Sen McConnell: Must Offset Unemployment Benefits With Spending Cuts

[Joanne98]

Source: CNN

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) insisted Sunday that any extension of unemployment benefits be offset with spending cuts.

Remaining defiant after President Barack Obama accused the Republican leadership Saturday of obstructionism, McConnell told CNN that the administration needs to end its "incredible spending spree."

"We're all for extending unemployment insurance, the question is, when are we going to get serious...about the debt," McConnell said on CNN's "State of the Nation."

Democratic senators are expected to try another attempt Tuesday at extend unemployment benefits that expired in May, following a failure to overcome Republican opposition last month. Republicans have called for the $34 billion cost of the legislation to be paid for by spending cuts.


Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100718-703062.html

[davidinalameda]

1. let's start with cutting money going to Kentucky

[Joanne98]

2. Yeah

[rfranklin]

4. Kentucky was number 9 in government welfare in 2005...

receiving $1.51 for every dollar sent to Washington.

[Demeter]

15. To Mitch McConnell, Specifically. Let Him Learn the Joy of Unemployment

[rfranklin]

3. Sure, cut some "defense spending" in McConnell's state and...

we'll see if he's serious about reducing the deficit.

[ck4829]

5. Let's start with those tax cuts

[DLnyc]

30. Good idea.

1. Put the top tax rate, for the ultra-wealthy, to around 50 or 60%.
2. Put back the estate tax, with a couple million exclusion to exempt ordinary people (including those passing on a house or a farm).
3. Put a progressive tax on corporations, with steep increases for very large and monopoly corporations doing business in the US (regardless of what they claim their address is).

Also, for humanitarian reasons, don't show Mitch McConnell's ugly face to be shown on publicly consumed media.

[Angry Dragon]

6. Cut congressional pay

[sallyseven]

31. Yes and the amount that they

need to run their offices. That would save at least 41 million dollars if not more. Let them live on the money that they take in bribes from the powerful boys and their own stash. See how they feel about taking responsibility for their actions.

[Hawkeye-X]

7. OK, Mitch. Since you're asking - how about the entire fucking DEFENSE department budget

cut to 90%.

There is no IMMINENT threat to US security.

[L0oniX]

28. [phone]

[mother earth]

8. Hypocrits that participated in the drunken Bush spending spree,

illegal wars, deregulation and the most f'd up screw up in presidential history...it's hilarious and ridiculous. Oh the drama of it all for the "conservative" BS hype! This is the GOP party of delusion and amnesia, representing the corporate heist of America with every waking breath, word and action, all in the name of greed. McConnell and his ilk are insanity on display, they led the charge that brought this nation to its feet and straight off the cliff and yet they still spew.

[Cass]

9. Mitch can take off his hair shirt already.

He and his buds pissed away a surplus and then went on to run up the debt to historic levels when they ran the show. They sure didn't take the debt too seriously so this fit of 'concern' comes a day late and a dollar short.

There's plenty of money for wars, tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, and no worries about handing over trillions to Wall St, but when it comes to the regular joe the well has run dry. Disgusting.

[dmosh42]

10. I'm sure "Pruneface" is sincere! What a jerkoff! n/t

[ingac70]

11. Sure. A big fat cut in military spending. n/t

[area51]

14. +1 (n/t)

[Spazito]

16. Yep, watch the pigs squeal then...

They want social programs cut NOT, gasp, the welfare paid to the military industrial complex, heaven forfend!

[ezmerelda39]

12. Start

by stopping unnecessary wars first.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. Funny how WAR needs no offsets. And fine, expire the Bush tax cuts.

The time to 'get serious about the debt' is when the economy is booming, not when the economy is busted.

[Igel]

23. I personally like this argument.

Emergency expenditures aren't subject to pay-go. Pay-go is a big deal and has recently been touted as "fiscally responsible" by all sorts of Congressional Democratic leaders.

Emergency status helps keep the official budget projection in check. It doesn't help the historical budget deficit number in the least. But who cares how far off the 7/2010 budget projection is in 1/2011 if there's an election in 11/2010. Yes, it's cynical. Yes, it's calculating. Yes, it's political. This is Congress we're talking about.

The key to "emergency" is that the money the bill would authorize be needed soon after the bill is introduced. So it doesn't go through the usual committees. It isn't subject to many of the same rules. It doesn't get the same vetting.

The military spending request was introduced as an emergency expense. It probably isn't. Many of the expenses could have been reasonably projected 5 months ago. But if it's not emergency spending then it's subject to pay-go. Do you deny the money or violate a much-touted symbol of fiscal responsibility? Neither! You approve the money as an emergency, driving the tank column and naval task force through the loop-hole in pay-go.

