Michigan Votes

2007 Senate Bill 86 (Extend unemployment insurance benefits )

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

  • Introduced by Sen. Ray Basham on January 25, 2007, to increase the maximum length of time an individual may receive unemployment insurance benefits, from 26 weeks in a year to 39 weeks.
    • Referred to the Senate Commerce & Tourism Committee on January 25, 2007.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Sen. Ray Basham on January 25, 2007. New Comment

1) Anyone else? [by Anonymous Citizen on August 27, 2008]
Is there anyone else that hasn't received their first Unemployment extension check?

Sarah
Reply New Comment

Line

2) And All You Good [by Anonymous Citizen on September 5, 2008]
dems/libs want to grow the government and hand over health care and who knows what else to these incompetant fools????
Anyone that doesn't vote republican/conservative deserves what they get.
Reply New Comment

Line

3) Why Michigan? [by Anonymous Citizen on September 5, 2008]
I wish we would have elected the Governor of Alaska as our Governor instead of the {W]itch from Canada. Bad mistake.
Reply New Comment

Line

4) Hello [by Anonymous Citizen on September 4, 2008]
I have not received my unemployment yet. I did everything I was supposed to. They said I had to wait 1 to 4 weeks. I keep trying to call through because it has been 5 weeks today. On July 31 I received a letter stating my weekly check amount, but no check yet. Anyone else having the same issue?
Reply New Comment

Line

5) waiting [by Anonymous Citizen on September 5, 2008]
I have been waiting three months. I can't pay my bills i am losing things, and cannot find a job! I don't know what to do.
Reply New Comment

Line

6) Why Stop At 13 Weeks? [by Anonymous Citizen on August 13, 2008]
Lets just have the government take all the businesses dole out what they think you are worth, tell you where to live, what to drive and where you can shop. You folks keep fighting against the supreme nanny state when all they want is what's best for you. If you were smarter you could understand this.
Reply New Comment

Line

7) Check [by Anonymous Citizen on August 12, 2008]
Has anyone received a check yet? I am still waiting and I have called Marvin 2 times now.
Reply New Comment

Line

8) Didn't receive check yet [by Anonymous Citizen on August 13, 2008]
I have also certified with Marvin twice, and also talked to two women at Unemployment. Unfortunately, I worked for two weeks and the place closed up! If you worked anywhere and either quit or were let go, for any reason, you will be put at "the end of the line" for waiting for your check. Because of the number of people trying to collect money with the Extension, they were overwhelmed with paperwork. Just keep calling Marvin. You will receive a check with a retro-active amount back to July 6th, per the UI customer service people. You had to have received a letter from them though, stating that you qualify for it.

Hope this helps! Don't give up and don't stop calling Marvin. Your calls have to be in every two weeks!!
Sarah
Reply New Comment

Line

9) Checks [by Anonymous Citizen on August 13, 2008]
Sarah,
Thanks for the info. I did receive the claim that i would be receiving 9 weeks. I haven't called them to check up on my checks. Like you say they will come soon for all the back weeks.
Sara
Reply New Comment

Line

10) Checks-13 wk extension [by Anonymous Citizen on August 12, 2008]
Yes, I have finally received a check for the last 2 weeks, I have 11 more to collect, however it says that I have to file a new claim again, while collecting the 13 wks because my benefit year ended on 7-26-08. Hope this helps out! :)
Reply New Comment

Line

11) I wonder.. [by Anonymous Citizen on August 18, 2008]
I also got a letter stating that I am entitled to 13 weeks extension.. but.. I am still calling Marvin and haven't gotten a check yet. My year ends August 30th, so I will have to file a new claim. I wonder what date to actually do that? A couple of days before??? I realize they are all very busy because of the number of people that have Extensions, but this is getting very confusing :-(
Sarah
Reply New Comment

Line

12) Still no letter [by Anonymous Citizen on July 29, 2008]
I have yet to receice anything on my
extention. Although I have gotten in
touch with the enemployment office, they say to just wait, is anyone else had this happen?
Rose
Reply New Comment

Line

13) Unemployment [by Anonymous Citizen on July 29, 2008]
Yes Rose, same thing with me. I sent in app. on 7-18,went down to MichWorks same day, made the call for options and called on my call date which was 7-23 and no certification, so I called and talked to a HUMAN and she did the same thing MARVIN does and told me to call on my next call date, which is Aug. 6th and that I could call the Marvin number and select "2" to inquire, I have done that daily, still no response. I too worked for 4 days and that's probably what's holding everything up!!! GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR! :(
Reply New Comment

Line

14) Extension [by Anonymous Citizen on July 29, 2008]
I received my application on 7/17. Filled out and mailed back the same day. Went to Mich Works office and did everything I was suppose to do. I tried calling on my call in date 7/22 but MARVIN told me I couldn't certify until after 7/27 so I just called today and Marvin did not tell me how much I would be getting or when the check would be mailed (like he usually does at the end). He said something about 10 days and that I could call the 866-500-0017 and push the inquiry option. What is that all about? I did not take any job or make any money except my unemployment. Anyone else have this experience?? I would like to know the amount of my check and when I should expect it. Not sure what to do next.
Reply New Comment

Line

15) Marvin [by Anonymous Citizen on July 29, 2008]
When I got through to Marvin on the 22, He didn't tell me either how much or when I would get the money. But i had to do the direct deposit after the call. But I did get my claim notice in the mail of how much I will get and how many weeks. Today is the 29th and still no deposit in my account.Its just taking time to process everyone. Don't give up it will be there .
Reply New Comment

Line

16) Also got mine today [by Anonymous Citizen on July 30, 2008]
I also got my claim approval in the mail today. Remember, our payments are retro-active back from July 6th. We will get a large check, when they actually come. Unfortunately, I chose to have mine mailed. Don't give up faith. If you get your approval letter, the check will come eventually. It also says how much you will receive. They are just backed up... terribly.

Have a great day :-)

Sarah
Reply New Comment

Line

17) Mail [by Anonymous Citizen on August 4, 2008]
Hi.
Just to let you know they no longer mail the checks . You have to call that # and press 2 and have it direct deposit or a debit card. Maybe that is what you meant by mail??? Iam still waiting for my deposit from last call and my call day is tomorrow Aug.5. I will see what it tells me tomorrow.
Patricia
Reply New Comment

Line

18) Check [by Anonymous Citizen on August 5, 2008]
I received a check in the mail so they are still mailing checks out.
Reply New Comment

Line

19) Mail again [by Anonymous Citizen on August 6, 2008]
Thanks for the update . Yes when I did call Marvin on 8/5 they did say a check would be in the mail. So it should be for 4 weeks.
Thanks everyone for all your input
Reply New Comment

Line

20) Yes [by Anonymous Citizen on July 29, 2008]

Yes, Rose, it is happening to me. Unfortunately, I took a job for 2 weeks. The place closed up! Because of that, Unemployment has to take more time to review my claim. They are so overwhelmed because of the extensions, they are doing all the easy claims first. I guess we just wait for the mailman... Grrrr

Sarah
Reply New Comment

Line

21) Extension [by Anonymous Citizen on July 25, 2008]
I received my approval very fast. I will be getting 9 weeks. Called in to Marvin on Tuesday July 22. Having it direct deposited but today is Friday and it is not there yet. Surprised me I thought it would have been deposited. It was hard to get through had to redial over and over and you will get through.
Reply New Comment

Line

22) Unemployment [by Anonymous Citizen on July 25, 2008]
I mailed my exension App in on Monday July 21. On Wednesday the 23rd I went to my local MWA office as requested. My call in days are Wednesdays. I did not call MARVIN bucause I was waiting for the OK to do so. Well Late Friday afternoon I went ahead and called MARVIN and I will be getting my check diredt deposited on Monday the 2th........
Reply New Comment

Line

23) Unemployment [by Anonymous Citizen on July 24, 2008]
That's exactly what happened to me! They just need time to process all the app's....I'm sure we will receive our checks befor the next call date!
Reply New Comment

Line

24) ANONYMOUS [by Anonymous Citizen on July 24, 2008]
I SENT MY APPLICATION IN ON JULY 17TH, TRIED CALLING MARVIN ON MY SCHEDULED DAY WEDNESDAY JULY 23 AND MARVIN WOULD NOT TAKE MY CERTIFICATION. I TRIED CALLING THE UIA PHONE LINE 2 OR 3 TIMES, WAS ON HOLD FOR ABOUT 30 MINUTES, AND HAD TO HANG UP. SO I TRIED CALLING MARVIN AGAIN TODAY, THURSDAY JULY 24TH AND MARVIN WOULD STILL NOT TAKE MY CERTIFICATION. SO I CALLED THE UIA LINE AGAIN AND WAS BUSY FOR THE LONGEST TIME, WHEN I FINALLY GOT THRU I WAS ON HOLD AGAIN. I FINALLY TALKED TO A PERSON AND EXPLAINED TO HIM WHAT WAS GOING ON. HE TOLD ME, THEY HAVEN'T GOTTEN ALL THE APPLICATIONS PROCESSED IN THE COMPUTER YET AND TO TRY CALLING MARVIN BACK ON MY NEXT CALL IN DATE WHICH IS WED, AUGUST 6TH, AND IT SHOULD BE IN THE COMPUTER BY THEN
Reply New Comment

Line

25) when to call Marvin [by Anonymous Citizen on July 29, 2008]
If you continuously get a "all circuits are busy" when you call Marvin, I found a better way!

