Jobless Americans are facing a cliff when it comes to their unemployment benefits. As a new report from the National Employment Law Project notes, due to Congress phasing out federal unemployment benefits that were implemented as a response to the Great Recession, U.S. workers who lose their jobs from the first week of July forward will only be eligible to receive 27 weeks of benefits at the state level, not the extended benefits that have been available for the last several years:

The [Emergency Unemployment Compensation] program is scheduled to expire at the end of December 2012. Workers who lose their jobs during the first week of July and thereafter will thus face having no federal benefits when they exhaust state UI benefits. Unlike prior authorizations of the EUC program, which provided for a graduated phase-out of eligibility for workers receiving benefits on the scheduled expiration date, workers receiving EUC at the end of the year face a “hard” cut-off: their benefits will stop. This means that unless Congress reauthorizes the EUC program by the end of December, no unemployed worker will receive any federal unemployment benefits for the weeks after December 29, 2012.

Though the labor market is improving, there are still nearly four unemployed workers for every available opening, and the average duration of unemployment is currently 40 weeks — longer than the 26 weeks of benefits most states provide. Since the recession, the federal government has picked up the tab for up to 99 weeks of unemployment through the EUC program.

If Congress allows the EUC program to expire at the end of the year, more than two-thirds of the unemployed will not be receiving any benefits at all. Even with the federal benefits program, less than half of the unemployed currently receive benefits.

This summer’s record heat and drought has the potential to wipe out three months of decline in global food prices, the United Nations reports. Just two months ago, the U.S. Agriculture Department predicted a record season for corn production, and thus a decline in food prices. But extreme heat has reversed the trend, with the damage sending some international grain prices to 2007-08 levels.

Extreme temperatures have already played a destructive role for crops here in the U.S.:

In its most recent assessment, released Monday, the Department of Agriculture reported that 48 percent of corn crops nationally were in good or excellent condition, a drop from 56 percent of crops a week earlier. In some states, though, the circumstances were far worse. In Indiana, half of corn crops were designated poor or very poor, and in Illinois, among the nation’s top corn producers, only 26 percent of crops were considered good or excellent.

John Hawkins, a spokesman for the Illinois Farm Bureau, said those in the southernmost sections of his state ‘‘are close to or past that point of no return,’’ while in the other sections of the state, ‘‘there’s a lot of praying, it’s hanging on by a thread. These 100-degree temperatures are just sucking the life out of everything.’’

Tens of thousands of daily heat temperatures have been set so far this year, as global warming does its harm on a “regional level or personal level.”

House Democrats earlier this month proposed increasing the federal minimum wage to $10 an hour, which would catch the minimum wage up to the buying power it had in 1968. The proposal hasn’t gone anywhere, though, since Republicans who control the House of Representatives oppose any increase.

Asked by a constituent at a Fourth of July parade yesterday, Florida Rep. Bill Young (R) revealed that he is, predictably, opposed to the Democratic proposal. When a constituent asked him why he opposed boosting worker wages, Young replied simply, “Get a job“:

CONSTITUENT: Hi, I’m (inaudible) how are you? Happy Fourth of July. Jesse Jackson, Jr. is passing a bill around to increase the minimum wage to 10 bucks and hour. Do you support that?

YOUNG: Probably not.

CONSTITUENT: 10 bucks, that would give us a living wage.

YOUNG: How about getting a job?

CONSTITUENT: I do have one.

YOUNG: Well, then why do you want that benefit? Get a job.

Watch it, via FLDemocracy.com:

Young seems to miss the point that the millions of minimum wage workers in this country already have jobs. What they want is a job that will pay them enough to actually live on, and Congress could afford them that “benefit” by making the minimum wage as strong as it was four decades ago.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee today released results of an investigation into how Countrywide, the mortgage lender that blew itself up in 2008 and was pushed into the waiting arms of Bank of America, used a VIP loan program to influence public policy, including anti-predatory lending legislation. Countrywide was the worst offender in proliferating subprime loans, according to a Center for Public Integrity investigation.