Same for unemployment. It's been nearly a month since it was introduced as an emergency measure. It could be predicted not just 3 months ago but even in late 2009 that the bill would be needed. The previous extension was a predictable emergency that was intentionally not avoided. As was the emergency before that--and every time not only is the measure not subject to pay-go, but it provides a crisis for pols to show how wonderful they are, an opportunity for pols to convert others' suffering into political capital (at a very profitable conversion rate).

In this case, the world has not come to an end even though a lot of people have suffered--it defines down what "emergency" means. There'd have been less suffering if the repubs had allowed it to be passed when it was introduced; there'd have been less suffering of unemployed workers if the dems had introduced it as a non-emergency measure. There'd be much less suffering if the pols had made the unemployment compensation package larger so that we wouldn't routinely have predictable emergencies so that we could scare people for their support. It comes down to which is worse--rejecting compassion in not allowing the bill to pass to make a political point or exploiting compassion and the rules for political cover.

[alfredo]

17. Hey, McConnell, how about you and your millionaire buddies

give your huge trillion dollar tax break? It isn't helping the economy one bit, whereas helping the unemployed will generate economic action.

[louis-t]

18. Funny how not one repug complained when debt was $11 tril

Now they squeal like stuck pigs at $13 tril.

[Botany]

21. or W spending $600,000 minute of borrowed money in Iraq

just now they have found a problem w/ debt?

[Igel]

26. Of course.

And lots of dems complained when the deficit was humongous at $450 billion, even during a recession and screamed economic collapse as the deficit passed $10 trillion.

Under *, it wasn't just the actual deficit that mattered. People were forecasting total unfunded liability, and a few dorks even tried to argue that the unfunded liability minus the official debt level in 1/2001 was all *'s doing. At least most looking at unfunded liability were reasonable in their claims.

Most repubs argued that deficit spending wasn't a bad thing, especially during a recession, and as long as the deficit and the debt remained at or below a certain percentage of GDP. Some made allowance for wartime. Some hoped the deficits would eventually drive down spending.

Now a lot of dems exult when the deficit is merely at $1.3 trillion because it's during a recession, and consequently must allow that the increase $13 trillion debt is a good, or at least a neutral, thing. I haven't heard much about unfunded liabilities at all, nor have revised estimates of unfunded liability been "catapulted."

Now lots of of repubs argue that deficit spending isn't entirely a good thing, even during a recession, as long as the deficit and the debt remain at or below a certain percentage of GDP.



I'm careful to say "lot(s)" and "most" because under * there were repubs who insisted that the deficit was far too high and debt increasing at too high a rate, just as now there are dems who insist that the deficit is far too high and debt is increasing at too high a rate. Some adopted a stance of fiscal conservatism--sometimes with a cut-off and sometimes in a fairly absolute way--and haven't revised it.

It's also hard to accuse the repubs of extraordinary levels of hypocrisy because that assumes that the same thing they preach is bad for others is allowable for themselves. The shear magnitude of the deficit makes it hard to argue that had * run a deficit of $1.4 trillion they'd have accepted it gladly. The complaints from repubs that I noticed seemed tied to the extent of the deficit, with some pointing at pride to the decline in deficits after c. 2004.

What's not amusing is to see the number of dems (and repubs) who show the inconsistency noted above. There are a lot of reasons for it, of course, some overtly partisan, some selfish, some entirely ideological. It's enough to take all the oxygen out of the room for the discussion.

[givemebackmycountry]

19. The "chinless wonder" weighs in....

My response to his demands?

Eff you asswipe.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

20. Republicans are hoodwinking the constituents into believing that tax cuts won't add to the defecit.

Its simple, Sen. Turkey-Neck: taxes go in, spending comes out. You cut taxes, there isn't as much revenue to spend. At its core, the Federal budget is simple arithmetic and these folks want to mystify the process into something that normal folks won't understand.

[defendandprotect]

22. OK . . .let's cut the salaries and perks and medical benefits for Congress . .. ????

[Arkana]

24. OK, Mitch--let's start with the bloated defense budget then.

[SILVER__FOX52]

25. McConnell is evil. I believe that anyone that votes against

helping the unemployed, who are unemployed thru no fault of their own, is a GD, psychopath.

[liberal N proud]

27. Ending a two wars would cut a lot of money that could be used

to bolster the economy.

But that is the third rail as far as these assholes are concerned.

[on point]

29. I say take him at his word and propose 70 billion in corp welfare cuts !!!

[yurbud]

35. yep.

[Odin2005]

32. CUT THE DEFENSE BUDGET, YOU FUCKERS!!!

[cstanleytech]

33. He is right people!!!

We do need to trim some spending if we want to provide unemployment and I know just the place to trim, the defense spending.
It after all could do with a massive amount of trimming of atleast 35 - 300 billion.

[yurbud]

34. which corporate subsidies would he like to cut? How about the oil ones?

[yurbud]

36. since there are only two kinds of taxes Republicans like, flat taxes and sales taxes...

impose a flat sales tax on financial transactions (although I would like to double or triple it on shorts and derivatives).