As of today, Moving Up USA will be suspended as I have taken a new job for the U.S. House of Representatives. I have really enjoyed this opportunity and want to thank all of you who read and comment on this blog. Keep up the good fight.

Early this week I wrote about unemployed workers getting hit with bank fees when they access their unemployment insurance benefit. Thankfully, Charles Rangel, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, and Jim McDermott, chairman of the subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, have decided to act. This week they sent a letter to Hilda Solis, Secretary of the Department of Labor asking for an investigation of state-level disbursement of unemployment benefits.

Here is an excerpt:

We write today to request that the Department of Labor determine the extent and impact of, as well as alternatives to, banking fees that are imposed upon unemployed workers who receive their weekly unemployment insurance (UI) benefit payments through debit cards. It has recently come to our attention that a number of States issue UI payments via debit cards, and that charges made to these cards, as well as customer service inquiries, may be subject to banking fees. Additionally, there is some evidence that UI beneficiaries are often unaware of the fees they might face when using such cards.

Losing your job is bad enough, right? Well, the AP has reported that as states partner with banks to dispense unemployment benefits, many recipients find themselves paying a fee to get their cash:

Thirty states have struck such deals with banks that include Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp., JP Morgan Chase and US Bancorp, an Associated Press review of the agreements found. All the programs carry fees, and in several states the unemployed have no choice but to use the debit cards. Some banks even charge overdraft fees of up to $20 - even though they could decline charges for more than what’s on the card.

While cards may provide extra convenience and lower administrative costs, they come at the expense of the unemployed and create a potential boon for banks.

In Missouri, for instance, 94,883 people claimed unemployment benefits through debit cards from Central Bank. Analysts say a recipient uses a card an average of six to 10 times a month. If each cardholder makes three withdrawals at an out-of-network ATM, at a fee of $1.75, the bank would collect nearly $500,000. If half of the cardholders also dial customer service three times in any given week (the first time is free; after that, it’s 25 cents a call), the bank’s revenue would jump to more than $521,000. That would yield $6.3 million a year.

The idea of bank cards shouldn’t be scrapped altogether, since they boost efficiency and save states money. But they deserve another look - especially as the new stimulus plan will increase unemployment benefits by $40. The goal should be to increase efficiency and help the unemployed, not the banks.

The Huffington Post reported that six republican governors have considered turning down money from the federal stimulus package.

A handful of Republican governors are considering turning down some money from the federal stimulus package, a move opponents say puts conservative ideology ahead of the needs of constituents struggling with record foreclosures and soaring unemployment.

Though none has outright rejected the money available for education, health care and infrastructure, the governors of Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alaska, South Carolina and Idaho have all questioned whether the $787 billion bill signed into law this week will even help the economy.

I am really dumbfounded that anyone would consider this an option and agree with Atlantic blogger, Ta-Nahisi Coates, that this is “politically stupid.”

How do you tell your citizens, yes the federal government was going to give us billions to repair our schools and create jobs, but I said no? Especially given the economic conditions of these states:

Unemployment Rates

• South Carolina - 9.5 percent (Ranked 49^th)
• Mississippi - 8.0 percent (Ranked 40^th)
• Alaska - 7.5 percent (Ranked 35^th)
• Idaho - 6.4 percent (Ranked 22^nd)
• Texas - 6.0 percent (Ranked 17^th)
• Louisiana - 5.9 percent (Ranked 16^th)

This is probably just a play for press coverage. But if they are seriously considering refusing the money, they should listen to constituents like Ruby who wrote the following comment to this post:

Governor Stanford,
Given the percentages of the unemployment rate in South Carolina and the number of families who will, if not already, lose their homes through unemployment, how will you help these people stay in their homes. Building one retail mall will not cut it. Maybe you and your supporters are feeling the pressure of a failing economy but believe there are more people who would benefit from the stimulus package than from your pride and possible other hangups. That old southern mentality needs to be put on the shelf. The good ole boys way of thinking will get the people of S.C. nowhere, unless of course you have a few billion dollars lying around to bail out the people in S.C.