Say for instance, if you are supposed to call from 3:00-4:00. Never, ever call right at 3:00. Try about 3:15. Hang up, if you get the recording. Call back right away. Keep doing that until it goes thru. It usually takes about 3-4 tries, but it works. Hope this helps

Sarah
Reply New Comment

Line

26) Unemployment extension [by Anonymous Citizen on July 26, 2008]
Same thing happened to me. I promptly filled out my application and mailed back the same day I received it - July 17. Did everything they asked me to do - went to Mich Works, etc. My call in day is Tuesday but when I called MARVIN he told me I couldn't certify until after July 27. I could never get through on the phones to anyone to ask why so I apprciate your post. Does everyone automatically get 13 weeks more of unemployment? My 26 weeks ran out on July 5th.
Reply New Comment

Line

27) Extension [by Anonymous Citizen on August 2, 2008]
I received my explaination of benefits in the mail today (8/2) along with a check for three weeks of benefits. They must just be very, very busy but the checks will arrive.
Reply New Comment

Line

28) Unemployment [by Anonymous Citizen on August 3, 2008]
I received my determenation form, but no check yet, so I will call on my regular call date and will probably receive a check for 4 weeks.
Thanks for everyone's input, I think it helps all of us going through these tuff times!!! :)
Reply New Comment

Line

29) Weeks [by Anonymous Citizen on July 27, 2008]
All depends on the income you made. It says up to 13 weeks. I am only getting 9 weeks.
Reply New Comment

Line

30) Anonymous Citizen [by Anonymous Citizen on July 22, 2008]
Sent my paper in on July 17th. Called Marvin on my call in date, Monday July 21st. My check will be direct deposited on July 23rd. Hope this helps everyone.
Reply New Comment

Line

31) Did anyone receive a decision on there unemployment application [by Anonymous Citizen on July 21, 2008]
i return my application last tuesday have anyone been approve yet
Reply New Comment

Line

32) Anonymous [by Anonymous Citizen on July 22, 2008]
Sent my paper in on July 17th. Called marvin on my call in date Monday July 21st. My check will be direct deposited on July 23rd. Hope this helps everyone.
Reply New Comment

Line

33) Response to Unemployment extension [by Anonymous Citizen on July 22, 2008]
No word yet
Reply New Comment

Line

34) Yikes! [by Anonymous Citizen on July 18, 2008]
By EILEEN SULLIVAN, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 39 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - European terrorists are trying to enter the United States with European Union passports, and there is no guarantee officials will catch them every time, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Thursday.

ADVERTISEMENT

Chertoff's comments on Capitol Hill comes as the country is entering a potentially vulnerable period with the presidential nominating conventions coming up next month; the presidential election in November; and the transition to a new administration in January — all of which may be attractive targets for terrorists.

In his last scheduled appearance before the House Homeland Security Committee, Chertoff said that the more time and space al-Qaida and its allies have to recruit, train, experiment and plan, the more problems the U.S. and Europe will face down the road.

"The terrorists are deliberately focusing on people who have legitimate Western European passports, who don't appear to have records as terrorists," Chertoff told lawmakers. "I have a good degree of confidence we can catch people coming in. But I have to tell you ... there's no guarantee. And they are working very hard to slip by us."

Chertoff and other intelligence officials have delivered similar warnings before, and he offered no new information about specific threats or an imminent attack.

Chertoff reiterated his concern that terrorists could sneak radiological material into the country on small boats or private aircraft. This material could be used to create an explosive device known as a "dirty bomb."

The Homeland Security Department has a strategy to protect against this small boat vulnerability and is testing radiation detection equipment in Seattle and San Diego ports.

Chertoff said that getting out a regulation to prescreen and enhance security of general aviation aircraft coming to the U.S. from overseas is one of his top priorities.

He also said he expects to approve new radiation detection technology this fall.

Responding to a question from Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, Chertoff dismissed any rumor that he is on a list of potential running mates for Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. Chertoff quipped that the only list he has for next year is a list of vacations.

Chertoff's term as the country's second Homeland Security Secretary ends when a new administration takes over the White House in January.


Reply New Comment

Line

35) Maybe [by Anonymous Citizen on July 18, 2008]
if B. Hussein Obama justs sits down and talks to them they will play nice.....
Let me know how that works out for you.
Reply New Comment

Line

36) I don't think it's made up. It's in the news. [by Anonymous Citizen on July 18, 2008]
Ben Adler
1 hour, 21 minutes ago



If you’ve read enough profiles of Barack Obama, chances are you’re familiar with the name Kirk Dillard. An accomplished and articulate legislator who served with Obama in the Illinois state Senate, he is frequently called on by the national media to shed light on the presumptive Democratic nominee’s early days in politics.

ADVERTISEMENT

Dillard is an unabashed admirer, one whose high praise for Obama led the campaign to feature him in Obama’s first biographical television ad.

All of that wouldn’t be so unusual except for the fact that Dillard is a Republican. And a delegate for John McCain.

Now, as a result of his willingness to regularly offer an unvarnished take on Obama’s Springfield years, Dillard is facing some serious blowback within his own party.

Much of the resentment stems from Dillard’s starring role in the Obama commercial, which aired long into the primary season and burnished Obama’s bipartisan credentials in six states, including Iowa.

“Senator Obama worked on some of the deepest issues we had and he was successful in a bipartisan way,” said Dillard in the ad. “Republican legislators respected Senator Obama. His negotiation skills and an ability to understand both sides would serve the country very well.”

Dillard was not a McCain delegate at the time the spot was filmed, but his appearance nevertheless rubbed GOP colleagues the wrong way.

“There was some obvious concern about Senator Dillard and the fact that he was in an ad, and the comments he’s made,” said Frank Watson, the Senate Republican leader. “I just had to say I was disappointed that he was in a commercial for the candidate. That was over the top. He didn’t just hear from me. Colleagues, Republicans in general throughout the state were very disappointed in his participation.”

Andy McKenna, the state party chairman, also raised the issue with Dillard. “I echoed what I’d heard from many people that they were disappointed and found it counter-productive,” he said.

But it wasn’t just the commercial that landed Dillard in hot water. It was the stream of laudatory remarks in the media, including some made in a 2007 Obama conference call that he participated in.

As soon as it seemed likely that Obama would be the Democratic nominee, other Republican state Senate colleagues privately complained to him that anything positive he said about Obama would hurt McCain.

Besides, as they recalled things, Obama had much more modest achievements and a far less dramatic presence.

“Kirk’s enthusiasm for Senator Obama is clearly an outlier,” said GOP state Sen. Christine Radogno. “Everyone agrees Barack’s an intelligent guy, but in terms of being a stupendous standout that’s a unique view.”

“In fairness, [Dillard] served with Obama longer than I did,” said Dale Righter, the Republican Senate caucus chair. “But I’ve seen him refer to Obama as having done really yeoman’s work in the Illinois state Senate. I don’t know that I’d agree with that from my two years with him.”

Dillard contends he was punished for by Watson for his pro-Obama remarks. Dillard, who serves in the unpaid position of party whip, said that he had been assured by Watson that he would get the next opening among the paid leadership positions, namely assistant leader. But, when an opening came, he was passed over. Dillard believes it was at least in part payback.

“The partisans want to punish me,” he said. “They’ve done it through pocketbook and position.”

Watson was unavailable to return a follow-up request for comment on that claim. But his spokesperson, Patty Schuh, denied that any specific position had been promised. She did not rule out the possibility that Dillard’s comments on Obama might have contributed to him not getting the job, but said it could not have been the sole reason.

Dillard also appeared, to some colleagues, to be dragging his feet on a matter of importance to his colleagues—a request from McCain’s Illinois campaign chairman, state Rep. Jim Durkin, that Dillard formally ask the Obama campaign to remove the ad from the air.

Durkin says that Dillard delayed for months until finally, in May, Durkin himself offered to draft a formal letter for Dillard to sign and send to the Obama campaign.

“He walked the letter over to my desk on the Senate floor and stuck it under my nose and asked me if I’d sign it,” recalled Dillard.

Durkin says that Dillard was not taken by surprise and that Dillard revised the letter himself. “I had talked to Kirk and I had suggested to him that I would draft the letter,” said Durkin. “I did not just show up on the Senate floor. He was pleased and relieved. I came over with a draft and he marked it up.”

Durkin added that Dillard had said he was glad to bring the matter to a close. “Kirk has received a lot of flak in Illinois. I was doing this to protect Kirk and he was thankful that I did this.” Durkin said the letter was his idea, and that it did not originate from within the McCain campaign.

When presented with the request in June, the Obama campaign agreed to stop airing the ad.

“Senator Obama appreciates that Senator Dillard worked with him in a bipartisan way in the Illinois legislature to take on the special interests and pass campaign finance and ethics reform,” said Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan. “But he understands that Senator Dillard feels obligated to support his party’s nominee.”

Dillard attributes some of the GOP pushback to reflexive partisanship.

“Some of the totally partisan, more conservative legislators from Day One were not understanding of my cameo appearance in a Senator Obama ad in Iowa,” he said. “The only people I received negative feedback from initially were the partisan leaders.”

Kent Redfield, a professor of political science at the University of Illinois-Springfield, and an expert on state politics, said that Dillard may have been surprised by the controversy his comments caused because state politics in Illinois are generally isolated from national partisan rancor.

“Politics tends to be not very nationally or ideologically focused on the state level in Illinois,” said Redfield.

But Dillard’s comments also may have touched a raw nerve by exacerbating preexisting intra-party tensions.

“The Republican Party in Illinois has a huge ideological split between the moderate wing and the hard right,” said Redfield. “Dillard is seen as part of the moderate suburban crowd so there’s a ‘there he goes again’ kind of reaction from the people who brought you Alan Keyes [the conservative activist who Republicans nominated to run against Obama in 2004].”

Dillard said he will continue to speak up about Obama, though he favors McCain for president because he agrees with the presumptive GOP nominee on the issues. He contends that there are other Republicans who hold Obama in high regard, though they will not say so publicly for partisan purposes.

“None of my colleagues who admired Obama will return the reporters’ phone calls,” said Dillard. “And that’s the problem with this country. No one is willing to say something nice for 10 seconds about someone of a different race, party, and location. In this case Barack is from Chicago and I’m from the suburbs of Chicago.”

“Very few suburbanites would work closely with city of Chicago Democrats,” he added. “Also, there’s the racial component. It’s a testament to Senator Obama that he was able to work with people who were different than he.”

But, he hastened to add, “John McCain has those same qualities.”

Reply New Comment

Line

37) Yeah [by Anonymous Citizen on July 18, 2008]
you said "I don't think it's made up. It's in the news."

