixteen states, with exhausted funds, are now paying benefits with borrowed cash, and their number could double by the year’s end.

Call centers and Web sites have been overwhelmed, leaving frustrated workers sometimes fighting for days to file an application.

While the strained program still makes more than 80 percent of initial payments within three weeks — slightly below the standard set under federal law — cases that require individual review are especially prone to delay. Thirty-eight states are failing to make those decisions within the federal deadline.

For workers who survive a paycheck at a time, even a week’s delay can mean a missed rent payment or foregone meals.

This is the part of the article that sets my blood boiling:

“Lower tax rates make it easier to attract business,” said Doug Holmes, president of UWC, a group that advocates on behalf of employers. “We don’t want to spend a whole lot of time beating ourselves up because we didn’t raise taxes enough. Nobody anticipated a recession this size.”

Yeah, nobody except a couple of Nobel Prize-winning economists and a bunch of dirty hippies with computers.

It kills me when I see hopeful headlines like this: 'Jobless claims at lowest level since January'. That's because the vast majority of those in the media class don't understand how the unemployment system works - they've never had an extended experience with it.

When I see a headline like this, I think about a few things the headline writer probably didn't. The first one is, I automatically assume the figure will be revised upward next week, just like it's been every other time it's been unexpectedly low.

The second thing? Having lived through the last eight years of what the corporate media kept insisting was an economic "recovery," I'm familiar with one little sandtrap your chattering classes may have missed: If you didn't work steadily enough - that is, your previous employment or just-terminated employment didn't last long enough to cover the required "base year" fiscal quarters, you're not eligible for unemployment checks, and you probably didn't even bother to file a claim. It's happened to me, and I'm sure it's happening all over the country:

WASHINGTON - The number of U.S. workers filing new claims for jobless aid unexpectedly fell by 34,000 last week, sinking to the lowest level since late January, new Labor Department data showed on Thursday.

At the same time, a four-week average of new claims declined for a fourth straight week.

Initial claims for state unemployment insurance benefits dropped to a seasonally adjusted 601,000 in the week ended May 2 from a revised 635,000 the prior week, the Labor Department said.

Analysts polled by Reuters had forecast 635,000 new claims versus a previously reported count of 631,000 the week before.

Now, let's compare our patchwork system of state unemployment compensation requirements (I think in Texas you can get four weeks) to Europe's:

In Germany, losing his factory job didn't stop Alfred Butt from taking a Mediterranean vacation this winter. Thanks to generous jobless benefits, being out of work "hasn't changed my life that much," Mr. Butt says.

In the U.S., Dylan DeRoberts lost similar work -- but there's no seaside getaway for him. Instead, he's giving up life's little pleasures, like riding his snowmobile, because he lost his insurance, too. "I've learned to live at a new level," Mr. DeRoberts says.

Unemployment is taking a very different human toll on opposite sides of the Atlantic, which helps explain why Europe and the U.S. can't agree on how to attack the global recession. The U.S. is spending hundreds of billions of dollars -- including increased assistance to the unemployed -- to prop up the economy, and wants Europe to follow suit. But most of Western Europe already has a strong, if costly, social safety net, so governments feel less pressure to spend their way out of trouble.

The irony is that for years, Europe tried to rein in its own worker protections -- long considered a drag on growth in good times -- to emulate the faster-growing U.S. economy. Now the U.S. is moving toward a more European system.

The differing U.S. and European approaches toward worker protections can influence recovery prospects. Unemployment is similarly high, above 8% and rising, both in the U.S. and among the 16 European countries that use the euro currency. But Europe's high payroll taxes, along with restrictions on when and how companies can lay off workers, make employers slower to rehire when a recession ends.

That's one reason why economists expect the U.S. to stabilize faster than Europe. Last month the International Monetary Fund predicted that the euro-zone economy will keep shrinking next year, whereas the U.S. should bottom out by then.

Of course, this being the Wall Street Journal, the fact that so many unemployed U.S. citizens are now living in tents is mere collateral damage, and not worthy of comment. The falling salaries on Wall Street, on the other hand, are of grave concern to the people who matter!

For Mr. Butt, losing his job as a raw-materials buyer for a German auto-parts maker was a serious blow. But state benefits will replace the bulk of his salary until May 2010. And he still has full medical insurance under Germany's universal system.

Mr. DeRoberts, who lost his job at a Chrysler assembly plant in Belvidere, Ill., near Rockford, last year, saw his medical benefits expire several months later. He says he can't afford to pay the premiums on his own.

"It's scary being without insurance," Mr. DeRoberts says, but adds: "What do I give up? Food?"

Compare and contrast, people. Compare and contrast, and raise hell every time your elected representatives put the needs of corporations above the needs of working people.

This is just awful, but I knew it was just a matter of time before we saw employers try to save money this way:

It's hard enough to lose a job. But for a growing proportion of U.S. workers, the troubles really set in when they apply for unemployment benefits.

More than a quarter of people applying for such claims have their rights to the benefit challenged as employers increasingly act to block payouts to former workers.

The proportion of claims disputed by former employers and state agencies has reached record levels in recent years, according to the Labor Department numbers tallied by the Urban Institute.

Under state and federal laws, employees who are fired for misbehavior or quit voluntarily are ineligible for unemployment compensation. When jobless claims are blocked, employers save money because their unemployment insurance rates are based on the amount of the benefits their workers collect.

As unemployment rolls swell in the recession, many workers seem surprised to find their benefits challenged, their former bosses providing testimony against them. On one recent morning in what amounts to one of Maryland's unemployment courts, employees and employers squared off at conference tables to rehash reports of bad customer service, anger management and absenteeism.

"I couldn't believe it," said Kenneth M. Brown, who lost his job as a hotel electrician in October.

He began collecting benefits of $380 a week but then discovered that his former employer, the owners of the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center, were appealing to block his unemployment benefits. The hotel alleged that he had been fired for being deceptive with a supervisor.

"A big corporation like that. . . . It was hard enough to be terminated," he said. "But for them to try to take away the unemployment benefits -- I just thought that was heartless."

Boy, if Obama manages to pull this off despite the inevitable Republican opposition (and that of the Democratic Blue Dog caucus), it will make a huge difference to the unemployed. I've been paying $500 a month for COBRA coverage since I was laid off last year and I can afford maybe two more months before the money runs out:

CHICAGO — President-elect Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats are considering major expansions of government-assisted health care insurance and unemployment compensation as they begin intensive work this week on a two-year economic recovery package.

One proposal, as described by Democratic advisers, would extend unemployment compensation to part-time workers, an idea that Congressional Republicans have blocked in the past.

Other policy changes would subsidize employers’ expenses for temporarily continuing health insurance coverage to laid-off and retired workers and their dependents, as mandated under a 22-year-old federal law known as Cobra, and allow workers who lose jobs that did not come with insurance benefits to be eligible, for the first time, to apply for Medicaid coverage.