Clueless Senator has no idea about unemployed's plight

For as long as I can remember, the Republican Party has been labeled -- fairly or unfairly -- as the party of the well-to-do. It also is perceived -- fairly or unfairly -- as not being particularly sensitive to the problems facing middle- to lower-income Americans.

Well, the GOP didn't help shed any of these stereotypes the past week or so, due to Exhibit A: some misplaced posturing by Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky, and Exhibit B: remarks that can only be classified as remarkably clueless coming out of the mouth of Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl.

First, Bunning. He drew the wrath of Democrats and Republicans alike when he initially decided to go it alone and block the extension of unemployment benefits on the Senate floor. Then, after GOP leadership pulled him into a back room and told him, "Yo, what are you thinking?" he backed off.

I understand the principle behind Bunning's filibuster. He wanted to call the bluff of Democrats and President Obama, who -- after ringing up an estimated $1.7 trillion of new debt since taking power -- went out of their way to say, "Hey, look at us: we've adopted a pay-as-you-go policy on spending." (In comparsion, the Bush Administration accumulated nearly $5 trillion of new debt in 8 years, for which he, too, has been called to the carpet.)

However, as much as I think it's necessary to admonish politicians on both sides of the aisle for continuing to spend with reckless abandon, Bunning looked foolish using unemployment benefits as a backdrop to make his stand. You end up alienating millions who, by no fault of their own, either have just received a pink slip -- I've met a few this week -- or have been out of work for an extended period and need a hand to help them get by. Further, I can't imagine you win many P.R. points with their immediate families and friends.

That brings me to Sen. Kyl (below), who it was reported earlier this week, tried to make the argument that giving unemployment benefits "dissuades people from job-hunting because people are being paid even though they're not working."

I am one of the unemployed at whom Kyl's remarks are directed. And with all due respect, I'd suggest it would be in the junior Senator from Arizona's best interest to venture outside the Beltway's insulated cocoon once in a while because he has no idea what he's talking about.

I'd love to show him the stack of paper sitting on my dresser, which lists all the contacts I've made to prospective employers the past several months. Or give him an idea of the time I spend on a weekly basis making phone calls, sending resumes, checking online job boards, going to career fairs and attending networking events.

I'd like to introduce him to some of the individuals I've met along the way. I've seen their resumes. Many of them possess years of on-the-job accomplishments that would make them an asset to any company or organization. They're not holding out for their "dream job" or demanding an exhorbitant salary. They're out busting their tails every day, doing everything they can to get back into the work force in some capacity.

For the record, one can't live off unemployment, whether you are single or have a family. The net monthly amount I receive is roughly half of what I made when I had a full-time job. I wish Sen. Kyl could hear some of the stories of unemployed men and women I know with families to raise, COBRA payments to make (provided they had health insurance at their old job to begin with), and college tuition and mortgages to pay off. Ask them, Senator, if they've got their feet propped up on the sofa every afternoon, watching Maury Povich and waiting for a direct deposit from the Department of Employment Security.

Just so I don't leave you with the impression that I'm a registered Democrat who gleefully enjoys browbeating Republicans at every opportunity, I estimate that I vote for GOP candidates well over 90 percent of the time for a variety of reasons. But when they're wrong, they're wrong.  And Sen. Kyl is wrong.

Although any Congressman or Senator can utter stupid remarks regardless of how long he or she has been in Congress, I can't help but think the longer one serves on Capitol Hill, the more one becomes detached from the real world. Kyl and Bunning, for example, have each been lawmakers since the 1980s. So has a Senator in my home state, Dick Durbin, who I personally would like to see on the unemployment after the 2014 elections (when his current Senate term ends).

Then there's the king of career politicians, Robert Byrd of West Virginia (left), who's been in the House and Senate a combined 57 years.

Setting term limits for Congressmen and Senators is wishful thinking, I know. But why not? Two terms for a Senator; 6 terms for a Representative. Twelve years is plenty. Then if you can't make ends meet on your cushy Congressional pension after you leave, go out into the real world and get a job. (Side note: a Congressman who's served 22 years, for example, and whose average salary for their top 3 years was $153,900 stands to collect a pension of just over $84,000 per year. And he or she can begin collecting their pension at age 50 if they're served 20 years -- or collect it at anytime after 25 years of service.)

I wonder if Sen. Kyl would be eligible to collect unemployment ...