Do you ever read what you write? Most of the so called news media is just a giant obama campaign outfit. The only republicans that they will say anything good about are the ones that shouldn't even be republicans. What do you think would happen if one of McCain's good buddies used to set off bombs in government buildings?????The news doesn't even mention all the shady crooks that mr. hussein obama hangs with.
Reply New Comment

Line

38) obama [by Anonymous Citizen on July 21, 2008]
Hatters!!!!!!!!!!!Stop hatin on my boy obama!he gone win and that that!! HA
Reply New Comment

Line

39) re b. husein obama [by Anonymous Citizen on July 22, 2008]
I sure hope he not gone win. We wil b in troble.
This is why we need a poll test.
Reply New Comment

Line

40) I'm voting for Senator Obama this time. [by Anonymous Citizen on July 22, 2008]
He's our only hope.
Reply New Comment

Line

41) Don't Forget [by Anonymous Citizen on July 22, 2008]
he's also for change.
Reply New Comment

Line

42) Obama??? [by Anonymous Citizen on July 22, 2008]
Yeah, thats what we need. Some Muslim that hasn't done anything in his political life. That will solve everything. Can you say TAX MAN?
Reply New Comment

Line

43) You know, Rick Albin, from wood tv 8 ran for Republican office, so... [by Anonymous Citizen on July 18, 2008]
cry me a river. I think he's a great guy,
but...as a political reporter, I
simply keep that in mind.

I think he's a hard worker, and I'm
glad to have him as other stations
don't seem to have the expense account for
a political reporter, but...

just don't even start on liberal media bias around these parts
Reply New Comment

Line

44) I mean OH MY GOD, I don't believe it! [by Anonymous Citizen on July 18, 2008]
Ben Adler
1 hour, 21 minutes ago



If you’ve read enough profiles of Barack Obama, chances are you’re familiar with the name Kirk Dillard. An accomplished and articulate legislator who served with Obama in the Illinois state Senate, he is frequently called on by the national media to shed light on the presumptive Democratic nominee’s early days in politics.

ADVERTISEMENT

Dillard is an unabashed admirer, one whose high praise for Obama led the campaign to feature him in Obama’s first biographical television ad.

All of that wouldn’t be so unusual except for the fact that Dillard is a Republican. And a delegate for John McCain.

Now, as a result of his willingness to regularly offer an unvarnished take on Obama’s Springfield years, Dillard is facing some serious blowback within his own party.

Much of the resentment stems from Dillard’s starring role in the Obama commercial, which aired long into the primary season and burnished Obama’s bipartisan credentials in six states, including Iowa.

“Senator Obama worked on some of the deepest issues we had and he was successful in a bipartisan way,” said Dillard in the ad. “Republican legislators respected Senator Obama. His negotiation skills and an ability to understand both sides would serve the country very well.”

Dillard was not a McCain delegate at the time the spot was filmed, but his appearance nevertheless rubbed GOP colleagues the wrong way.

“There was some obvious concern about Senator Dillard and the fact that he was in an ad, and the comments he’s made,” said Frank Watson, the Senate Republican leader. “I just had to say I was disappointed that he was in a commercial for the candidate. That was over the top. He didn’t just hear from me. Colleagues, Republicans in general throughout the state were very disappointed in his participation.”

Andy McKenna, the state party chairman, also raised the issue with Dillard. “I echoed what I’d heard from many people that they were disappointed and found it counter-productive,” he said.

But it wasn’t just the commercial that landed Dillard in hot water. It was the stream of laudatory remarks in the media, including some made in a 2007 Obama conference call that he participated in.

As soon as it seemed likely that Obama would be the Democratic nominee, other Republican state Senate colleagues privately complained to him that anything positive he said about Obama would hurt McCain.

Besides, as they recalled things, Obama had much more modest achievements and a far less dramatic presence.

“Kirk’s enthusiasm for Senator Obama is clearly an outlier,” said GOP state Sen. Christine Radogno. “Everyone agrees Barack’s an intelligent guy, but in terms of being a stupendous standout that’s a unique view.”

“In fairness, [Dillard] served with Obama longer than I did,” said Dale Righter, the Republican Senate caucus chair. “But I’ve seen him refer to Obama as having done really yeoman’s work in the Illinois state Senate. I don’t know that I’d agree with that from my two years with him.”

Dillard contends he was punished for by Watson for his pro-Obama remarks. Dillard, who serves in the unpaid position of party whip, said that he had been assured by Watson that he would get the next opening among the paid leadership positions, namely assistant leader. But, when an opening came, he was passed over. Dillard believes it was at least in part payback.

“The partisans want to punish me,” he said. “They’ve done it through pocketbook and position.”

Watson was unavailable to return a follow-up request for comment on that claim. But his spokesperson, Patty Schuh, denied that any specific position had been promised. She did not rule out the possibility that Dillard’s comments on Obama might have contributed to him not getting the job, but said it could not have been the sole reason.

Dillard also appeared, to some colleagues, to be dragging his feet on a matter of importance to his colleagues—a request from McCain’s Illinois campaign chairman, state Rep. Jim Durkin, that Dillard formally ask the Obama campaign to remove the ad from the air.

Durkin says that Dillard delayed for months until finally, in May, Durkin himself offered to draft a formal letter for Dillard to sign and send to the Obama campaign.

“He walked the letter over to my desk on the Senate floor and stuck it under my nose and asked me if I’d sign it,” recalled Dillard.

Durkin says that Dillard was not taken by surprise and that Dillard revised the letter himself. “I had talked to Kirk and I had suggested to him that I would draft the letter,” said Durkin. “I did not just show up on the Senate floor. He was pleased and relieved. I came over with a draft and he marked it up.”

Durkin added that Dillard had said he was glad to bring the matter to a close. “Kirk has received a lot of flak in Illinois. I was doing this to protect Kirk and he was thankful that I did this.” Durkin said the letter was his idea, and that it did not originate from within the McCain campaign.

When presented with the request in June, the Obama campaign agreed to stop airing the ad.

“Senator Obama appreciates that Senator Dillard worked with him in a bipartisan way in the Illinois legislature to take on the special interests and pass campaign finance and ethics reform,” said Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan. “But he understands that Senator Dillard feels obligated to support his party’s nominee.”

Dillard attributes some of the GOP pushback to reflexive partisanship.

“Some of the totally partisan, more conservative legislators from Day One were not understanding of my cameo appearance in a Senator Obama ad in Iowa,” he said. “The only people I received negative feedback from initially were the partisan leaders.”

Kent Redfield, a professor of political science at the University of Illinois-Springfield, and an expert on state politics, said that Dillard may have been surprised by the controversy his comments caused because state politics in Illinois are generally isolated from national partisan rancor.

“Politics tends to be not very nationally or ideologically focused on the state level in Illinois,” said Redfield.

But Dillard’s comments also may have touched a raw nerve by exacerbating preexisting intra-party tensions.

“The Republican Party in Illinois has a huge ideological split between the moderate wing and the hard right,” said Redfield. “Dillard is seen as part of the moderate suburban crowd so there’s a ‘there he goes again’ kind of reaction from the people who brought you Alan Keyes [the conservative activist who Republicans nominated to run against Obama in 2004].”

Dillard said he will continue to speak up about Obama, though he favors McCain for president because he agrees with the presumptive GOP nominee on the issues. He contends that there are other Republicans who hold Obama in high regard, though they will not say so publicly for partisan purposes.

“None of my colleagues who admired Obama will return the reporters’ phone calls,” said Dillard. “And that’s the problem with this country. No one is willing to say something nice for 10 seconds about someone of a different race, party, and location. In this case Barack is from Chicago and I’m from the suburbs of Chicago.”

“Very few suburbanites would work closely with city of Chicago Democrats,” he added. “Also, there’s the racial component. It’s a testament to Senator Obama that he was able to work with people who were different than he.”

But, he hastened to add, “John McCain has those same qualities.”


Reply New Comment

Line

45) Don't Get Too Excited by Some RINO's Opinion [by Anonymous Citizen on July 18, 2008]
More lies by Obama to obscure his radical collectivist history:

During Obama's campaign for the 2008 Democrat nomination he portrayed his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, as a conservative girl from Kansas; however in reality her family moved to Washington state when she was 12.

She grew-up a radical leftist and cutural Marxist; spending her teenage years in Seattle's coffee shops with other young radical leftists before graduating from Mercer Island High School (not some school in Kansas) in 1960.

Obama claims his mother's family was conservative Methodists or Baptists from Kansas. However his mother's parents were members of a Unitarian church located in Bellevue, Washington nicknamed 'the little red church,' because of its radical leanings.

Mercer Island High School, was a hotbed of pro-Marxist radical teachers as attested by John Stenhouse, a board member, before the House Un-American Activities Subcommittee. He admitted that he had been a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) and this school, Mercer Island, had a number of Marxists on its staff. Two teachers in particular at this school, Val Foubert and Jim Wichterman, both Frankfurt School style Marxists, taught a critical theory curriculum to students which included rejection of societal norms, attacks on Christianity, the traditional family, and assigned readings by Karl Marx, among other radical thinkers. The hallway between Fouberts and Wichterman classrooms was sometimes called 'anarchy ally.'

Dunham has been described by her friends as 'a fellow traveler...' meaning a communist sympathizer.

Barack Obama referred to his mother as 'the dominant figure in my formative years... The values she taught me continue to be my touchstone when it comes to how I go about the world of politics.'

Fortunately for her she passed away in 1995 and he can't throw his radical momma under the bus too....

Reply New Comment

Line

46) OGM I don't belong to a party, but Rep. lookin' like bullies today [by Anonymous Citizen on July 18, 2008]
Ben Adler
1 hour, 21 minutes ago



If you’ve read enough profiles of Barack Obama, chances are you’re familiar with the name Kirk Dillard. An accomplished and articulate legislator who served with Obama in the Illinois state Senate, he is frequently called on by the national media to shed light on the presumptive Democratic nominee’s early days in politics.

ADVERTISEMENT

Dillard is an unabashed admirer, one whose high praise for Obama led the campaign to feature him in Obama’s first biographical television ad.

