Further to myteapartywas2008’s excellent post on the economically inexplicable decision by Republicans generally, and our own Scott Brown specifically, to refuse to extend soon-expiring (or perhaps already expired) unemployment benefits to Americans still looking for work in the wake of the worst economic calamity since 1929, here are some facts. From the Congressional Budget Office, who doesn’t make stuff up. The most effective means of creating jobs and stimulating the economy would seem to be a relevant policy question right about now. Looky looky what they found (click for larger).
What’s that one there that came in first? Why that sure looks like increasing aid to the unemployed! Great – now that that’s taken care of, I’m sure everyone will sign on to a very sensible, cheap, and effective policy option.
Roll tape.
He objects to the most effective and efficient way of helping the unemployed people of his state – our state – and all the others as well. But my, don’t his shoulders look terrific in that suit jacket?
So. 2012. Who’s in?
S.3990, unfortunately text not available yet.
<
p>I want to see if Brown tried the same stunt he pulled last time by trying to use unspent stimulus dollars. As we all know, stimulus dollars were never offset.
<
p>That’s my guess.
His new bill is probably a revision of Senate 3551, which he filed in order to deflect criticism of his opposition to a bill passed in August providing $655 million in aid to the states, including Medicaid assistance.
<
p>In addition to the unspent stimulus dollars trick, one other funding source he identified in his earlier bill (the sunsetting of increases in the food stamp program) has already been used up. It helped to help fund Medicaid in the August bill (BMG commmentary here), so he’s down by at least one funding source.
Remember this one?
<
p>
<
p>They don’t work. The whole argument of stimulus, who will spend, who will save etc is gone, done.
I trust the CBO a lot more than I trust “Moody’s Economy.com.” If you want to question the CBO’s analysis, by all means, have at it. Otherwise, stop being silly.
<
p>Carry on.
…but are you objecting to Moody’s in particular or to third party econometric analysis firms in general?
David, I’m not sure why you’re calling it rubbish. “Moody’s Economy.com” agrees with the CBO. Fourth line from the bottom, “Extend Unemployment Insurance Benefits” has a 1.64 multiplicative factor. That’s in line with the CBO’s estimate.
<
p>What Seascraper is saying, on the other hand, is the real rubbish. He’s trying to claim that the unemployment extensions so far have not done anything of the kind. He is the one saying that Moody’s is rubbish.
<
p>And I say, well, prove it. Don’t just wave your hands and say, “Remember this chart? It was *******.” Remember the first rule of writing: Show, don’t tell. You haven’t shown your chart to be ******* and you certainly haven’t shown the CBO to be full of *******.
<
p>The onus is on you, Seascraper, to show that the money spent on unemployment benefits had no effect (though I’ll let you off the hook if you can even demonstrate an effect less than 1.0) on the GDP and the economy.
<
p>Go ahead, take your time and think about it. I’ll wait.
In which case Seascraper’s point is even less comprehensible.
Doesn’t Moody’s chart show that for every $1 in reduced taxes we get an additional $0.27 — $1.26 of GDP, whereas for every $1 in spending increase we get an additional $1.36 — $1.73 of GDP?
<
p>In other words, doesn’t Moody’s corroborate the claims of the CBO in principle, if not in exact dollar and cent amount?
The Moody’s chart was to convince us how important it was to have a big-spending stimulus package back in 2009. But as far as effects go, the stimulus was a bust.
…I have yo ask: are you saying that tax cuts failed to stimulate the economy?
<
p>Facts are facts – the stimulus bill was not s bust, had it not been passed the economy would be vastly worse than it is now. You’re believing people who lie to you when you say it was a bust.
Tax cuts which just put money into people’s pockets, so they go spend it, are a waste of money if they mean you’re going to have to borrow to run your government.
<
p>Democratic types want spending over tax cuts because it means more power for them. It has nothing to do with stimulus.
The stimulus had a stimulative effect. Trouble was, it wasn’t big enough… and as JohnT mentioned, about 1/3 was spent on tax cuts.
<
p>The stimulus needed to be bigger, with more money spent on infrastructure, including spending the money necessary to have expedited permitting and planning, so the money could be injected.
<
p>That the stimulus didn’t end the recession instantly doesn’t mean that the stimulus didn’t work — it merely means that the stimulus wasn’t big enough to fully move the needle from negative to positive. It simply moved it toward positive, and we’re not as worse off as we would have been otherwise as a result.
<
p>To claim that “the stimulus was a bust” is just simple minded foolishness.
because I can’t get to Seattle on one tank of gas.
<
p>Ted Williams was a bust, because he only hit .400 once, and didn’t win the MVP that year.
<
p>Carl Lewis was a bust, because he couldn’t jump to the moon.
<
p>Bill Belichick is a bust, because he doesn’t win every game.
<
p>etc.
I probably wouldn’t be, but he is. I personally think giving unlimited free money to people is a disincentive to finding work.
