Lungren Votes Against Unemployment Benefits Extension

Cites growing deficit as justification; Bera calls vote ‘outrageous’ In a Congressional vote yesterday that broke mostly along party lines,...

Cites growing deficit as justification; Bera calls vote ‘outrageous’

In a Congressional vote yesterday that broke mostly along party lines, Congressman Dan Lungren, R- Gold River, voted against an extension of long-term unemployment.

In spite of Republican opposition, the benefit extension passed. Congress quickly passed the legislation following a Republican filibuster in the Senate. President Obama has promised to sign the extension.

Lungren justified his voted based on the deficit spending saying it was not “deficit neutral.”

“We understand the agony of those who are unemployed and of those who are encountering difficulty finding jobs,” Lungren said. “But as much as I’ve heard about job creation and economic growth, the second concern is the out-of-control spending.”

The three term representative, who is facing a serious challenge this fall from Democratic candidate Dr. Ami Bera, M.D., immediately criticized for his vote.

"It is simply outrageous that, in the midst of the worst recession in recent history, Dan Lungren has shown the cold shoulder to Californians struggling to find work in this tough economy," said Dr. Bera. "Millions of Californians have lost their jobs, but Lungren just doesn't seem to care. In fact, this is just another example of hypocrisy from Dan Lungren – voting against extending emergency unemployment benefits while he's simultaneously drawing a taxpayer-funded California pension and a full taxpayer-funded Congressional salary, which he’s voted to raise three times in the last five years.

“Californians deserve better," Bera added.

Post a Comment Default Comments


Insania said...

I maintain the minority opinion that our economy won't be recovering soon. With that in mind, I wonder exactly how long is long enough to be providing a "warm shoulder" to Californians struggling to find work. Another 16 weeks? Ninety nine more? How about benefits ad infinitium?

As future taxpayers don't even have shoulders yet, it's pretty easy to load them up, to have them shoulder the burden of twenty trillion+ in debt by the time this is all said and done. Of course, these shoulders don't yet have arms and hands attached to them to sign November ballots.

It seems to me rather mendatious to assume that deficit borrowing at the expense of the future electorate isn't also hypocrisy writ large.

Although...I'd bet that my parents in the 1970's sang the same tune their parents sung to them in the 1940's, the same song I'm singing today. Seems to me my parent's generation turned out fine...and seems my generation turned out OK, too. Maybe deficits don't matter. Bera may indeed do well to follow Cheney's advise.

kenare said...

Give me a break! There is no way that "Sir" Lundgren can understand the agony of being unemployed. Isn't it odd, though, that he can understand that the US has given millions upon millions of dollars to countries across the ocean! I guess he "understands that agony". So, just because the unemployed in the USA are not living in huts,they don't deserve monetary help. I could be wrong, but that's what I understand from "Sir" Lundren's take on unemployment benefits...Shame on him.

Follow Us



Elk Grove News Minute

All previous Elk Grove News Minutes, interviews, and Dan Schmitt's Ya' Gotta be Schmittin' Me podcasts are now available on iTunes

Elk Grove News Podcast