All of that wouldn’t be so unusual except for the fact that Dillard is a Republican. And a delegate for John McCain.

Now, as a result of his willingness to regularly offer an unvarnished take on Obama’s Springfield years, Dillard is facing some serious blowback within his own party.

Much of the resentment stems from Dillard’s starring role in the Obama commercial, which aired long into the primary season and burnished Obama’s bipartisan credentials in six states, including Iowa.

“Senator Obama worked on some of the deepest issues we had and he was successful in a bipartisan way,” said Dillard in the ad. “Republican legislators respected Senator Obama. His negotiation skills and an ability to understand both sides would serve the country very well.”

Dillard was not a McCain delegate at the time the spot was filmed, but his appearance nevertheless rubbed GOP colleagues the wrong way.

“There was some obvious concern about Senator Dillard and the fact that he was in an ad, and the comments he’s made,” said Frank Watson, the Senate Republican leader. “I just had to say I was disappointed that he was in a commercial for the candidate. That was over the top. He didn’t just hear from me. Colleagues, Republicans in general throughout the state were very disappointed in his participation.”

Andy McKenna, the state party chairman, also raised the issue with Dillard. “I echoed what I’d heard from many people that they were disappointed and found it counter-productive,” he said.

But it wasn’t just the commercial that landed Dillard in hot water. It was the stream of laudatory remarks in the media, including some made in a 2007 Obama conference call that he participated in.

As soon as it seemed likely that Obama would be the Democratic nominee, other Republican state Senate colleagues privately complained to him that anything positive he said about Obama would hurt McCain.

Besides, as they recalled things, Obama had much more modest achievements and a far less dramatic presence.

“Kirk’s enthusiasm for Senator Obama is clearly an outlier,” said GOP state Sen. Christine Radogno. “Everyone agrees Barack’s an intelligent guy, but in terms of being a stupendous standout that’s a unique view.”

“In fairness, [Dillard] served with Obama longer than I did,” said Dale Righter, the Republican Senate caucus chair. “But I’ve seen him refer to Obama as having done really yeoman’s work in the Illinois state Senate. I don’t know that I’d agree with that from my two years with him.”

Dillard contends he was punished for by Watson for his pro-Obama remarks. Dillard, who serves in the unpaid position of party whip, said that he had been assured by Watson that he would get the next opening among the paid leadership positions, namely assistant leader. But, when an opening came, he was passed over. Dillard believes it was at least in part payback.

“The partisans want to punish me,” he said. “They’ve done it through pocketbook and position.”

Watson was unavailable to return a follow-up request for comment on that claim. But his spokesperson, Patty Schuh, denied that any specific position had been promised. She did not rule out the possibility that Dillard’s comments on Obama might have contributed to him not getting the job, but said it could not have been the sole reason.

Dillard also appeared, to some colleagues, to be dragging his feet on a matter of importance to his colleagues—a request from McCain’s Illinois campaign chairman, state Rep. Jim Durkin, that Dillard formally ask the Obama campaign to remove the ad from the air.

Durkin says that Dillard delayed for months until finally, in May, Durkin himself offered to draft a formal letter for Dillard to sign and send to the Obama campaign.

“He walked the letter over to my desk on the Senate floor and stuck it under my nose and asked me if I’d sign it,” recalled Dillard.

Durkin says that Dillard was not taken by surprise and that Dillard revised the letter himself. “I had talked to Kirk and I had suggested to him that I would draft the letter,” said Durkin. “I did not just show up on the Senate floor. He was pleased and relieved. I came over with a draft and he marked it up.”

Durkin added that Dillard had said he was glad to bring the matter to a close. “Kirk has received a lot of flak in Illinois. I was doing this to protect Kirk and he was thankful that I did this.” Durkin said the letter was his idea, and that it did not originate from within the McCain campaign.

When presented with the request in June, the Obama campaign agreed to stop airing the ad.

“Senator Obama appreciates that Senator Dillard worked with him in a bipartisan way in the Illinois legislature to take on the special interests and pass campaign finance and ethics reform,” said Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan. “But he understands that Senator Dillard feels obligated to support his party’s nominee.”

Dillard attributes some of the GOP pushback to reflexive partisanship.

“Some of the totally partisan, more conservative legislators from Day One were not understanding of my cameo appearance in a Senator Obama ad in Iowa,” he said. “The only people I received negative feedback from initially were the partisan leaders.”

Kent Redfield, a professor of political science at the University of Illinois-Springfield, and an expert on state politics, said that Dillard may have been surprised by the controversy his comments caused because state politics in Illinois are generally isolated from national partisan rancor.

“Politics tends to be not very nationally or ideologically focused on the state level in Illinois,” said Redfield.

But Dillard’s comments also may have touched a raw nerve by exacerbating preexisting intra-party tensions.

“The Republican Party in Illinois has a huge ideological split between the moderate wing and the hard right,” said Redfield. “Dillard is seen as part of the moderate suburban crowd so there’s a ‘there he goes again’ kind of reaction from the people who brought you Alan Keyes [the conservative activist who Republicans nominated to run against Obama in 2004].”

Dillard said he will continue to speak up about Obama, though he favors McCain for president because he agrees with the presumptive GOP nominee on the issues. He contends that there are other Republicans who hold Obama in high regard, though they will not say so publicly for partisan purposes.

“None of my colleagues who admired Obama will return the reporters’ phone calls,” said Dillard. “And that’s the problem with this country. No one is willing to say something nice for 10 seconds about someone of a different race, party, and location. In this case Barack is from Chicago and I’m from the suburbs of Chicago.”

“Very few suburbanites would work closely with city of Chicago Democrats,” he added. “Also, there’s the racial component. It’s a testament to Senator Obama that he was able to work with people who were different than he.”

But, he hastened to add, “John McCain has those same qualities.”


Reply New Comment

Line

47) Inquiring Mind [by Anonymous Citizen on July 16, 2008]
I can't help but wonder what some of you are proposing to do "if" your unemployment extension runs out and you still have not been able to find employment. What are your plans to continue surviving in the future? I'm a Michigan Refugee that had to run from the state with only the shirt on my back and what little could be packed in the car. I'm managing to usrvive where I landed...but my thoughts often drift back to home and my fellow Michiganders that I left behind.
Reply New Comment

Line

48) I didnt receive either [by Anonymous Citizen on July 14, 2008]
i havent receive mine neither i from detroit i need this extension to happen faster i will let you know as soon as i recieve mine
Reply New Comment

Line

49) I didnt receive either [by Anonymous Citizen on July 14, 2008]
i havent receive mine neither i from detroit i need this extension to happen faster i will let you know as soon as i recieve mine
Reply New Comment

Line

50) Did anyone receive their Extension application? [by Anonymous Citizen on July 11, 2008]
I'm waiting for my Unemployment extension application in the mail. I called and they said they started sending them this week. I asked if I could just fill one out online. Of course, I was told, no, you have to just wait for it to come in the mail.

If anyone has received theirs, I'd love to know. I hope they're not just saying they have already been sending them out.

Thanks,
Sarah
Reply New Comment

Line

51) application [by Anonymous Citizen on July 14, 2008]
I actually received mine on July 12th and have to begin calling Marvin the week of the 20th; you just fill out the form and mail it and you can go online to tell them if you want direct deposit or mail etc. and also have to go into Michigan work like always. Hope this helps.
Reply New Comment

Line

52) I received it! [by Anonymous Citizen on July 16, 2008]
I got my application today! I have been on this site for months now and have been putting all the updates that I got from Congress and other sites regarding the Unemployment extensions.

Thank you to all of you that have been so helpful and polite. For those of us that have been struggling, filling out applications, sending resumes online, have worked hard all of our lives, paid taxes, and have still not found work.. God help us all.

At least this extension will bide us a little more time. I still have faith that the Michigan economy will pick up... eventually.

For those of you that have been rude and think some of us haven't tried our hardest to get ANY job that's available.. well, I can't say what I want to say, but I won't be back to this site again. For those of you that have families and have known the struggle.. keep the faith and don't ever give up.

Sarah
Reply New Comment

Line

53) Happy Days [by Anonymous Citizen on July 17, 2008]
Another 13 weeks on the government dole. You are so special. I know that all of us still working are so happy that you will be getting some of our money. Good Luck
Reply New Comment

Line

54) I receive my application [by Anonymous Citizen on July 15, 2008]
i recieve my application today in i filled the paper out in send it back in today
Reply New Comment

Line

55) This is for cold heart person [by Anonymous Citizen on July 17, 2008]
For your information everyone pay for unemployment every tax dollar we pay for pays for employment am unemployed now i am still paying outof the checks when we had jobs we pay for it you better hope u dont lose ur job we will see u on this web site asking about a extension soon lol jerk
Reply New Comment

Line

56) GREAT comment! [by Anonymous Citizen on July 17, 2008]
GREAT comment to "cold hearted person". I hope he finds himself living in a box on the streets for his nasty comments. No one's job is secure in Michigan. If you think it is.. you're crazy!
Reply New Comment

Line

57) Not yet [by Anonymous Citizen on July 14, 2008]
Still no application in my mail today :(

Sarah
Reply New Comment

Line

58) It Will Be There Soon Princess [by Anonymous Citizen on July 15, 2008]
They just need to steal more from the productive first. It takes time you know. Go take a little nap and the mailman will be there when you get up. Don't forget to vote for mr. hope and change on november 5th
Reply New Comment

Line

59) Paid my dues [by Anonymous Citizen on July 15, 2008]
I worked hard for 45 years and have MORE than paid my dues!

