Madsen's political tin ear betrays him once more

When it comes to operating the levers of government, Idaho has nobody better than Department of Labor Director Roger Madsen. Through 16 years and four governors, Madsen has been the consummate administrator.

When it comes to setting policy, however, Madsen has a political tin ear. As a young state GOP senator in 1990, for example, it was Madsen who pushed through to passage an anti-abortion bill so extreme that it invited an economic boycott of the state, provoked then-Gov. Cecil Andrus' veto and generated a voter backlash that came within one seat of giving Democrats control of the state Senate.

All of which makes you wonder why Madsen chose to re-enter the policy realm last week by urging Idaho's congressional delegation to oppose any extension to long-term unemployment benefits. Fully funded by the federal government, these benefits extend checks to the jobless after state-supported coverage expires - anywhere from the 10th to 26th week - for as long as 99 weeks.

The federal emergency relief runs out in December.

Idaho's unemployment rate is 9 percent - slightly better than the high of 9.6 percent. But that number counts only 68,000 people the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics regards as officially unemployed.

Add another 4,500 who would work, but are so discouraged that they've stopped looking.

Plus Idaho has 50,000 people working at part-time jobs because they can't find full-time employment.

That's 120,000 Idahoans, or 16 percent of the work force.

This is the time Madsen chooses to weigh in, echoing some of the Tea Party rhetoric a minority of 28 Idaho House members and seven state senators applied in voting to deny this coverage to Idahoans last March. Fortunately, they did not prevail.

Says Madsen: The skills of Idaho's long-term unemployed have begun to atrophy. "Ending extended benefits will encourage many to re-enter the workforce where they will have a better chance of finding long-term employment," Madsen wrote. "I believe unemployment insurance has become, in the eyes of many claimants and business owners, an 'entitlement' or 'welfare' program rather than one based on basic unemployment insurance principles that have served the program well with minimal controversy for decades."

The implication here is that thousands of Idahoans would rather recline on the couch, guzzle beer and watch Ellen DeGeneres and Dr. Phil McGraw than get off their butts and find a job.

Where's Madsen's evidence? Idaho's maximum benefit works out to $8.47 an hour, but some get as little as $1.80 an hour. Who would prefer living on that to getting a job?

The harsh reality, according to the Conference Board, is that for every job listing in Idaho, there are 3.5 workers seeking it.

Madsen goes on to say the burgeoning ranks of long-term unemployed drawing emergency payments is undermining political support for the basic state program. He notes some states are cutting back on their programs.

Still, if that fight is coming, why can't Idaho postpone it until the economy recovers? Why launch it now when one of every six workers is in some kind of distress?

Extended unemployment insurance already is in trouble. The Republican House majority probably will kill the program if the GOP minority in the Senate doesn't filibuster it to death first. If that happens, the ranks of jobless Idahoans left to fend for themselves will swell to 12,500 by June - doubling the number of idled workers in the Gem State who already have exhausted their unemployment benefits.

Why would Madsen encourage something like that? - M.T.