Monday, March 01, 2010

Bravo to Bunning

I really had thought that we had reached a point where unemployment benefits would be extended forever. When"it's for the children" trumps the constitution and how do we pay for it is a consideration for another generation it is refreshing to see Jim Bunning demanding to know where the money is to extend unemployment benefits. (a term that I despise, there should be no "benefit" to being unemployed)

Of course, everyone now calls him heartless which is clearly more important than the issue of "how long should your unemployment INSURANCE last?"

Should it be 3 years? 20 months? Someone on the name calling side throw out a number so that we can hold you to it at some point.


Kaelri said...

Two comments I'd like to make. First, nowhere in the constitution does it say that one senator should have the power to indefinitely suspend legislation, even when it's been approved by a majority - in fact, a supermajority - in fact, ninety-nine out of a hundred senators. If Barbara Boxer had done this to the Iraq War Resolution, your head would have exploded and settled the question of whether there was candy inside.

Second, I'm very curious to hear how the recession factors into your economic analysis. In normal circumstances, it's fair - prudent, even - to be concerned about this kind of deficit spending. But not now. Among professional economists, liberal and conservative, there is simply no credible disagreement with the fact that recessions of this magnitude require the injection of massive stimulus spending, and, to a lesser extent, tax relief. Will it increase the national debt? Yes. Will it cause significant inflation? Uh-huh. Are both of those preferable to a Great Depression scenario? I think so. Do you not? I'm really asking.

DAVE01 said...

Kaelri, we all know that the government involvement in the Great Depression prolonged it. Why do you want to repeat the mistakes of the past? I think the best thing to do would to be to cut spending, cut taxes and cut regulations. Let's take CA as an example. They are probably the most regulated state in our country. They probably have one of the highest taxes in the country. I'm also sure that they probably have one of the highest spending rates in the country. They are headed over the cliff economically. Their spending to revive their economy is not working. It does not work. It simply appeases certain groups, like the SEIU to keep voting for them. Dollars for votes, screw the rest of the people.

Look at our recent "emergency" legislative session. They were looking at banning plastic bags. How in the hell does that compare to the unemployed in this state? If our state legislature was really interested in helping Americans have jobs, they would have passed E-Verify which whould have drove the criminal aliens from the jobs. Over ten percent of our population are criminal aliens. Ten percent criminal aliens and ten percent unemployed. Kinda sounds like the same number to me. Their children would have left our schools saving us over six hundred million dollars a year. Our emergency rooms would have emptied and saved hundreds of millions. Doesn't that sound like the seven hundred million they just stole from the evil corporations and rich people. Of course, my girlfriend has had her hours reduced and the Measure 66 & 67 just stole her bonus money every Christmas so come criminal alien child could get a free education.

Look at our federal government, they are spending a lot of their time on trying to give us a health care that the majority of the people don't want. They should be working on things that will provide decent jobs, not health are.

You should take a look at the budget increases every year. It's eye opening. The budget increased (if I remember correctly) over 11% from the previous biennium. The previous increase was over 13%. Inflation and population are not increasing by that much. It is simply increased spending for the entitlement programs. Those must be slashed if we are to maintain economic balance or we will look like CA.

psychobob said...

"The empirical evidence overwhelmingly rejects federal government deficit spending as the best method for stimulating the economy, and is generally unsupportive of it having any stimulus effect at all."
-Justin Ross, Assistant Professor of Economics, Indiana University

"Government intervention and 'stimulus' in the housing market is largely responsible for the current economic crisis."
-Michael Sykuta, Associate professor, University of Missouri-Columbia.

There are many, many more but these two represent a refutation that there is "no credible disagreement" that the current economic crisis "require the injection of massive stimulus spending."

As Dave01 alluded to, evidence is finally being discussed that FDR's programs prolonged the Great Depression by perhaps 7 years, and the economy may have taken much, much longer to recover had World War Two not resulted in a massive artificial economic boom. See Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian 2004.

The problem we have today is that there is no World War 2 to overcome government intervention. I for one am very worried the Obama administration is going to fight the conflagration of this economic crisis by poring more and more gasoline on it. Unlimited unemployment benefits are an example of this.

Anonymous said...

I agree with many points. But in some areas, I feel we need to be more aggressive. Just my opinion. Love ya. Wedding Dress Shops. Slide Phone Louboutin Shoes buy louboutin shoes. Modest Wedding Dresses