This is the one and only time I have needed Unemployment benefits, thru no fault of my own!
Reply New Comment

Line

60) Nothing in the mail yet [by Anonymous Citizen on July 14, 2008]
i call them and ask they said they start sending out last tuesday and that everyone will receive the application no later then the july 21
Reply New Comment

Line

61) Just Keep Sitting [by Anonymous Citizen on July 15, 2008]
on the porch and soon the government will send you some of our money. Remember, they don't have any. The only money they can "give" you is money that they steal from us.
Reply New Comment

Line

62) disgusted [by Anonymous Citizen on July 13, 2008]
Im waiting just like you the said they started monday sending them out and here it is almost monday again and still no application
Reply New Comment

Line

63) No application yet [by Anonymous Citizen on July 14, 2008]
No application yet i checking my mail box everyday i need my money now when i recieve the application yet i will yet ya know
Reply New Comment

Line

64) Just wondering... [by Anonymous Citizen on July 8, 2008]
So...by all of the reports, most of Michigan's unemployed shall begin receiving the 13 week extension by the end of July beginning of August. What are all the unemployed of Michigan going to do when the fed. extension runs out??? The prospect of jobs in Michigan is still abysmal!!I'm wondering what the politicians of Michigan propose....as the problems in Michigan are far from over.
Reply New Comment

Line

65) What if... [by Anonymous Citizen on July 8, 2008]
...your benefits ran out end of last year, went several months without work, but then finally found a job; do you still get to collect for all that time you weren't working? Although I finally found a job, my finances are still in shambles and it seems unfair to be penalized for finding a job, since if this was passed just a few months ago, I would have undoubtedly received retroactive benefits. If anyone knows, please post.
Reply New Comment

Line

66) Comment [by Anonymous Citizen on July 8, 2008]
From my understanding if you are currently working you do not qualify for the unemployment benefits that are extended. The funds are not backpaid; however, are distributed from the end of July forward.
Reply New Comment

Line

67) That Would [by Anonymous Citizen on July 8, 2008]
Make it a welfare program
Reply New Comment

Line

68) Better, but not enough. [by Anonymous Citizen on July 2, 2008]

In addition to the unmeployment extension there should be an increase in the benefit amount as well. I needed unemployment one time in '96 and then at least a few months a year for every year that Granholm has been governor. Unemployment benefits were $362 a week in '96 and are still the same today. The price of gas alone has QUADRUPLED since then. Everything costs more. It's time to also increase the benefit amount to an even $500 a week. It still is not enough to pay the bills, but it would help. But don't raise taxes to make up the cost, cut some Granholm-created worthless buracratic program to pay for it.
Reply New Comment

Line

69) State of Michigan UIA update [by Anonymous Citizen on July 1, 2008]
For those of you wondering what to do next, please do not hold your breathe. You will die before you get another check.. :-)

Here is a link from the UIA stating you should get something in the mail in 7-10 days.

www.michigan.gov/uia/0,1607,7-118--195236--,00.html

6/23 was my last Marvin 'dirty phone call'. So I am waiting to see how it shakes out.

Scott
Reply New Comment

Line

70) Haha [by Anonymous Citizen on July 10, 2008]
I still laugh everytime I read "dirty Marvin call" LOL...!
Reply New Comment

Line

71) extension of benefits [by Anonymous Citizen on July 3, 2008]
boy, i sure hope you're wrong about dying before this extension gets in the mail system! My last call was a week ago.....
Reply New Comment

Line

72) president signing [by Anonymous Citizen on June 30, 2008]
hey pres bush , lets get on signing that extention im broke and jobs arent easy to come by , im bout to loose my house
Reply New Comment

Line

73) Here you go.. updates [by Anonymous Citizen on June 30, 2008]
By TODD SPANGLER • FREE PRESS WASHINGTON STAFF • June 30, 2008
The Associated Press reported this morning that Bush had signed the bill, which represented a compromise with the Democratic-controlled House and Senate, which insisted on an extension of unemployment benefits as necessary during the nation’s economic downturn. The legislation also included additional money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and greater college benefits for troops and veterans.
Under the legislation, as many as 226,000 Michigan workers could get benefits under the deal and the state could begin providing the extension cash to beneficiaries by the end of July, depending on how long the process of receiving and administering the benefit from the federal government taxes. The states administer unemployment benefits, but the funding for the extension will come from the feds.
The extension covers people exhausting U-I benefits between November 2006 and March 2009, meaning that once the program is up and running, people who have already lost their benefits since November 2006 will be able to reapply for the 13-week extension. Those receiving benefits at the time the program kicks in, wouldn’t have to reapply, the extension starting automatically.

Sarah

Reply New Comment

Line

74) Unemployment [by Anonymous Citizen on July 2, 2008]
My benefits ran out on June 2nd, will the extention checks be back dated to make up lost checks ?
Reply New Comment

Line

75) Unemployment [by Anonymous Citizen on July 1, 2008]
Wait a second. My benifits ran out in Late April. I am still out of work. Will I be getting the extension???? and if so when????
Reply New Comment

Line

76) Unemployment Extensions [by Anonymous Citizen on July 7, 2008]
This is on the Mich gov site

The Federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation bill has been signed into law; the Agency is in the process of individually notifying all potentially eligible customers by mail with instructions on how to apply. Please allow 7 to 10 business days for this process to occur before calling to inquire about the extension.

I am hoping those of us that are eligible, will get our apps in the mail SOON!

Sarah
Reply New Comment

Line

77) unemployment [by Anonymous Citizen on July 1, 2008]
Yes! You will be notified within 7-10 days, also you can go to www.michigan.gov/uia
Reply New Comment

Line

78) Bill pass [by Anonymous Citizen on June 30, 2008]
Bush has to sign it

Reply New Comment

Line

79) Pass Extended UIA benefits [by Anonymous Citizen on June 30, 2008]
My husband and I both are laid off and have used our 26 weeks. We need help please pass the 13 weeks extension. We cannot find a job
Reply New Comment

Line

80) No offshore drilling, no GREAT LAKE DRILLING [by Anonymous Citizen on June 29, 2008]
Just say no to drugs, alcohol and offshore drilling.
Reply New Comment

Line

81) drilling=jobs [by Anonymous Citizen on July 10, 2008]
Drilling means tens of thousands of new good paying jobs here in the US at a time when jobs are scarce.
We must drill now!
Reply New Comment

Line

82) They must beat Republicans if they true to utter truth [by Anonymous Citizen on July 10, 2008]
about global warming.
Reply New Comment

Line

83) If they try to utter the truth about global warming, [by Anonymous Citizen on July 10, 2008]
perhaps they beat them. How else do
they brainwash them like this.
It's amazing.
Reply New Comment

Line

84) Drilling is NOT worth making GREAT LAKES WORSE [by Anonymous Citizen on July 10, 2008]
Pristine, my ass.
Reply New Comment

Line

85) Eeesh [by Anonymous Citizen on July 1, 2008]
Tree-hugging is one of the reasons we have the problems we have with this country and state...

Scott
Reply New Comment

Line

86) Frankly, Scott [by Anonymous Citizen on July 1, 2008]

I'll take treehuggers any day, in preference to the rape-and-runners.

Reply New Comment

Line

87) Frankly, [by Anonymous Citizen on July 2, 2008]
Yeah that has a lot to do with oil moron.

Scott
Reply New Comment

Line

88) Frankly, Scott [by Anonymous Citizen on July 2, 2008]

You are the moron.

I happen to be all for oil (and natural gas) drilling, done in an environmentally responsible way.

Thing is, were it not for the tree-huggers, for whom you express disdain, a lot of the responsible and highly effective environmental protection measures routinely taken by the oil and gas exploration and production industry today would not have come about.

Reply New Comment

Line

89) Frankly, [by Anonymous Citizen on July 2, 2008]
Perhaps your solution to the issue is to move to California so you can hug trees and not have the issues we have in Michigan.

Treehuggers limit progress with overly agressive agendas.

If trees were not being hugged, we would have been drilling domestically decades ago.
Reply New Comment

Line

90) ACTUALLY alt. energy is huge "market" as is "global warming solutions" [by Anonymous Citizen on July 4, 2008]
Michigan would be wise to realize that.
We produced weapons as a solution to WWII.
We can produce green solutions to combat global warming. It's Michigan's chance to recover.
Take it BEFORE someone else does. Becasue they will.
Reply New Comment

Line

91) Frankly, Moron [by Anonymous Citizen on July 2, 2008]

We were drilling domestically decades ago, and right here in Michigan.

I worked 10 years in te reat oil boom of the 1970s in this state.

Tree-huggers did not stop the oil industry, but kept on enough pressure to make sure the drilling and development proceeded safely, with a minimum of environmental degradation.

What set back the oil exploration and production industry in Michigan more recently was stagnant oil prices, and lack of genuinely attractive drilling prospects from a geological perspective.

That's the way it ordinarily works, and has worked since the industry started.

Tree-huggers are convenient whipping boys for idiots.


Reply New Comment

Line

92) Granholm getting help for state disaster. [by Anonymous Citizen on July 4, 2008]
Thank goodness. Channel 8 said it
it was the darkest they'd ever seen it
during the day there. EVER.

HMMMMM???????????????/
Reply New Comment

Line

93) No OFF SHORE DRILLING IN Great Lakes. [by Anonymous Citizen on July 4, 2008]
Too much tourism at risk, BAD idea
for PLANET. We have a responsibility.

Reply New Comment

Line

94) Frankly, [by Anonymous Citizen on July 3, 2008]
What stalled drilling for oil in Michigan and everywhere else was tree hugging.

Send out some resumes instead of trying to win this argument.
Reply New Comment

Line

95) Frankly, Moron [by Anonymous Citizen on July 3, 2008]

I have no need to send out resumes, since I am quite fully, happily and gainfully employed.

You lost this argument before it started, Socko, by making ignorant assumptions.

Your scapegoating of environmentalists -- what you call tree-huggers -- by blaming them for the negative effects of market forces is either totally dishonest or completely moronic. Perhaps it is a mixture of both.

The simple fact is that tree-huggers totally failed to halt the oil drilling boom that swept Michigan during the 1970s and into the early 1980s -- an era during which I earned my living in the E&P industry here for 10 years. The industry thrived in spite of them.

What halted that boom was a general collapse and stagnation in oil and gas prices, and a decline in the availability of geologically attractive drilling prospects. These were very much the same things that stalled the domestic oil industry everywhere around the nation.