<
p>You can see it in his own words here.
<
p>http://www.redmassgroup.com/di…
Or against it before he was for it. Or something. Seems to go with the territory here in MA!
with a way to have it paid for. The Globe just made stuff up today.
I got what I need to know from the clip showing Senator Brown in action on the Senate floor.
Because I’d LIKE to live on an average check of $290 per week? There’s still plenty of incentive to get a better-paying job. This disincentive argument is one of the silliest/disingenuous ones out there.
<
p>Nice theory. Doesn’t pan out in practice. Have you talked to any unemployed people lately? How many are just loving the situation they are currently in? None that I have talked to. Did you read any of the profiles of folks at the end of their unemployment benefits in the Globe the other day?
I personally think giving unlimited free money to people is a disincentive to finding work.
<
p>Sounds like the words of someone who’s never been on unemployment. I have been, from April of ’01 to July ’02, with a brief hiatus in the middle due to benefits running out and then getting extended. Let me tell you, I never saw it as “unlimited free money”.
<
p>The benefits cap out at 50% of what you were previously making. And there’s a cap on that cap–if you are above the cap $X, your benefits never exceed $X/2. That certainly is not unlimited.
<
p>Let’s suppose you are a responsible person (as I was). You live within your means, you set aside some money in a savings account, but budget for 90% of your salary. Now suddenly you are at 50% or less of your income. 0% would be far far worse, but 50% ain’t no picnic, and let me tell you, there was no disincentive for me to find work.
<
p>I knew the situation wouldn’t last, and I hustled to get a new job. Nonetheless it still took 15 months. Without unemployment I would not have made it, even with the savings I had set aside, which still were severely diminished by the end of my drought.
<
p>If a person is accustomed to earning $X (and has a budget, including mortgage/rent, that assumes $X), and they are suddenly slashed to $X/2, do you really think they will try harder to find a job if you take away that last $X/2?
I went and started my own business. I never collected, I went broke sold my condo to pay my debts and moved in with my parents to make ends meet while I built that business and ultimately found another job. But yeah I’ve got no clue what it’s like.
<
p>I know other friends who are conservative who also refused to take unemployment.
<
p>
and I mean that. Definitely commendable.
<
p>But what if a person doesn’t have the safety net of their parents?
…but merely a little strange from mine.
<
p>Unemployment is an insurance program. Your former employer was paying some amount into the state’s unemployment insurance trust fund for each employee. A laid-off employee who collects unemployment causes the employer’s obligation to the trust fund to rise some.
<
p>The federal government steps in to pay for extended benefits only on rare occasions, and 2000 was not one.
<
p>So your decision to forego unemployment then wasn’t a decision not to accept a government handout. It was more like being in a car accident and deciding to repair the damage yourself instead of using your car insurance. But totally your call.
<
p>
I’m not sure I can just decide one day to start a business. Doesn’t that take money and skill that frankly I’m not confident I have?
Mine was professional services. Do you have a skill that someone else could use? Then get to it.
My skills are generally not those that start a business. Plus where do I get start up money? Presumably I need premises for most businesses. I’m also scared to death of failure.
You wrote “I … ultimately found another job.”
<
p>In other words, your business failed. Don’t feel bad; the five-year mortality rate for new businesses is something like 25%.
<
p>You had a condo to sell and parents to move in with (did you buy the condo yourself, with no assistance from your parents? Did you pay for your own college education, or did you rely on them and/or the government?). Many workers do not. Let’s not forget that, especially for older workers, the same economic philosophy that you promote has also destroyed the value of their homes, taken away their pension benefits, and currently threatens their social security and medicare benefits.
<
p>The true unemployment rate — when you include:
<
p>is much higher than the published government statistics.
<
p>The facts simply do not sustain your argument. The systemic problem is that when the economy destroys jobs, unemployment will go up until those jobs are re-created — that is straightforward undergraduate math. When that takes years (as it did during the prior recession and as it is today), then it is unconscionable and, frankly, dishonest to claim that it is the fault of the worker.
<
p>We are in a game of musical chairs with no end in sight. When you blame those workers who are being discarded from a constantly shrinking job pool, you blame the victim (a practice that is all too common among right wing moralists).
You list four bullet items, alleged to be people who are not included in the “true unemployment rate”, but you seem to not know how the government calculates unemployment.
<
p>Basically, the Bureau of Labor and Statistics runs an immense poll each month. They have a large pool of households who have agreed to be part of this survey, and each month they survey some fraction (my recollection is 60,000 households each month randomly selected from a much larger pool), and basically ask them if they are employed, and if not, whether they are looking for a job. It’s called the “Current Population Survey” and is well worth looking into.
<
p>Unemployment benefits are not counted. There’s a persistent urban legend, that people whose benefits have run out don’t get counted in the unemployed. It’s just wrong. They do get counted.
