Mother Jones blogger Kevin Drum writes, by way of mocking it, that Republican talk of “'chronic' joblessness is...a way of suggesting that some of the unemployed are shiftless and lazy.” The only problem with Drum's taunt is that some of the unemployed really are shiftless and lazy.

Or to put it in a less loaded way, what is so controversial about suggesting that some – not all, but some – of those American workers who are currently drawing extended unemployment benefits would get jobs if their benefits were cut off?

Anecdotally, most of us know a few hard luck folks who've lost their jobs in the last few years and haven't been able to find anything in spite of their best efforts. But we probably  also know folks out of work and drawing unemployment benefits who could find work again in a pinch. They just don't want to do the jobs that they can get right now. Thanks to Uncle Sam, they don't have to.

Among economists, it is not at all controversial to say that subsidizing unemployment leads to more unemployment. The only question is, How much more? The Obama administration's Council of Economic Advisers reportedly looked into the unprecedented extension of unemployment benefits as one possible culprit of our current mass joblessness.

Former Bush White House economic analyst Keith Hennessey supports the extended benefits. He nevertheless concedes that the effects on employment are not negligible. Using estimates that are likely overgenerous, he found that “for every nine people out of work, one is being discouraged from taking a new job because of the expanded benefits.”

That doesn't sound so bad, but what if the actual numbers were one of every five people receiving unemployment could find work? How about one in three? At what point would it be worth insisting on a hard deadline to cut off unemployment benefits and trying to find other remedies – including welfare and private charity – to help those hard cases who really couldn't hack it in this awful economy?

Republican messaging during their brief filibuster of another unemployment extension was all over the map. At one end of the spectrum, you had the pay-for-it folks. Republican senatorial hopeful Dino Rossi blasted Senator Patty Murray for not finding off-setting cuts in federal spending to “pay for” the unemployment extension. At the other end, you had tough love crowd, including Majority Leader Senator Reid's Republican challenger Sharron Angle, who argued that cutting back unemployment benefits was the surest way to boost employment.

My sense is that the tough love crowd is nearer to the mark on this one. But their approach would be far from painless.

--------------------------------------------
Follow the RCP Blog on Twitter.
Become a fan of RCP on Facebook.
--------------------------------------------