GOP Wants Unemployed to Eat Cake so Rich Can Continue to Enjoy Tax Cuts
A couple of days ago yr ed. reported here that Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) blathered that tax cuts never had to be paid for while spending, such as extending unemployment benefits, must always be offset by revenue or other cuts. His fuzzy reasoning seemed to be that cutting taxes is an entitlement for the wealthy.
Well, he’s not the only Republican embracing this point of view. From TPM:
“That’s been the majority Republican view for some time,” Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told TPMDC this afternoon after the weekly GOP press conference. “That there’s no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject.”
Vibrancy, indeed! The tax cuts were vibrant! They were trickling down vibrancy everywhere you looked! Tell us more, tell us more!
He (Sen. Judd Gregg, R-NH) said Kyl’s prescription—offset spending with tax increases or program cuts, but treat tax cuts differently—is exactly right. “It makes a lot of sense, because, you know, when you’re raising taxes you’re taking money out of peoples’ pockets,” said Gregg when asked by TPMDC. “When you’re spending money, you’re spending money that is—it’s not the same thing because it’s growing the government. So I tend to think that tax cuts should not have to be offset.”
Makes perfect sense, right? Assuming that you live in Republatopia where decreasing revenue sources magically increases revenue, why it does! But we don’t live there. We live in RealWorldUSA. Let’s see what some actual statistics say about all that trickling down vibrancy.
Paul Krugman, someone whose lifework involves analyzing actual economic numbers provides some graphs.
The first analyzes growth of non-farm payrolls over both the Clinton (raised taxes) and Bush (cut taxes) administrations:
Hmmm. Vibrancy shining a little less bright under that Bush administration.
Well, how about actual revenues?
Ouchie. Vibrancy going pretty dull and flat there.
So, yes, the Repubs are wrong on this. Tax cuts are not vibrant, magical creators of revenue.
But let’s return to the subject of unemployment benefits. Due to the non-vibrancy of the Bush years combined with the near-miss financial meltdown of the country/world, jobs have taken it in the chin. Along with job holders. Or job non-holders, more to the point. Republicans seem as focused on not giving any more jobless benefits to the unemployed (who, arguably, became unemployed due to the Republican *stewardship* of the nation) as they are on giving continued tax breaks to the wealthy (see Jon Kyl piece ref’d above).
How badly do Republicans not want to help out the jobless among us? Jillian Rayfield at TPMDC chronicles some impressive evidence. Here’s just a sampler:
Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett, who is running for governor, said last week that unemployed people are purposely avoiding jobs so they can continue collecting benefits from the government.
Rand Paul, the Republican nominee for senator of Kentucky, said in June that the unemployed need to stop being so picky when it comes to getting a job.
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) said in March that unemployment benefits don’t “create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work.”
South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer compared the unemployed to stray animals back in January, saying that unemployment insurance is a lot like helping out strays.
(Read the rest of his quotes over there - it’s a real doozy. Involving “breeding”.)
Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV) said in February that he thinks that though “there should be a federal safety net,” extending unemployment benefits yet again raises the question: “Is the government now creating hobos?”
Damn, sounds like some kind of a trend here. Anyone actually been on unemployment? Were you so thrilled with the amount of money you were getting that you had no incentive to pull your lazy ass out of the hammock and go back to work until the benefits finally ran out? Nobody that I know of because unemployment doesn’t even come close to paying the bills of most families. Additionally, as Ezra points out, money spent on unemployment benefits actually puts more money into the economy (since people will, of necessity spend it) while tax cuts generate only about a third of the economic activity compared to their cost.
So the fiscal evidence does not support what apparently is “the majority Republican point of view”. Both with respect to tax cuts and the need to “pay for” unemployment benefits through other cuts. You get the impression they either don’t like people without jobs or they’re just clueless enough to suggest that if they have no bread to eat, why can’t they just eat cake?
Posted by marindenver on 07/14/10 at 04:37 PM • Permalink
Categories: Politics • Editorials • Nutters •
Share this post: 
