Every few months, a renewed debate seems to play out in Congress over extending unemployment benefits. Republicans claim that, given the deficit, extending benefits is fiscally irresponsible. (Some also argue that it discourages people from looking for work because apparently they'd rather sit around collecting meager checks.) Democrats counter that, in light of the country's deep economic hardship, now is not the time to focus singularly on the deficit.  

The latest version of this dispute involves the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Expansion Act, introduced by Representatives Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Bobby Scott (D-Va.). Aimed at "99ers" -- people who have exhausted the maximum 99 weeks of unemployment insurance without finding work -- the bill would extend emergency benefits for 14 more weeks.

According to a Congressional Research Service report (pdf), in October 2010 there were roughly 1.5 million 99ers in the country.

Lee and Scott tried to add the measure to the House's Continuing Resolution that will fund government operations through the end of the fiscal year, but it was blocked by Republicans last week.

"It's a matter of priorities," Congressman Bobby Scott told The Root in an interview, measuring recent tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and wealthy estates against cutting off aid for the long-term unemployed.

"You cannot disconnect the budget struggles we're having today from the tax cuts from two months ago. If you spend $800 billion over two years, and then say, ‘We're broke and have to cut spending,' there's a connection. When you have no money and compassion for hardworking Americans who are struggling because the jobs don't exist, but you just had money and compassion for dead multi-millionaires, it just seems to be a warped sense of priorities."

Scott says that extending unemployment insurance is not just important for sympathetic reasons, but that it also has economic advantages. "If your goal is to create jobs in terms of stimulating the economy, economists have determined that investments in unemployment compensation are the most effective investments you can make," he said, citing studies that show a positive ripple effect from unemployment insurance as the money spreads through the economy. "That's in stark contrast to the tax cuts for the wealthy that we just passed, which will generate virtually no economic impact."

Still, after 99 weeks of unemployment benefits…should there be a point when they just expire? We can't afford to pay it forever, right? Scott isn't troubled by these questions.

"It is inappropriate to discontinue someone's unemployment compensation when the jobs aren't there," he said, explaining that there are currently four times more people looking for jobs than there are jobs available. Some positions have gone overseas, some have been overtaken by technology, and other businesses are just getting by with fewer employees. "These are people who had been working and are actively looking for a job, but however hard they look a lot of them will not be able to find one. It's not like they would rather be idle. To suggest that there's nothing that can be done is just not fair.

"One of the tragedies in this," Scott continued, "is that, as some of the jobs have disappeared and people need new skills, the Continuing Resolution cuts job training. It adds insult to injury."

Scott says that he and Congresswoman Barbara Lee will continue to bring up the 99ers bill at every opportunity. But with a Republican-controlled House it stands a slim chance of becoming law.

"If it doesn't pass, the Republican majority will be responsible," Scott said. "They have had several opportunities already, and there will be continuing opportunities, to help those most in need. The jobs aren't there, so this issue is not going to go away."

On the heels of criticism over his 2012 federal budget proposal, from both the left and right, President Obama joined the fray in a Tuesday morning news conference where he defended his choices.

The president notably responded to the impression that his budget, with its focus on small domestic programs, puts too much on the backs of the poorest Americans. Echoing the rationale provided earlier by members of his administration, he first explained the reasoning behind certain unpopular cuts, like the Pell Grant and LIHEAP funding.

He continued that his budget adds dollars to other areas to help the vulnerable, such as restoring funds that had been cut from food stamps (SNAP), allocating more money to public school districts, backing science and technology programs to bring underrepresented students to those fields, and boosting infrastructure spending.

“Sometimes I'm just frustrated by the number of people out there who are struggling, and you want to help every single one individually,” he said, when asked if he really understands the pain of cash-strapped Americans. “You almost feel like you want to be a case worker and just start picking up the phone and advocating for each of these people who are working hard, trying to do right by their families.

“But my job is to make sure that we’re focused over the long term: Where is it that we need to go? And the most important thing I can do as president is make sure that we’re living within our means, getting a budget that is sustainable, investing in the future and growing the economy. If I do that, then that’s probably the most help I can give to the most number of people.”

Another common critique on the budget is that it makes no mention of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, despite those being the biggest long-term drivers of the deficit. The president said that those are negotiations he’ll be making with Congress over the next few months.

“I said in the State of the Union and I'll repeat, that side of the ledger only accounts for about 12 percent of our budget,” he said. “So we've got a whole bunch of other stuff that we're going to have to do, including dealing with entitlements.”

Obama took care to mention, however, that he doesn’t want to significantly tamper with Social Security, which he described as being less of a deficit-driver than the other two.

The president also addressed the fact that his budget ignores most of the proposals offered by his bipartisan fiscal commission, which put sacred-cow expenditures, like tax breaks for homeowners and military spending, on the chopping block. Yet, going by Obama’s budget, it’s almost like the commission never existed.

He pointed out that the report was also so divisive that it couldn’t get the required 14 votes from the full 18-member commission. One person who notably passed from signing on was the chairman of the House Republican budgeters.

“He’s got a little bit of juice when it comes to trying to get an eventual budget done,” Obama said, repeating that he’ll have to work with both sides to arrive at something with a viable chance of passing. “I mean, my goal here is to actually solve the problem. It’s not to get a good headline on the first day.”

The presser’s recurring theme of both parties working together is a hopeful one, but Obama’s actual negotiations with Republicans are sure to be rife with conflict. His budget is just the opening bid for that drawn-out process.

As many reservations as I may have with the president’s proposal – namely its trimming of relatively small social programs over, say, seriously addressing the Pentagon’s massive budget – it beats the ideas that Republicans have put forth. They haven’t unveiled a 2012 budget yet, but the GOP vision for financing the rest of this year includes far bigger reductions to Pell Grants, heating assistance and CDBG funding, plus cutbacks in the WIC nutritional assistance program for low-income mothers.

On the matter of forthcoming budget negotiations, Obama said he knows it will be prickly but feels confident that both sides can navigate the situation together.

“I expect that all sides will have to do a little bit of posturing on television and speak to their constituencies, and rally the troops and so forth,” he said. “But ultimately, what we need is a reasonable, responsible, and, probably, somewhat quiet and toned-down conversation about where can we compromise and get something done.”