After general collapse of the domestic oil E&P business in the 1980s, Michigan developers did continue drilling fairly extensively to exploit shallow gas deposits in shale formations.

The tree-huggers' contribution to all this is that they put and kept pressure on to see that it has been done in ways that protect groundwater supplies and other resources.

I guarantee you, moron, that an infinite and cheap supply of oil will be all but worthless to you if potable water becomes a scarce commodity.

Reply New Comment

Line

96) Frankly [by Anonymous Citizen on July 7, 2008]
Wow, you are cool!

I lost nothing. The BOTTOM line is the environmentalists are preventing our country from using our own resources and the US from being self-sufficient.

Your impressive rhetoric and previous employment does not change this.

Your arrogance does not help the matter.

Your presence on this site stirring the pot, is a waste of time to those who use it as a resource.


Reply New Comment

Line

97) Environmentalists only keep us from being greedy and self-destructive. [by Anonymous Citizen on July 7, 2008]
Their definition of progress and
that of those who worship "the market"
are different. I think we can have
a stable economy and not SCREW the
next generation, too.
Reply New Comment

Line

98) Frankly, Arrogant Moron [by Anonymous Citizen on July 7, 2008]

You have it wrong about the environmentalists. And you lost the argument at the outset, by using them as your demagogue's target.

My industrial experience is very pertinent to this discussion. The fact is, when the prospect for profits being made is good, what you call "tree-huggers" will not halt exploitation of resources. They will, however, keep pressure on to make sure the exploitation is done in a safe and sane way, so as to minimize negative impacts of the work.

I happen to believe -- from real experience -- that oil and gas exploration can proceed virtually anywhere without unduly imperiling the environment. For this, you can thank, rather than curse the environmentalists.

If politicians have failed to find the right balance between insistence that it is unwise to foul our nest and the desirability of exploiting natural resources, your beef is with the politicians you elected to office to represent the public's best interest.

Given the choice between a glut of cheap oil on the market or clean, potable water (for pertinent example), rational people invariably choose the latter. They have a long range view.

You have stated your position; I have stated mine. Your insistence in protracting the debate brings to mind these wonderful words: "Your presence on this site stirring the pot, is a waste of time to those who use it as a resource."


Reply New Comment

Line

99) Moron: Frank [by Anonymous Citizen on July 8, 2008]
You sound like you work for the government. No doubt, you are writing these comments on company time. Thanks for contributing to the problem!
Reply New Comment

Line

100) Frankly, Mopron [by Anonymous Citizen on July 9, 2008]

You make enough utterly stupid assumptions and guesses that you have become the prime laughingstock on this site of late.

Here’s your latest example:

>You sound like you work for the government. No doubt, you are writing these comments on company time. Thanks for contributing to the problem!<

Dunce. You couldn’t be more wrong. I work in the private sector, as I have for nearly all my working life except for a four year hitch in the US armed forces long ago. Right now, I happen to be self-employed, paying all the taxes and absorbing all the other headaches that go along with it. But I’m not whining or complaining. I also post here on my own time, using the computer that I bought and paid for with money earned by my own labor and nobody else’s. How about you?

Oh, and by the way, I don’t “sound” like anything here. This is a writing and reading only outlet for my views. No sound. What you hear must be the buzzing in your tnfoil hat.

You started this discussion by making the moronic statement that tree-huggers, as you derisively call them, have stopped oil and gas drilling in the United States.

The truth is, they haven’t.

I know this from the personal experience of having worked for a decade in the petro exploration industry, in Michigan, when the last really great drilling boom swept the state in the 1970s and into the 1980s.

Yes, the environmentalists were there, and perhaps wanted to stop the activity, but they didn’t. What came of their efforts though, was the evolution of procedures, work methods and machinery that made oil and gas development safer for the natural environment where the work takes place.

As a result of the pressure put on by people you disdainfully call tree-huggers, I am quite confident that oil and gas drilling today can be done just about anywhere without undue environmental destruction and degradation. That, in my view is far from a setback for our society, or for the oil business. It is serious and important progress.

That last great oil boom in Michigan tapered off to near dormancy when the supply of attractive drilling prospects pretty well dried up. Understand that is a somewhat fluid thing, based both on market forces, like the price of oil, and faith in the ability of geologists to decipher nature’s underground secrets. Tree-hugging has nothing to do with it.

Lately it looks like rising crude oil prices may be helping to stimulate Michigan’s oil industry. That is good news, both from the national oil supply perspective – if new oil exploration is successful in opening new fields – and from the employment perspective.

Heaven knows, Michigan sure can use some job-producing enterprise.

The oil industry is not especially labor intensive, but when there is significant ongoing exploration and development activity it does provide a fair number of jobs and decent livings for people who are willing to work.

That’s a good thing, especially when the work can be and is done in a way that respects and protects other vital natural resources, like groundwater. And for the latter, you might want to thank your local oilman and local tree-hugger alike. Both have played significant roles in making it possible and making it happen.

Reply New Comment

Line

101) Moron [by Anonymous Citizen on July 11, 2008]
Leave. You have no purpose here.

If you would like to meet in person and put your money where you mouth is, I would welcome the opportunity to rid some of my stress. Just let me know when/where.
Reply New Comment

Line

102) Oh, My [by Anonymous Citizen on July 11, 2008]

The Moron now tries to run me off the site by telling me I have no business here, and threatening me. I quake and shake.

But I ain't going away.

What this is all about is, I had the audacity to suggest that "tree-huggers," whom the Moron evidently despises, are preferable to the rape-and-run crowd. Further, I had the audacity to disagree with the claim, based on fact verified by my own personal experience, that environmentalists have halted oil and gas drilling.

My opinions are based in fact.

I am all for oil and gas drilling, which I believe could come back to life as a very active industry in Michigan if crude oil prices and wellhead prices for natural gas stay high, and if attractive geological prospects are detected by industry scientists. Lots of ifs, virtually none of them involving environmentalists.

In fact, it is my opinion that pressure put on by so-called tree-huggers has brought about safer and cleaner oil exploitation work methods. Both factions -- industry and environmentalists -- have played significant roles in bringing this about, and the general public has benefitted, in my opinion.

As I've written before here, cheap oil is no bargain if it comes at the expense of reducing or threatening our potable water supply. Only morons or whacked out ideologues could reject that idea.

And even if morons and whacked out ideologues are made uncomfortable by my presence here, I'm unlikely to go away.

Breathe clean air. Drink clean water. Have a nice day. All sensible things to do.


Reply New Comment

Line

103) YEP! [by Anonymous Citizen on July 3, 2008]
Government employee. Yeah, big suprise!
Reply New Comment

Line

104) OMG [by Anonymous Citizen on June 30, 2008]
Now there is a person that has NO CONCEPT. Sure, we're not going to drill. Mexico is, China is, Russia is but NOOOOOOOOOOO, We can't. Keep up this STUPID mind set and will be a third world nation - much like MI is a third world state - THANKS TO MORONS LIKE YOU who can't see the forest through the tree huggers!

Oh Lucy! You got some 'splain to do!
Reply New Comment

Line

105) Simple Solution [by Anonymous Citizen on July 1, 2008]
It is quite simple actually:

#1. We should have dropped a bomb (2x the size of the fatboy which was tossed on Japan) on Iraq and Afganistan and took control of the oil to pay for the effort. We had till 12:00pm on 9/12/01 to do this and have favorable public opinion.

#2. We should take Mexico and Canada and start 'a drilling'. We already support the the majority of each countries residents through our workforce (illegally to the South and legally to the North).
Reply New Comment

Line

106) Don't be fooled by those wanting COMPLETE energy independence [by Anonymous Citizen on June 29, 2008]
They just want to dig for oil, use oil here.
We should be using as much alternativ energy as quickly as possible. 2016 Global Warming irreversible, maybe sooner.
So take action now, short term plan is where it is at. Long term sounds good, but too
little too late. How do these folks sleep at night? Look kids in the eye?

Reply New Comment

Line

107) Ha [by Anonymous Citizen on June 30, 2008]
Man Made Global Warming is a MYTH. What an idiot.
Reply New Comment

Line

108) Global warming irreversible by 2016, then? We are PUSSY FOOTING around. [by Anonymous Citizen on June 29, 2008]
Period. Let the market fix. The market has no MORALS or INTELLIGENCE or since of SURVIVAL as a species. It's a frickin' market with a sense of GREED perhaps, but that's it.

Market's should not run countries. Leaders with some BALLS whether male or female are what we need in office to prevent global warming disaster.

We are fresh out of BALLS around here today.
Reply New Comment

Line

109) I don't know how legislators can look their kids in the eye [by Anonymous Citizen on June 29, 2008]
when they don't vote for bills like this.
Reply New Comment

Line

110) "Market" doesn't give a DAMN about global warming--IRREVERSIBLE 9 years [by Anonymous Citizen on June 29, 2008]
ACT FOR GOD SAKE! Michiganders seem like a bunch of HICKS in comparison to other states.
We are SO behind the times it's embarassing.
This is a reason to LEAVE the state.
Our leaders act like we don't want to
do our part, but we do.


State Senate passes energy package, limits competition
ASSOCIATED PRESS • June 28, 2008

Read Comments(2)Recommend Print this page E-mail this article
Share this article: Del.icio.us Facebook Digg Reddit Newsvine What’s this?
LANSING --- A divided Michigan Senate late Friday voted 21-14 to limit competition in the state's electric market, a demand of big utilities before they seek financing for new multibillion-dollar power plants.


The Senate also voted 20-12 to approve a requirement that a combined 7% of electricity in the state come from wind or other renewable sources or be saved by energy efficiency by 2016. That's below a plan passed by the House that would require 10% of power be green by 2016, leading Senate Republicans to say their plan would cost customers one-third less.

"We're trying to contain the costs yet move us into the 21st Century," said Sen. Patty Birkholz, R-Saugatuck.

Sen. Buzz Thomas, D-Detroit, criticized the lower requirements as "anemic" compared with other states.

"Can we set our standards any lower?" asked Sen. Liz Brater, D-Ann Arbor. Democrats also accused Republicans of weakening proposed efficiency programs designed to help customers save energy.