With the weakened economy and tight budgets states are desperately awaiting the funds from Obama’s $787 billion stimulus bill. While the money will go directly to the states, cities leaders are optimistic that the infusion of cash will spur job growth (or prevent more layoffs) in their urban areas.

As members of Congress and the White House were still hammering out the details of the bill, mayors across the country began laying the groundwork for how they could best spend the money to help their cities. In Newark, NJ, Mayor Cory Booker has focused on ways to help families in need, boost city revenue and cut costs long before the stimulus was a done deal:

The economic stimulus package pending in Congress could end up being a boon for Newark. But Booker said the city also must aggressively boost revenue, including fees, parking and payroll taxes.

To stem rising costs, the mayor wants to reduce fuel expenses, perform energy audits and drop car allowances for city employees. He is considering replacing hard-wired telephone lines in city offices with cell phones and won’t rule out offering city services to other towns.

City officials also believe Newark could become a city of opportunity in hard times for companies unable to locate to more expensive towns.

During his tenure as mayor, Booker, in partnership with the State of New Jersey Department of Children and families opened 11 Family Success Centers in the city. These community-based centers serve as a one stop shop for families in need, offering information about health services, tax preparation, job training, child care, housing assistance, and other opportunities. The centers have been so successful that Booker has pledged to open a “grandfamily center” to assist the specific needs of the city’s 4,000 households headed by grandparents.

The most interesting thing about Booker’s approach is his balance of providing opportunity but demanding responsibility from those who benefit:

These comprehensive services will help our caregivers, parents, and families. But our caregivers, parents and families must reach out to the Centers, and they must be willing to take the steps that the Center staff prescribe. That may require foregoing a favorite pizza for a cheaper, but more nutritious meal. It might also call upon youngsters to give up a television show to bear down on homework. But these are small demands compared to those that adult life will impose, and the alternatives of ignorance, poverty, and crime are too bitter to contemplate - for us as civic leaders seeking to build the best Newark possible, and for our children, seeking to build the best people they can be.

This afternoon the House will probably approve the stimulus package, sending it to a Senate vote this evening. If all goes as planned, President Obama can sign the new legislation this weekend.

While main goal of the bill is to create jobs - 4 million jobs according to Obama’s directives- it also contains much needed funding to assist those who are currently unemployed. Specifically:

• Unemployed workers could receive 20 more weeks of unemployment benefits. Those in states with particularly high unemployment rates could get up to 33 more weeks;
• Trade Adjustment Assistance health benefits could be available to 160,000 more people who are out of work because their job moved over seas; and
• People who have been laid off could receive a subsidy for health insurance up to 60 percent for nine months.

The bill also includes a one-time grant for states that reform their unemployment insurance programs, making it easier for low-wage and part-time workers to apply for the assistance.

We know that nearly 600,000 people lost their jobs in January, increasing our national unemployment rate to 7.6 percent. Too often, however, we concentrate on the statistic and forget the faces of the people who make up the unemployed population. Yesterday, Michael Luo of the New York Times wrote a profile of the citizens of Manchester, Ohio who are still seeking solid ground after Manchester Tool Company closed its doors 10 months ago.

The lessons we learn from this small town shine a light on the broader economy. Only 15 percent of the hourly workers have found steady employment. Older workers, like John Foss, age 50, find it especially hard to transfer their skills to other sectors of the economy:

Mr. Foss, who started as a machinist at Manchester, applied for scores of jobs after his layoff, combing the newspaper and Internet and dropping in on employers to fill out applications. He has not heard back from anyone.

A job search he initially thought might take a few weeks has stretched into its 11th month. And his initial hopes of landing a job that paid close to the $18.12 an hour he used to make have faded. He now believes $8 to $12 an hour is more likely.

For those laid off workers who can afford schooling, the healthcare field has shown the most promise:

Cindy Starcher, 35, and Lorraine Norrod, 50, are among the small group of Manchester workers who decided to seek retraining in a new field. Their rationale is easy to understand: in Ohio, more than 280,000 manufacturing jobs have been shed since 2000.

