The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-05-2009, 03:27 AM
jackdavinci jackdavinci is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
How long for bill to take effect? (unemployment extension)

Wondering specifically about the new unemployment extension bill. It just cleared the Senate, and now the House and Senate versions have to be reconciled. Assuming the vote on that goes through by Monday, it will then go to the President right? And then he has ten days to sign it?

Assuming both votes are yay, what are the best, worst, and most realistic case scenarios for when the bill will actually be passed? And assuming it gets passed, will there be any further delays or obstacles to when people actually start receiving their unemployment money?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 11-05-2009, 09:50 AM
pan1 pan1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
It will likely take effect immediately. Worst case is 30 days.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-05-2009, 11:26 PM
Duckster Duckster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,016
Quote:
Unemployment Extension Cleared for Obama's Signature
Thursday
, November 5, 2009
6:15 PM

On a 403-12 vote, the House today passed the newly titled Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act (formerly known as the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act), clearing the legislation for President Obama's desk. The Senate unanimously approved the measure yesterday. The final bill, expected to be signed by Obama tomorrow, will
provide up to 14 additional weeks of emergency unemployment benefits for all 50 states and another six weeks -- for a total of 20 weeks -- of benefits for states where unemployment is 8.5 percent or higher.
Source: http://www.capitolhillreports.com/110509.htm

I would lean toward immediately effective.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-05-2009, 11:47 PM
Cliffy Cliffy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
As Duckster notes, this was the final vote needed -- as the OP is aware the House and Senate must pass identical bills, but in this instance the House passed it first, the Senate passed a different version, and then today the House accepted the Senate amendments so the thing doesn't have to go to conference and be passed by both Chambers yet again.

The OP is correct that the president typically has 10 days (not counting Sundays) after a bill reaches his desk to sign it, although, so long as a recess isn't pending, it would then go into effect without his signature at the end of that period, absent a veto. However, it typically takes some few days for a bill passed by both Chambers to go through all the formalities so it can be presented to the president. Given the nature of this bill, it appears that they're prioritizing it so it can get put into effect ASAP.

As for the effective date, the text of the bill says it shall be treated as if this was originally included in the 2008 Supplemental Appropriation that first extended the benefits last year, so I expect it should be immediately effective. That said, I did hear just a very quick mention on the radio today that there were some complex reporting requirements in the bill such that states might take a little while to get ramped up to speed. Given that tomorrow is Friday, it's probably not a bad idea to call the unemployment office tomorrow and see what their plans are.

--Cliffy
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-07-2009, 11:50 PM
anson2995 anson2995 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 2,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdavinci View Post
Assuming both votes are yay, what are the best, worst, and most realistic case scenarios for when the bill will actually be passed? And assuming it gets passed, will there be any further delays or obstacles to when people actually start receiving their unemployment money?
The bill specifies who is eligible, when, and for how much... when it actually passes is irrelevant.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-08-2009, 02:47 AM
jackdavinci jackdavinci is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by anson2995 View Post
The bill specifies who is eligible, when, and for how much... when it actually passes is irrelevant.
There was wordage on the website in NY implying retroactive payments, but the new page implies there won't be retroactive payments.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-08-2009, 11:21 AM
janeslogin janeslogin is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Nevada is acting as if the bill will pass and be retroactive.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-08-2009, 08:06 PM
Cliffy Cliffy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Signed Friday morning.

--Cliffy
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-10-2009, 07:55 AM
anson2995 anson2995 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 2,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdavinci View Post
There was wordage on the website in NY implying retroactive payments, but the new page implies there won't be retroactive payments.
Says it outright:
Quote:
The first payable week of this new extension is the week ending November 15th, 2009. Retroactive payments cannot be made for individuals who exhausted all extended benefits prior to the week ending November 8, 2009.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-11-2009, 05:03 AM
jackdavinci jackdavinci is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by anson2995 View Post
Yes that's what I was referring to with the "now it says" part. Previously it had instructions to keep claiming benefits each week, implying they'd be be available once the legislation passed. Also previously retroactive payments had been available last time there was an extension.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-11-2009, 10:18 PM
t-bonham@scc.net t-bonham@scc.net is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
In general, each bill has language in it that specifies when it will take effect. And it varies for different bills.

There are some common dates. Here in Minnesota, most legislation says that it takes effect on August 1st following the adjournment of the Legislature. Some bills specify immediately (at one minute after midnight on the day signed by the Governor or overridden by the Legislature) -- for example, disaster relief bills. Tax bills often specify January 1st of the next year, because it's easiest for everyone if the tax rules don't change in the middle of the year.

Sometimes the date is set for political reasons. The credit card reforms were set to not take effect for a couple of years, to give the credit card companies time to increase their rates & fees before that (IMO). Some of the proposed Health Care bills didn't go into effect until after the next Presidential election (leaving open the possibility of a new President who could sign a repeal before it ever goes into effect). I don't know what the date is on the bill that passed the House.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-11-2009, 10:33 PM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Back in Riderville
Posts: 17,999
Can Congress provide that legislation will come into force on a date to be set by the President?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-12-2009, 07:34 AM
Cliffy Cliffy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Can Congress provide that legislation will come into force on a date to be set by the President?
As is often the case, no in theory, yes in practice. The president's responsibility as to the effective date of laws is that he either signs them or doesn't. However, most legislation of significant effect delegates power to the Executive Branch agencies for implementation. It's not uncommon for a law to say a certain provision will go into effect on X date, unless the Secretary of Whatever certifies that, for reasons authorized in the statute, it should be delayed. Alternatively, you can have a law which operates in one way at the start but, if the problem at issue gets worse, other, more aggressive measures kick in. (This is one of the proposals in the current health care debate -- the so-called "trigger" option. This being GQ, I shall refrain from saying how stupid it is. Whoops!) And those would typically be initiated by a (probably statutorily mandated) report from an agency.

In some cases the discretion given to the agency is extremely limited -- such as a requirement that you measure, oh, let's say air quality and, if it's above X, you must immediately do Y. Other times it'd be much broader, for instance a statutory mandate that the military do this and this unless "in his discretion, the Secretary of Defense determines that it would have a deleterious effect on national security."

So to headline it -- the effective date of a statute is specified in the statute (or, if not, it's effective immediately upon enactment). But the functional effective date of particular substantive provisions of the statute can be conditioned on agency action. And while the specified agency actions can sometimes be merely ministerial, in other cases they can be exercises of significant discretion.

(This discussion assumes that the agency heads will do what the president tells them to do, which is roughly true most of the time, but precisely true none of the time.)

--Cliffy
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-14-2009, 02:44 PM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Back in Riderville
Posts: 17,999
Thanks for the info, Cliffy.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.