FoxPolitics.net - Appleton, WI News - What's really going on in the Fox Cities

FoxPolitics.net Blogs

FoxPolitics News

Local/State Govt Links

Salaries

• Appleton School District, 2007-08
• City of Appleton
• Town of Grand Chute
• City of Menasha
• City of Neenah

Candidates

City of Appleton

• Elected Officials
• Salary Watch
• Directory
• Mtg. Agendas/Minutes

Advisory Board

Blogroll

Selected News Sources:
Business Jrnl of Milw
Christian Science Monitor
Daily Caller
Drudge Report
La Crosse Tribune
Milw Journal Sentinel
National Journal
New York Times
Public Policy Forum
Real Clear Politics
Stateline
The Hill
TPM
Washington Examiner
Washington Post
Washington Times
WI State Journal
Selected Blogs - from the Right:
American Mind
Blaska's Blog
Boots & Sabers
Charlie Sykes
Dad29
Freedom Eden
Heritage Foundation
Jerry Bader Blog
Life Voice
Marketplace of Ideas
Marquette Warrior
Natl Review Online
No Runny Eggs
Patrick McIlheran
Real Debate Wisconson
RedState
Rhymes with Clown
Shark and Shepherd
The Lote Tree
Vox Populi
Wall Street Jrnl, Opinions
WI State Jrnl, Opinion
Wigderson Library & Pub
Wisconsin Family Voice
WPRI
Selected Blogs - from the Left:
Big Money Blog
Blogging Blue
Brenda Konkel
Caffeinated Politics
Capital Times
FightingBob
Folkbum's rambles
Griper Blade
Huffington Post
Lost Albatross
MAL Contends
Mid coast views
Moneyed Politicians
One Wisconsin Now
Open Left
Playground Politics
Political Environment
Rock Netroots
Talk to Tony
Uppity Wisconsin
Waxing America

Today's Blog: Time for the Guv to morph into Chris Christie
My husband and I and a couple hundred friends watched in Green Bay as ...(more)

Search Archives

Blogs

Time for the Guv to morph into Chris Christie (6/28/2011)

Time for Gov. Walker to talk more about the cake (3/4/2011)

Today, reality hits home (3/1/2011)

FoxPolitics News going on hiatus (1/28/2011)

Brown County Executive candidate forum Feb. 8 (1/28/2011)

Education done right (1/27/2011)

To Obama, the ‘We’ is Government (1/27/2011)

(more)

6/28/2010
Must be callous Republicans holding up unemployment benefits

Senator Kohl played the typical blame-game Friday, pulling the emotional strings in his brief press release.

Families across the state are struggling after their unemployment benefits were abruptly cut off at the end of May. Though a majority of the Senate supports an extension, we unfortunately remain stymied without Republican support. An extension of the unemployment benefits program needs bipartisan support and we will continue to work on passing an extension through the end of the year.

And this from the Huffington Post’s news on the bill.

The impasse has meant that more than 1.2 million people have lost unemployment benefits averaging $300 a week.

The big problem is deficits – bigger and bigger deficits. The bill is a potpourri of tax break extenders, tax credits and those unemployment benefits – maintaining the current federal extension of unemployment benefits of 99 weeks.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said “Democrats simply refuse to pass a bill that doesn’t add to the debt. That’s the principle that we’re really fighting for in this debate.”

Republicans are simply saying “Pay for it.” Fine, extend 99-week unemployment provision to November – but pay for it with spending cuts. Senator John Thune explains:

The [Republican alternative] amendment saves the taxpayers $113 billion in unnecessary spending by rescinding $38 billion in unobligated stimulus funds, cutting wasteful and unnecessary government spending, collecting the unpaid taxes of federal employees, freezing their salaries and capping their numbers, imposing a five percent across the board cut in government spending for all agencies except the VA and DOD, and creating a new deficit reduction trust fund where rescinded balances and moneys saved through this amendment will be deposited for the purposes of paying down the federal debt.

Callous Republicans? I’d say more like thoughtful Republicans, heading off inter-generational theft. Enough is enough.

Jo Egelhoff, FoxPolitics.net

COMMENTS

It seems we discussed this once before, Jo. Yea, we could give the unemployed taxpayer-funded food stamps instead. What's the difference, except that these "thoughtful" republicans win points with the right wing?

The jobs are NOT THERE! We should be concentrating on bringing jobs back to the US, not targeting the unemployed. Like, let's revisit NAFTA and CAFTA, the bills that transferred our jobs overseas.

Jack Lohman (Mon Jun 28 08:26:23 2010)

Easy Jack. Easy. This is not about whether or not unemployment benefits should be extended through November. This is about how those unemployment benefits should be paid for. Read "paid for." Not "borrowed for."

