The extension of unemployment benefits that just passed in Congress presents a dilemma. While most of the unemployed are members of the private sector and, therefore, the very people our organization represents, we also represent the individuals and companies that are taxed to provide these benefits, as well as their children and grandchildren who will be the ones left picking up the tab. The latest extension alone adds an estimated $34 billion to the national deficit that future generations will have to find ways to cover.

While it is politically popular to extend the benefits and certainly morally compelling, at what point must you draw the line? Currently, with all the extensions of federal benefits, people could receive unemployment benefits for nearly 2 ½ years. Considering the sluggish pace of recovery and the threats of deflation, double-dip recessions, or even an impending depression, the economy could remain “in the tank” for quite some time. The question then becomes when SHOULD you stop taking money from the people who are working and giving it to those who are not? 2 ½ years? 5 years? 25 years?

An often ignored issue is the inequity in unemployment benefits. Maximum benefit rates are set by the state, so federal funds can pay an unemployed person in one state a significantly higher amount than one in another.

Another important question to ask is whether continually extending unemployment benefits might lessen the urgency to save money during good times. If you know the government is going to bail you out, why build up a savings account to protect yourself through hard times?

Congress puts us in a very difficult position on this thorny issue of unemployment benefits. We all sympathize with those who have had their livelihood affected by the recession, and we understand that it is extremely difficult to find work these days, particularly for the long-term unemployed. However, if unemployment benefits are continued indefinitely, we will have redefined them from assistance during hard times, as intended, to simply another form of social welfare, one our nation can ill-afford.

Perhaps if Congress addressed the $600 billion question of pay and benefits disparity that favors the public sector, the private sector could create the jobs we need to get people off the rolls of the unemployed. This figure is the amount taxpayers could save if the government provided public sector workers with the same level of salaries and benefits as those in the private sector. This $600 billion in taxpayer money could help create jobs and therefore reduce the amount of taxpayer money spent on unemployment benefits, ultimately spurring more growth, more spending, more consumption and even more jobs. This would move our economy into a time of prosperity, instead of a decline toward a permanent welfare state.