In a short take yesterday, I reported Kyl’s indefensible hypocrisy regarding unemployment insurance vs tax cuts for the rich. He is not alone.
For weeks, Senate Republicans have filibustered an extension of unemployment benefits on the grounds that Democrats aren’t willing to cut spending or raise taxes to pay for them. At the same time, the Bush tax cuts are set to expire, and Republicans want them to be renewed. For two days, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl has raised eyebrows by insisting that emergency aid to unemployed people — what he called a "necessary evil" — be paid for through either tax hikes or spending cuts, while the tax cuts (which mostly benefit wealthy people) not be offset in any way. Yesterday claimed that this view is shared by "most of the people in my party."
He was correct.
"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."
The CBO and other budget experts strongly disagree. And Democrats want to preserve the Bush tax cuts for people making less than $200,000-$250,000 a year — but only for them. Allowing them to expire for wealthier people would raise hundreds of billions of dollars over 10 years, which could allow them to offset the spending Republicans currently decry.
However, the GOP’s top budget guy, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), disagrees. He 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."
The expert view is that giving unemployed people money to spend stimulates the economy much more than does preserving tax cuts for the rich. But this view is not shared by the chairman of the Republican Senate re-election committee.
"I think the urgency of deficit neutral extension of unemployment insurance has increased because of the size of the deficit and the size of the debt," Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), another member of the GOP leadership team, told TPMDC yesterday. "I’m aware in the past some extensions have not been paid for, but if there’s one thing that I’m hearing from my constituents it’s that deficit spending has to stop, and I think this is a good place to do it."
Extending tax cuts to wealthy Americans is a different story.
"The problem is, you know, when you raise taxes, which is what that will be if no action is taken, taxes will go up on dividends and on capital gains on a whole lot of people who aren’t rich. And the problem with that in a recession is it further contracts capital formation and investment which means it has a negative impact on jobs. I really can’t think — if you really set out to try to come up with ways to discourage people from investing and creating new jobs and growing their business, I can’t think of a more comprehensive agenda for doing that than what we’ve seen over the last year and a half."… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <TPM>
This GOP position is not only irrational, but also, deceptive. Cutting taxes for the rich has not raised revenue. Cornyn’s is the worst lie of all. Repealing the Bush/GOP tax cuts, as proposed, will have no effect on people making less than $250,000. It will raise the income tax for those people from 35% to 39%. In a nutshell, the GOP is saying that a $30 billion is too big a burden to help workers. Many of them lost their jobs, because the GOP used taxpayer money to help corporations move those jobs overseas, and most of the rest of them lost their jobs, because the GOP trashed the economy. At the same time they are saying that continuing a revenue drain of hundreds of billions of dollars is not too big a burden to benefit the rich!! Here is my analysis in one word:
BULLSHIT!!
8 Responses to “Republican Leadership Buys Jon Kyl’s Insanity”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Of course it’s bullshit. If you get a pay cut, does that stimulate the economy? No, it doesn’t because you have less to spend. I want to punch the asshole in the face who thought up trickle down. Doesn’t work and 40 years has proved it. They can let the rich have their $678B tax cut (which of course, contributes to the deficit), but they can’t find $30B for people who are unemployed. It’s fucking backasswards.
My question is – where does all that money go that you and your employer pay into unemployment insurance go? With what working people we have left, that should be more than enough to cover the $30B. Can someone tell me where that money goes?
Unemployment insurance is paid solely by the employer. The format and calculations are established by each state, so there is some variation based on where one lives.
Minnesota has a pretty good FAQ section at their website that addresses these questions on unemployment insurance:
Where does the money come from?
Do all employers pay taxes?
How much are the employer taxes?
Does each employer pay the costs of benefits paid to that employer’s employees?
When the costs of benefits are not recovered from the particular employer, how are they paid for?
Does this mean that employers who never have layoffs or terminations pay no taxes?
What does an employee have to do to collect benefits?
Link:
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/issinfo/uepart1.htm
Thanks, nameless!! You beat me to this one. 🙂
I wonder how the loonies can explain away the taxes we had in the 50s. It was about 93%. Seems those are the times and worlds their pining for.
I am a little nervous President Obama might back down or negotiate something.
I keeps me fingers crossed….
They don’t, but between 1950 and 1963 they were at 91% and 92%, never 93%.
Why in Hell aren’t the Democrats exploiting the Republicans’ obvious cruelty and indifference to the working class? Is there some self-loathing, self-destruct mechinism inside of them that is afraid of taking on the responsibilities of governance?
Umm, yep. They want to ‘drown the government in a bathtub’ as old Rovey used to say.
I wish I could answer that. The only thing that may save us from their circular firing squad is the Republicans.