<
p>So: People who start businesses that then fail. After the business has truly failed (not just hæmorrhaging money but actually failed), then that person is in fact unemployed again.
<
p>Workers who refuse to claim unemployment still get counted as unemployed.
<
p>Workers who give up seeking a job do not get counted. You’re correct on this one. Whether they sit around the house doing nothing, or go back to school, or whatnot, they are not counted among the unemployed.
<
p>Workers whose unemployment benefits have run out are still unemployed, and get counted as such.
<
p>The only true missing numbers are the ones who have given up entirely, and the ones who have accepted a job far far below their prior pay (the underemployed), which you did not mention.
I collected unemployment — the maximum I was entitled to. And you know what? I spent every single cent of it, plus almost all of my savings. All that money went right back into the economy. (As a bonus, I was getting paid by California, but spending in Massachusetts)
<
p>As far as being a disincentive to find work, it paled in comparison to the biggest incentive to find work: NOT HAVING A FRIGGIN JOB.
…and run it repeatedly in ads against Brown in 2012.
I was pleasantly surprised the national party went after Kyl with a new daisy ad, maybe we should start pressuring Brown now. Frankly even if he cravenly changed his vote due to political pressure, it’d be a win for workers at least. And if he doesn’t lets not forget reminding his blue collar base how he has consistently screwed them over and over and over again. He might drive the same truck as you, but he could care less about your problems or helping you provide for your family. Herbert Hoover in a pick up, Mr. Scrooge with a makeover.
I’m sure they will.
It looks like the strategy of the democrats and the left wing is to attack Sen. Brown on everything he does over the next two years. Well, it won’t work, Sen. Brown is right. How do you pay for it? The Obama administration and the Democrats have spent us to hell and back. The people voted November 2nd with a strong message to stop the spending.
Sen. Brown filed a compromise bill and the democrats shot it down. He is also right on the main issue. The problem on unemployment is Jobs. Creating jobs in the private sector. I don’t see live shot Kerry proposing any bills that would create jobs. All he is doing is ducking away from paying his taxes. Seems to me it is what democrats like to do best besides getting money to get a job in the Probation Dept. The federal prisons will have to build a new wing on their buildings. It will be named the Democratic Party Wing.
so long as Senator Brown halts unemployment benefits… saying he worries about how to pay for it… but will block just about anything this legislative session until he gets his tax cuts for the obscenely rich — which he has NO INTEREST in paying for, because they can’t be paid for, and which represents a far larger chunk of change to the budget ($700 billion over the next 10 years alone)… Massachusetts citizens will know the truth: Senator Brown is full of shit.
Come on. Although you disagree with Scott Brown on the extension of unemployment benefits, that hardly seems like a reason to personally attack him as you do at the end of your post.
<
p>You do a good job of arguing your point up until then, but then discredit your whole argument by personally attacking him. Just stick to the facts.
and elsewhere against Democrats. Politician “A” votes against a bill which funds feeding the elderly because it also has some “abortion” funding amendment… and the take away narrative is …
<
p>
Where did I personally attack Brown? By complimenting his manly shoulders? If so, you cannot be serious.
here:
<
p>The first sentence in that statement is taking for granted that extending unemployment benefits is obviously the best way to help unemployed people. Although the evidence points in that direction, it is by no means a decided question. The CBO has been wrong with its projections in the past.
<
p>The second sentence is unrelated to the substance of the whole post. It seems as if you are entering this as another reason why he should not be trusted on this issue. It hardly seems like you were actually complimenting him on anything; it seems as if you were making an underhanded remark to try and undermine his credibility.
<
p>It seems as if you were equating him to some kind of supermodel and thus undermining his intelligence.
The first sentence is acknowledged as true by many an economist and borne out by experienceand even if it weren’t it’s an assertion about policy not an attack on the Senator. The second sentence was a bit of a wisecrack but hardly an attack.
I agree that it is not really an attack in the normal sense of the word. The only reason why I mentioned it is because it had no relation to the content of the post and seemed out of place. Since it did not fit with the rest of the author’s argument, I was skeptical of why he was including it.
<
p>In terms of the first sentence, I think extending unemployment benefits would be a good way of stimulating the economy. As I mentioned in my previous paragraph though, the inclusion of the last sentence made me skeptical of the whole argument.
<
p>My whole point in making my original comment was to say the argument would be much more believable if the last sentence were ommitted, not that the argument was not believable at all.
Even if you are supposedly the most liberal Republican out there, with Sarah Palin calling you nasty names, you are still an out-of-touch, closed-minded, illogical, party hack and ex-nude-model who won an election because of a perfect storm.
<
p>Good luck with that in 2012.
These are struggling Massachusetts families that he apparently is willing to send over the brink.
Brown is in the camp that is holding out for tax breaks for the rich before giving unemployment to the jobless. Seems a bumper sticker message that can help voters determine which priority is more important to them in the 2012 election.