Skip to main content

Governor Cuomo Signs Legislation to Extend Federally-Funded Unemployment Insurance Benefits Through 2011

Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today announced that he has signed into law a measure extending federally-funded unemployment insurance benefits through 2011. Without this new law, the state would not be able to continue to pay a total of 93 weeks of benefits and would have forfeited $620 million in federal payments to the unemployed, negatively impacting approximately 166,000 New Yorkers.

"This measure will ensure out-of-work New Yorkers will continue to have a federally-funded safety net to help them weather this prolonged economic downturn," Governor Cuomo said. "Re-entering the workforce can be daunting and time consuming. This law provides basic relief for the thousands of job-hunters across the state."

Senator Joseph E. Robach, Chair of the Senate Labor Committee and sponsor of the Governor's bill, said, "I am glad that quick legislative action has allowed us to access federal funds to assist those on unemployment during these challenging economic times. Hopefully, the economy will improve with more private-sector jobs and relief for all."

Assemblyman Keith Wright, Chair of the Assembly Labor Committee and sponsor of the Governor's bill, said, "At a time when far too many New York residents are still struggling to emerge from the 'Great Recession,' many families are still reliant upon unemployment insurance to get them through these difficult times. This legislation makes much needed changes ensuring that thousands of New York families get the assistance they need while they continue to search for all-too-elusive jobs in this economy."

Since 2009, New York State has participated in a two-year federally-funded unemployment insurance program. In December 2010, the United States Congress extended the federal program by an additional year. The Governor's legislation amends New York State law to allow the state to qualify for the additional third year of the program.

The extended unemployment insurance program will continue throughout 2011. Under the program, benefits for all private sector and non-profit employees are fully federally-funded.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...