The women carpool now to classes Monday through Thursday at Northcoast Medical Training Academy, studying to become medical assistants. Those jobs typically pay about $20,000 to $30,000 a year, they said, much less than what they used to make.

But as Ms. Norrod put it, “It pays more than being laid off.”

Ms. Starcher, who has two young children at home, said she settled on health care as a potential career after much deliberation, concluding the jobs would always be needed.

“There’s always going to be sick people,” she said. “It’s the one thing you can’t send overseas.”

The tales from Manchester, Ohio should guide policy makers as we look for ways to create jobs and help people find work. Education and training are key pieces to this puzzle. As we move forward we must connect people to growing sectors of the economy and give them the tools to make an easy transition.

The U.S. economy lost 598,000 jobs in January, marking the largest one month job loss since December of 1972. Unemployment is now at 7.6 percent. More than 11 million Americans who want a job are out of work.

As the Senate continues to debate the terms of the Economic Recovery Package, the economy is in free fall. President Obama gets it:

“I don’t care whether you’re driving a hybrid or an SUV,” he said. “If you’re headed for a cliff, you have to change direction. That’s what the American people called for in November, and that’s what we intend to deliver.”

We are at the cliff. The Wall Street Journal reports:

Unemployment filings have soared so high in recent months that seven states have already emptied their unemployment-insurance trust funds, which were supposed to see them through recessionary periods. Another 11 states are in jeopardy of depleting reserves by year’s end, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, which published a January report entitled “The Crisis in State Unemployment Trust Funds.” So far, states have borrowed more than $2.3 billion in emergency funds from the federal government, money they are required to pay back.

Mark Zandi, former advisor to McCain has created this graph that shows the danger of inaction:

Job loss creates more job loss. The Senate needs to speed up their compromise and get our people back to work.

Yesterday the Senate released its version of the Economic Recovery Act. However, we can expect changes since they currently lack the 60 votes to pass it.

The House and Senate versions of the bill are fairly similar. Yet, while the Senate version costs more, it offers lest assistance for food stamps - $3.5 billon less. This shouldn’t just concern those of us who care about domestic hunger. In fact, anyone who wants the economy to rebound should advocate for the House spending levels on food assistance.

Mark Zandi, chief economist and cofounder of Moody’s Economy.com and former advisor to Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign, has said that increasing food stamp benefits is one of the best ways to boost the economy. In a testimony to House Committee on Small Business Zandi noted:

More specifically, extending food stamps are the most effective ways to prime the economy’s pump. A $1 increase in food stamp payments by $1 boosts GDP by $1.73 People who receive these benefits are very hard-pressed and will spend any financial aid they receive within a few weeks. These programs are also already operating, and a benefit increase can be quickly delivered to recipients.

Comparatively, the multiplier effect of making the Bush income tax cuts permanently is only .29, the effect of cutting the corporate tax rate is .30, and making the dividend and capital gains tax permanent is only .37.

If we want to get the biggest bang for our buck, we can’t let Rush Limbaugh and Senate Republicans define the terms of the debate.

The White House officially launched its Middle Class Task Force that will be chaired by Vice President Biden. In a USA Today op/ed on Sunday Biden wrote:

One of the things that makes this task force distinctive is it brings together - in one place - those agencies that have the most impact on the well-being of the middle class in our country. We’ll be looking at everything from access to college and training with the Department of Education, to business development with the Department of Commerce, to child care reform with Health and Human Services, to labor law with the Department of Labor. With this task force, we’ll have a single, high-visibility group with one goal: To raise the living standards of middle-class families.

I am sure the specifics of the task force need to be worked out, but it is thrilling to have champions in the White House who, as the President said, want to create jobs, “but not just any jobs.” More specifically:

jobs that sustain families and sustain dreams; jobs in new and growing industries; jobs that don’t feel like a dead end, but a way forward and a way up; jobs that will foster a vibrant and growing middle class

The President has already shown a commitment to this issue, not just in the new task force, but also with the signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, which creates pay fairness and makes the economy work for all, regardless of gender.