Because green power is more expensive than power supplied from old coal-fired plants, residents would be charged up to $2 more a month over 20 years and be allowed an income tax credit to offset the costs. The House had set a $3 monthly cap for residents.

Smaller businesses would pay $11.05 more a month under the Senate plan and $15.83 under the House version; industrial businesses would pay $125 a month more vs. $187.50.

Supporters of mandatory green power believe it would spur job creation and an alternative energy industry in Michigan while making the environment cleaner by reducing greenhouse gas emissions caused by coal-fired plants. Gov. Jennifer Granholm supports 25% green power by 2026.

Opponents say the move to renewable energy should be driven by market -- not government -- forces.

"It is the cost of fuel and electric generation that will drive change, not the Michigan Legislature nor the governor," said Sen. Tom George, R-Kalamazoo.

The proposed Senate rewrite of a 2000 law known as Public Act 141 was generally in line with the House, ensuring that Detroit Edison and Consumers Energy would have at least 90% of the market.

The state's two largest utilities say they need a guaranteed customer base to secure financing to build power plants capable of running 24-7. They note that alternative suppliers serve only 3% of the market and could triple their market share before hitting the cap.

Critics respond that any restriction of business customers' ability to buy power elsewhere would cause bills to rise and not keep the utilities in check.

Residential customers cannot now shop around because power companies instead compete for more lucrative business customers, but opponents say limiting choice would essentially lock out companies from competing for residents in the future.

The wide-ranging package of legislation ultimately would affect how much it costs to flip a light switch, wash clothes and charge an iPod in Michigan.

Customers also would have to start paying the actual cost of the electricity they use under the bills.

Rates historically have been skewed by regulators so residents pay less than actual costs while businesses pay more. About $350 million would be shifted to residential customers but over 10 years instead of five years as passed by the House.

Reply New Comment

Line

111) Impeach Granholm [by Anonymous Citizen on June 28, 2008]
You want this state to turn around and be strong again. IMPEACH Granholm!! With her gone maybe the CHILDREN and ADULTS of this once strong and proud state will have a chance at a life free of her self serving lack of leadership. So once again IMPEACH Granholm!!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

112) Are you FRICKIN' kidding me? Granholm will not be IMPEACHED. [by Anonymous Citizen on June 28, 2008]
Are you out of your mind?
Reply New Comment

Line

113) Granny [by Anonymous Citizen on July 2, 2008]
Should be sent back to Canada with the rest of the garbage they important to Michigan.
Reply New Comment

Line

114) ARE YOU KIDDING? [by Anonymous Citizen on June 29, 2008]
Gramcracker definately should be impeached, she is wrong for this state - always has been and will never do anything positive for this state. We are ALL Blown away - just as she has promised - blown out of this state, as thousands flee to get away from her misplaced economic policys and lack of understanding of what it takes to make Michigan a strong state - I never voted for her and those that did - I can't believe you actually feel she has been a positive influence for this state - YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING!
Reply New Comment

Line

115) You "impeach" a president, you "recall" a governor. [by Anonymous Citizen on July 2, 2008]

Nonetheless, both should've been done. Neither should've been RE-elected. Democrats blame Bush for the bad economy. Hell, that was Granholm's whole 2006 campaign platform. Nothing about what SHE has done (that's because she hasn't done anything) all about how bad Bush is. Republican's want to blame her. Guess what, THEY'RE BOTH RIGHT!

Bush's unfair foriegn trade policies really hurt a blue-collar state like Michigan. That is a big reason for jobs leaving our state. However Granholm's ridiculous tax increases are preventing companies from coming to Michigan to create new jobs to replace the jobs lost. In other words the two of them are a 1-2 punch that has crippled this state.

That's why my rule of thumb is; Democrats in Washington, Republicans in Lansing. A state governor has no control over foriegn trade policy, but the president does. That's why a Democrat is better in that position. However there are still states-rights issues. This is why you want a Republican in the governor's chair. A Republican will keep taxes to a minimum. A Republican (a TRUE Republican anyway) will not pass any "nanny-laws" taking away personal freedom of choice such as 2nd amendment rights, motorcycle helmet laws, anti-hunting laws, banning the sale of fireworks, just to name a few things.

In 2004 I voted for Kerry, in 2006 I voted for DeVos. Let's face it, if I had my way on election day we'd be a lot better off. We were when it was Clinton and Engler!
Reply New Comment

Line

116) I totally agree... [by Anonymous Citizen on July 2, 2008]
I want Obama for president, but I want the Republican's to take back the Michigan house.
Reply New Comment

Line

117) Michigan, manufacturing green solutions. [by Anonymous Citizen on June 29, 2008]
A part of the solution. No longer a part of the problem. Frickin' genius!
Reply New Comment

Line

118) Jennifer Granholm's support of alternative energy will save the world. [by Anonymous Citizen on June 29, 2008]
Michigan can help save the world by
modeling and manufacturing
alternative energy solutions for the planet.. Much
the same way we saved the world in
WWII.
Reply New Comment

Line

119) No, Jennifer Granholm is a goddess. [by Anonymous Citizen on June 29, 2008]
I like the way she is diversifying the economy and going green. Love her.
Reply New Comment

Line

120) RIGHT! [by Anonymous Citizen on June 30, 2008]
Grandthief is "diversifying" it alright. You want chesse on that burger?

I diversified right the hell of of the state.

or was I "Blown Away"?

The state cannot even begin to recover until she and the commie partners are long gone. And I can't wait that long.

Good luck all
Reply New Comment

Line

121) ? [by Anonymous Citizen on June 29, 2008]
She's a Puke - Who are you Kidding? I know you are a Far-Left Liberal, other than that no common sense person could actually believe that - UNREAL!!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

122) Love what state is doing with ALTERNATIVE ENERGY-I just want more of it [by Anonymous Citizen on June 29, 2008]
And quicker. Enjoy your summer break,
but tick, tock, the clock is ticking

running out of time
Reply New Comment

Line

123) ? 20 weeks of work [by Anonymous Citizen on June 28, 2008]
does this cover more than one job over a period of time. I,m a electrician and sometimes one job only last a couple months. I,ve tried to find the explanation of this legislation and had no luck.
can anybody help clarify?
Reply New Comment

Line

124) Today's info from the Unemployment site [by Anonymous Citizen on June 27, 2008]
Dear Friends,

As many of you have heard by now, the Senate passed the UI extension overwhelmingly last night. The measure now heads to President Bush, who's expected to sign it next week as part of the war supplemental package.

The extension would provides for an additional 13 weeks of benefits for workers who have exhausted their regular state benefits without finding jobs. The bill is unchanged from what passed the House two weeks ago.

- There's a look-back period to capture workers who have already exhausted benefits any time after November 2006; and the 13 week extension will be available to workers who run out of their jobless benefits between now and March 2009.
- There are certainly some compromises in this bill that we didn't like-e.g., no extra weeks of benefits for high unemployment states and inclusion of a requirement that individuals have to have worked at least 20 weeks or its equivalent before they were laid off to be eligible.

But, this is nevertheless a major achievement: Among other things, this is the earliest extension that has been passed in decades. Most recently, Congress waited a year after the 2001 recession began before enacting an extension. Moreover, as many as 3.7 million unemployed workers will benefit from this extension.

It is our firm belief that this extension would not have come so soon if it were not for the active voices of jobless workers. We are particularly grateful to folks like Florence from New York, Tina from Michigan, Chantel from Maryland, Ginny from Virginia (who drove to Washington to participate in a Capitol Hill press conference last week!), Dean from California, Michael from New Jersey and Kathy from Illinois, who went out of their way to speak to the press multiple times about their challenges looking for work. It is not easy to go public about being unemployed, but it makes all the difference.

NELP will certainly notify members of unemployedworkers dot org when the President signs the bill, and about the details of how to collect the extension. Once the President signs the bill, states have to sign agreements with the federal government and set up procedures to make payments. In 2002, there was a quick turnaround but it will take some time for the states to get up and running.

Reply New Comment

Line

125) unemployment ext [by Anonymous Citizen on June 27, 2008]
Punch in war funding bill you should get something about extension
Reply New Comment

Line

126) Unemployment bill passed [by Anonymous Citizen on June 27, 2008]
Bill passed know Bush has to sign!
Go to Google and punch in unemployment ext 2008
thats where I found the story.
Reply New Comment

Line

127) Unemployment Extensions [by Anonymous Citizen on June 26, 2008]
Has anyone gotten any Extension updates this week? I'm hoping to find information tomorrow. It's usually on Fridays.

Thanks
Reply New Comment

Line

128) I just found this in the Yahoo News Headlines [by Anonymous Citizen on June 26, 2008]
WASHINGTON - The Senate passed a $162 billion war spending plan Thursday, sending to President Bush legislation that will pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan until the next president takes office.

ADVERTISEMENT

The bill, approved 92-6, includes a historic boost in college aid for troops, plus a 13-week extension of unemployment benefits and $2.7 billion in emergency flood relief for the Midwest.

I'll post any updates I find tomorrow. Keep your fingers crossed!!

Sarah
Reply New Comment

Line

129) UNEMPLOYMENT BENFITS [by Anonymous Citizen on June 26, 2008]
I would like to know why other states with unemployment rates lower than Michigan have already extended their unemployment benefits?
I just read that ALASKA has done this and RHODE ISLAND is going to start with extending UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS shortly.

You can read the article at:
turnto10.com/northeast/jar/news.apx.-content-articles-JAR-2008-06-25-0017.html

WHY CAN'T MICHIGAN DO THIS AS WELL? What is wrong with our MI government other than we need to replace some of the ones that have their heads up their &%! ?????
THEY DON'T HAVE A CLUE !!
Reply New Comment

Line

130) Duh [by Anonymous Citizen on June 26, 2008]
"I would like to know why other states with unemployment rates lower than Michigan have already extended their unemployment benefits?"

Cause it doesn't cost anything when unemployment is low... Government education has failed you.

