The Republican Party, having blown massive holes in the federal budget when they were in power, have suddenly rediscovered fiscal responsibility. Although tax cuts for the rich never need to be offset, the GOP insists on offsetting the extension of unemployment benefits wth spending cuts.
Fine. Cut every single earmark in every single House district represented by a Republican.
I don’t know whether it adds up, but let’s try it.
Will that actually save money? I thought an earmark directed already allocated money to a specific project and that in the absence of the earmark the money was still allocated, just not directed that specific project.
It was the Obama Democrats who actually wrote the offset rule into law, wasn’t it? I know that was a couple of months ago, and they are both stupid and dishonest, but still, I’d expect them to treat us better than this.
So, how do you help the economy to recover and decrease unemployment by forcing employers to bid against unemployment benefits.
So what you’re saying is that there should be a vote, and make Senate Republicans vote against the earmarks of their brethren in the House? If that’s what you’re saying, good idea. Either they vote (on whatever industry paints house GOP in the worst light) for waste and abuse and increasing deficits, by not extending, or they vote to trim the deficit by cutting outlays by whatever means the house deems fit. Two ways to lose, choose one. I like it.
Long time reader, first time commenter.
Employers have to pay UC taxes at a rate based on unemployment compensation paid out to their former employees (and of course they have to pay this for each employee). Does extending benefits increase the rate that employers have to pay? Or do extensions explicitly forbid such adjustments?
“bid against benefits”, Charles? The benefits aren’t some flood of cash, though they stave off such desperation as would compel acceptance of utter serfdom. I suppose you’d bring back the poorhouses?
CharlesWT, the answer is that you increase the number of buyers for the company’s product by increasing the size of the economy by $1.61 for every dollar paid in unemployment. The economy is stuck because people aren’t spending money. Banks and companies are saving money while the working class doesn’t have much to spend because there is a significant number that aren’t employed and many, many more saving for when they eventually get axed too. We have a giant economy full of business ready to take money from people in exchange for goods and services, lets give consumers money to spend. It really is that simple.
Finn, it’s not that simple. Whose money are you going to give them?
Well, the treasury is allowed to print what it pleases, so it could do that. Otherwise a marginal and progressive income tax with fewer loopholes would work great. Because business exists to provide its owners income (or just with money if you want to avoid the income label) any money you take from the top in taxes will always work its way back that way and on its way it will grow the pie that every gets to eat from. Taxing money from the richest and giving it to the poorest to spend or use (see health care, roads etc) benefits everyone when the richest are hording cash and freezing the economy. The owners of business get to make more money next year than they did this year (that’s the pie getting larger) and the poorest get to work and not starve (or continue to live at home which is more likely these days). It is a good idea when money isn’t frozen but I’m not prepared to argue that at the moment.
Finn, when the treasury prints what it pleases, devaluation of the currency, or inflation, is the result.
Deputy, the Consumer Price Index says prices have dropped slightly in the last six months, and there’s almost no inflation in the last year. Some economists are tearing their hair out about a possible liquidity trap: deflation could lead to a long-term persistent failure of our economy to grow.
So far as I know, nobody is worried about significant inflation right now - and, in fact, there is a case to be made in favor of inflation, or at least for some method of devaluing the US dollar. It would make our industries more competitive with imports, and because we’ve been able to borrow in US dollars it would help our fiscal situation. It would, however, be painful for those on fixed incomes.