The unemployment extension 2010 has divided the Senate pretty much straight down the party lines. The Democrats are for the measure, which increases taxes yet provides up to 73 additional weeks of unemployment checks to the long term jobless. The Republicans are against the measure. They aren't against helping the out of work Americans, but they are against raising taxes and using deficit spending. There is almost 100% Democratic support of the measure with the exception of one person - Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Although there have been raised eyebrows over his hesitancy to pass the bill, there are indications that his stance makes sense.
Nelson is from Nebraska, which has the lowest unemployment rate in the nation. Sitting under 5%, there aren't many Nebraskans out of work. Considering the low rate, constituents in his state are only eligible for the first two tiers of benefits. This means that only half of the available 73 weeks would help his state.
In addition, Nebraska is home to Warren Buffett. Buffett is one of the world's most popular investors, and wealthiest individuals. There are several tax hikes written in to the legislation that would negatively impact any large scale investor.
It can be concluded on one hand that Ben Nelson is acting in the best interest of his state. This is the sworn duty of any Senator. On the other hand, there are strong party alliance that are typically upheld. Some question why he would be willing to go outside these party lines.
What do you think? Do you think his position makes sense?