Reply New Comment

Line

131) UNEMPLOYMENT BENFITS [by Anonymous Citizen on June 26, 2008]
I would like to know why other states with unemployment rates lower than Michigan have already extended their unemployment benefits?
I just read that ALASKA has done this and RHODE ISLAND is going to start with extending UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS shortly.
WHY CAN'T MICHIGAN DO THIS AS WELL? What is wrong with our MI government other than we need to replace some of the ones that have their heads up their &%! ?????
THEY DON'T HAVE A CLUE !!
Reply New Comment

Line

132) The vote is supposed to be this week [by Anonymous Citizen on June 23, 2008]
Watch for more info this week. I try to keep the updates on this site as soon as I get them.

Sarah
Reply New Comment

Line

133) Good News [by Anonymous Citizen on June 20, 2008]
Friends –

There’s finally some really good news to report on the fight to extend jobless benefits. Yesterday, a bi-partisan group of leaders from the House and President Bush reached an agreement to include the UI extension in the supplemental funding bill that would fund the War in Iraq . The war supplemental has been the top strategic target of advocates for the extension because the President’s priority of getting funding for the war gives our allies in Congress leverage to force him to sign an extension. With the deal worked out, the House quickly voted 416 to 12 last night to pass the war supplemental including the UI extension. It now heads to the Senate, and initial indications are that the bill is likely to move quickly. The Senate passed an earlier version of the war supplemental including the extension by a margin of 75-22.

Here are the outlines of the deal:

Workers who exhaust their state unemployment insurance benefits between now and March 2009 will be eligible to receive a 13 week extension of unemployment benefits.
Workers who have already exhausted their unemployment benefits after November 2006 and are still unemployed will be eligible for a 13 week extension.
NELP estimates that 4 million workers over the next year will be eligible for the extension, including 1.1. million workers who will be immediately eligible for assistance.
This compromise is a major achievement. As recently as last week, President Bush and House leaders were insisting on an extension that only covered some of the states. Still, this package falls short in several components:

The deal will not provide 26 weeks of extended benefits to workers in high-unemployment state. All workers will only be eligible for 13 weeks of benefits.
The deal will preserve a 25 year old restriction that requires workers to have worked 20 weeks or its equivalent before their layoff to qualify for federal UI benefits. Thus significant numbers of workers who qualify for state UI benefits will not be eligible for the extension. NELP will be putting up more information about this element of the extension in the coming days.
The bottom line is that if the deal holds long-term unemployed workers will get immediate help. If the economy continues to deteriorate, with rising unemployment and even more job loss, Congress and the President will need to revisit this arrangement and provide more assistance to workers in high unemployment states.

For now, NELP is very hopeful this extension will become law and we are grateful for all those unemployed workers, who have stood up for themselves and for their communities, and have taken action to make this extension possible.

Sincerely,


Andy, Chris, Omar, Debbie and Maurice

National Employment Law Project's

Reply New Comment

Line

134) DID HR5749 PASS?? [by Anonymous Citizen on June 23, 2008]
HOW, WHERE, WHEN CAN I FIND OUT THE STATUS OF HR5749 REGARDING UNEMPLOYMENT EXTNESION? AS OF TODAY MONDAY JUNE 22, 2008 I HAVE NO IDEA IF IT PASSED, FAILED, OR IS STILL PENDING WITH ANY HOPES IN THE SENATE

pllllease SOMEONE TELL ME HOW I CAN TRACK OR FIND OUT GOOGLE searches are only showing it passed the house and other much older information before the 6/12/2008 house passage


Reply New Comment

Line

135) wHERE TO FIND INFO ON 2642 [by Anonymous Citizen on June 24, 2008]
GO TO WWW.SENATE.GOV AND LOOK FOR CURRENT LEGISLATION UNDER BILL 2642

THATS WHERE IT'S AT ALSO WATCH CSPAN
Reply New Comment

Line

136) Unemployment insurance [by Anonymous Citizen on June 24, 2008]
I looked under the legislature bills but am not understanding it real well.
June 19 it was passed by the House I believe by a large margin. Is it at the Senate now? DId Bush sign it into law yet for Extensions? Mine exhausted in February and don't have a job yet.
My emergency funding is drying up quickly and then found out we have major damage to our house that is not covered under our insurance so really need to start getting UI again soon!
Would someone please post if it passed or not? And then if it did do we just reapply if our benefits were over.
Thanks for any help!
Reply New Comment

Line

137) Here is your info so far [by Anonymous Citizen on June 24, 2008]
The Senate is expected to consider the War and Domestic Supplemental Funding package, including the unemployment extension, next week. Once signed by the president, workers that have exhausted their benefits during or after November of 2006 can begin receiving extended benefits within several weeks.

The Senate will decide this week. I will post the results as soon as they do this. I hope this helps you.

Sarah
Reply New Comment

Line

138) I believe this is the info you need [by Anonymous Citizen on June 23, 2008]
I don't think it's considered HR5749 any longer. It was combined with the War bill. President Bush says he will sign it. Hope this helps. You can get info from unemployedworkers dot org

"For Immediate Release
June 19, 2008 FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Cullen Schwarz
Office: 202.225.4961

House Approves Extension of Unemployment Benefits, Bush Says He Will Sign

Vote comes as New Data Shows Michigan’s
Unemployment Rate Skyrocketed to 8.5% in May

(Washington D.C.)- The House of Representatives tonight approved an extension of unemployment insurance benefits to help the growing number of jobless workers nationwide and to stimulate the economy. The extension, passed 416-12 as an amendment to the War and Domestic Supplemental Funding package, will extend unemployment benefits for 13 weeks across the country. President Bush has agreed to approve the measure despite originally saying he would not support an extension of unemployment benefits. Congressman Sander Levin, a vocal proponent of extending unemployment benefits, spoke on the House floor today in favor of an extension.
The Senate is expected to consider the War and Domestic Supplemental Funding package, including the unemployment extension, next week. Once signed by the president, workers that have exhausted their benefits during or after November of 2006 can begin receiving extended benefits within several weeks. Workers that exhaust benefits through March of 2009 will also be eligible for an extension."

Reply New Comment

Line

139) amount of new benefit [by Anonymous Citizen on June 20, 2008]
If you are collecting the highest amount every two weeks will you continue to get that amount or something less..my benefits run out the
on 7/15/08...how does it work? Does the
state you reside in keep sending it or
do they send you a letter telling you
and the amount for the next 13 weeks
will be this and not what you were getting

Thanks

Reply New Comment

Line

140) Benefits [by Anonymous Citizen on June 20, 2008]
From what I understand, if your benefits have been exhausted you will have to reapply for future benefits i.e. the extension. You will then go through the process all over again, therefore, choosing your payment options. According to the news, that actually process may take a few weeks, but each individual that qualifies will be notified by mail detailing the process.
Reply New Comment

Line

141) Unintended Consequences.... [by Anonymous Citizen on June 20, 2008]
"The mainstream media dusted off its copy of Casablanca this week and offered its best imitation of Claude Rains to declare, 'We're shocked - shocked! Unemployment has increased 10 percent!' Really? Well, it did increase from 5.0 percent in April to 5.5 percent in May, the month that offers scores of freshly minted high-school and college graduates seeking full-time employment. The media that pride themselves on understanding nuance are shocked that May unemployment has increased relative to April? However, there is more to unemployment numbers than the arrival of new grads - specifically, the 40 percent increase in the minimum wage - $5.15 per hour to $7.25 - that Congress passed in 2007. To minimize accountability for their actions, however, Congress delayed implementation until 2008. Businesses, being consumers of labor, responded to the increased cost just as consumers have responded to the increased price of gas - by reducing their consumption. In the case of the motorist, reduction means combining trips and shopping closer to home. For business, it is reduced payrolls and increased work loads for remaining employees." - Patriot Post

What have I been telling you? But to many it doesn't matter if tax cuts lead to increased tax revenues. The purpose of a tax increase is to punish achievement and to assuage the jealousy of the non-achievers. Democrats have raised this to an art form. Boortz



Reply New Comment

Line

142) EXCUSES FOR UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE [by Anonymous Citizen on June 20, 2008]
THERE ARE NO JOBS IN MICHIGAN RIGHT NOW. FOR YOU PEOPLE SAYING EXCUSES TO GET THE EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE. IS BULL! TRY BUYING FOOD, PAYING THE BILLS, FEEDING THE KIDS, ON NOTHING. THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE IN MICHIGAN. MY HUSBAND HAS WORKED HIS WHOLE LIFE, NOT ONE LAZY BONE IN HIS BODY. PEOPLE HERE IN MICHIGAN ARE DESPERATE! THIS IS SERIOUS! WE HAVE NO JOB, AND HAVE APPLYED AND APPLYED, IF WE DON'T GET THE EXTENTION WE WILL BE HOMELESS! DO YOU KNOW WHAT KIND OF FEAR AND STRESS THAT IS? WHEN THERE IS CHILDREN INVOLVED! JUST STOP SAYING WE DON'T NEED HELP, BECAUSE WE DO!
Reply New Comment

Line

143) Take Control [by Anonymous Citizen on June 22, 2008]
Unemployment is not "employment" only a helping hand, not a career.
If one loses employment, take control of your life. That may include: seeking employment elsewhere, including moving. the other spouse working, and voting for representatives that promote
ideas for growth in the employment sector instead of wasting time
blaming the other guy.
IT TAKE CONTROL OF YOUR LIFE, THE GOVERNMENT AND WORKING TAXPAYERS NOT YOUR EMPLOYER!!
Reply New Comment

Line

144) unemployment is NOT Welfare! [by Anonymous Citizen on June 24, 2008]
I too am disgusted that people think that those who are unemployed are lazy or don't want just any job! I have worked all my life and now 2 years short of Social Security and my pension my job moved out of state. Do you know how many years I paid in for unemployment insurance?? Probably more years than you are old! And as the other person wrote THERE ARE NO JOBS IN MICHIGAN!!
I have applied and applied with no success. I have the qualifications for the jobs that I apply for and probably is my age........It definetly is not because I am la