Here’s how it works if you’re of the Republican persuasion: unemployment benefits must be paid for in some manner to offset any increase to the deficit but tax cuts to the rich need not be covered. Senator Jon Kyl explains.
“My view, and I think most of the people in my party don’t believe that you should ever have to offset a tax cut. That clearly reduced savings is a better way to offset increased spending than a tax increase is.”
To me you shouldn’t look at it [unemployment benefits] as an economic matter, it’s a humanitarian matter. You got people who are out of work, who can’t find work, you want to help ‘em out. Families need help. That’s why you provide it. You don’t do it because it’s going to stimulate the economy. You have to borrow the money in order to pay the folks. That borrowing has huge costs. They are adverse economics costs. So it’s not a good thing for the economy. It’s a bad thing for the economy but it’s still the right thing to do for other reasons.
Kyl might believe it’s “the right thing to do” but he still voted against extending unemployment benefits. The Congressional Budge Office, as do a number of economists, view unemployment benefits in a time of recession as a positive force. They claim it stimulates the economy and decreases job loss by increasing the ability for the unemployed to spend.
In short, Kyl and his fellow Republicans are of the twisted logic that tax cuts for the rich do not require offsets but unemployment benefits to the middle class must be paid for. Put another way: save the rich, damn the poor…and middle class.
Here is Kyl explaining Republican logic to a beleaguered liberal.
To receive new posts directly on your Facebook page, become a member of MarioPiperniDotCom’s page. Click here