According to the Oversight Committee’s report, Countrywide’s aim with the VIP program was to essentially purchase insurance against predatory lending laws and legislation that would have prevented the government from purchasing Countrywide’s subprime loans. “Documents obtained by the Committee show that several Members of Congress and congressional staff positioned to affect the legislation received VIP loans. In fact, Countrywide lobbyists — and CEO Angelo Mozilo himself — referred several Members and staff from the Senate Committee on Banking and the House Committee on Financial Services to the VIP unit,” the report says. Here are the most important takeaways from the report:

– Countrywide’s VIP unit recorded 17,979 loans between January 1996 and June 2008 (though some were double counted), and “borrowers included Members and employees of Congress, the White House, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, federal agencies, and other government entities.”

– Countrywide explicitly handed out these loans, and had them handled by the same California desk that dealt with loans to celebrities, in order to “create a favorable impression of the company on Capitol Hill.”

– Countrywide gave preferential loans to Congressional staff members charged with working on anti-predatory lending legislation. One email between Countrywide staffers instructed that VIP client be handled “carefully” because she “reports directly to Congressman Mel Watt who introduced predatory lending legislation to address unscrupulous lending practices.”

– The standard mortgage reduction on a VIP loan was 0.5 points, and Countrywide “routinely waived junk fees typically ranging from $350 to $400 for VIP borrowers.”

– Countrywide was so intent on proliferating these VIP loans, that it even took a loss on them, including on a loan to former Fannie Mae President and CEO Daniel Mudd.

The report did not name any new members of Congress who had received loans, beyond the six who had previously been uncovered. According to the documents, Mozillo denied using the program to influence public policy. “I personally was proud to have people of prominence select Countrywide to be their lender of choice,” he said.

House Republicans have spent the years since the Great Recession clamoring for “reform” of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps, cutting funding from the program in budget after budget. But now that a top House Republican has drafted a deal that would make the program’s basic requirements even more stringent than Texas — a state with notoriously strict eligibility standards — conservative Republicans are balking at the deal in favor of a requirement even they admit is “out of date.”

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-OK), in an effort to push food stamp reform that would have a fighting chance in the Senate, made sizable changes to SNAP in the House version of the farm bill. Lucas’ draft reins in state eligibility requirements by ending what is known as “categorical eligibility” for all non-cash-assistance food programs. The Lucas version of the bill would save billions but kick nearly two million people out of the program, following the footsteps of Republican efforts over the last two years. But that isn’t enough for his fellow Republicans, who want to make deeper, “symbolic” cuts that have no chance of passing the Senate, Politico reports:

Yet for all this, according to persons familiar with the negotiations, Lucas ran into a buzz saw at recent member meetings with committee Republicans. His compromise was rejected in favor of the symbolism of ending categorical eligibility outright — without risking any adjustments.

The upshot is that the committee’s draft bill will go back to the prior House position of ending cat-el in all cases but cash assistance. This will save $11.5 billion but could drive at least 1.8 million people off the rolls and has twice been rejected by the Senate. [...]

The biggest impact of ending categorical eligibility is the reinstatement of the $2,000 asset test requiring families to spend down their savings before qualifying for help.

As Politico notes, however, even Republicans admit that returning to the $2,000 asset test is “out of date” and makes no sense:

Privately, House Republican aides admit the $2,000 cap is out of date — worth less than half of the $4,193 it would be if fully adjusted for inflation. And if the family car is valued at more than $4,650, that excess is also counted against the $2,000.

Even Lucas’ reform is a solution in search of a problem. The varying state eligibility requirements aren’t responsible for the rapid growth of SNAP over the last four years; rather, the growth came from the Great Recession and President Obama’s decision to expand the program as part of his economic stimulus package. SNAP is now shrinking and is on pace to return to its normal level in the next decade.

Still, in pushing a “compromise” that would have booted 1.8 million off of food stamps, Lucas gave the GOP the chance to do something it has been trying to do since it took control of the House. Conservatives balked, though, because the deal apparently doesn’t take away vital food assistance from enough struggling families.