Jo (Mon Jun 28 08:31:54 2010)

Jo, this is our age-old argument of where we spend our taxes: for needed infrastructure or for special interest giveaways. Eliminate the latter and the money would be there to "pay for" unemployment benefits. But more important, eliminate our corrupt political system and we wouldn't be short on jobs in the first place.

I know; you don't want to go there. So live with it.

Jack Lohman (Mon Jun 28 08:43:55 2010)

Jack, I'm a little confused by your terminology: "targeting the unemployed." What does that mean?

The fact that jobs are in short supply is a consequence of more than NAFTA and CAFTA. They are a consequence of everything from the Federal Reserve to the Dept of Education to the EPA. There are a thousand battlefields, and as it is we cannot afford to lose a single battle. So yes, tackle NAFTA. But don't surrender the unemployment issue to the cannibals.

Andrew Ellis (Mon Jun 28 09:00:59 2010)

Yes, I agree Andrew, but I refer to the constant lambasting of the "unemployed" as being leakers, as I've argued against in Jo's blog post HERE and my followup article HERE. We can continue discussing the "effect" but if we don't solve the core problem, the "cause", we will be here until hell freezes over. That core problem is our corrupt political system, and it affects every issue out there, not just jobs.

Jack Lohman (Mon Jun 28 09:28:46 2010)

Jack, I get it. There are a great many unemployed who are unemployed through no fault of their own. But while we're on the subject of causes - which I think we agree covers a vast number of issues - don't you think the very concept of unemployment "benefits" is indeed PART of the multitude of causes?

1. Businesses are forced to dump funds into this mandatory 'insurance' policy.
2. Business owners have less incentive to care about the well-being of thier workforce, who can always fall back on that insurance policy they were forced to pay into.
3. Workers have less incentive to secure a job, or keep their job secure.
4. Clearly, the opportunity for easy money without the effort will invariably be - and is - abused by some.
5. Which compels honest people to seek their fair share when they otherwise might not participate on principle.

The way I see it, unemployment benefits are just another weight in the spiral downward for our economy, our system of government, and our way of life. It isn't the government's job to provide for anyone. And certainly, in the discussion at hand, it only makes sense to insist that the government does NOT commit funds it doesn't have, nor will have.

Bear in mind that it is the liberal Statists raising this issue by trying to expand a flawed and failing system - conservatives are only reacting to Statist oppression and saying 'No.'

Andrew Ellis (Mon Jun 28 13:56:57 2010)

Republicans are only deficit hawks when it comes to taking care of the needy. They would rather run up the deficit to wage unnecessary wars and give tax breaks to the wealthy. And, let's be clear, the Republicans voted overwhelmingly in favor of the bank and Wall Street bailouts and now turn a blind eye to the victims of those institutions.

shiloh (Mon Jun 28 09:42:55 2010)

Those are all valid points, Andrew, and I for one hate giving anything to people for free, especially when they are able-bodied and can work for it. I don't think many people become slouches just so they can collect unemployment, and most are unwillingly unemployed. But I do believe we should put all unemployed on a public workforce and require their participation 20 hours per week and pay them $10 per hour. That's $200 per week. Let them work for what used to be a freebie. Shovel snow, sweep sidewalks, clean up parks, work at the humane society, whatever. But don't sit around watching TV.

I do (only partially) agree with shiloh on his take on Republicans, but we tend to have only two cubby-holes for the parties. Not all Republicans nor are all Dems bad guys. The top 1% of both parties are enjoying the hell out of this recession because they are taking home the most bacon, and they've got the lower ranks brainwashed to support the conservative or liberal agenda that got them to the top.

People in both ideologies have to get their heads out of the sand.

Jack Lohman (Mon Jun 28 15:05:36 2010)

'Republicans are simply saying “Pay for it.” Fine, extend 99-week unemployment provision to November – but pay for it with spending cuts.'

How about paying for it by increasing taxes on the wealthy, ending corporate tax credits. Better yet how about a carbon tax that will also discourage wasteful consumption of fossil fuel?

Dean Weichmann (Tue Jun 29 07:03:15 2010)

Dean, I agree with increasing taxes on the wealthy, but ending corporate tax credits to increase their taxes, when they simply pass these on to consumers, regressively, is counter-productive. Actually, corporate taxes should be zero.

Jack Lohman (Tue Jun 29 07:48:26 2010)

Jack I might agree with you except that corporations now are so favored by tax codes that individual entrepenures can't compete. Let's favor the little guy.

Dean Weichmann (Tue Jun 29 08:49:10 2010)

Dean, our corporations have a hell of a time competing with other countries, partially because we refuse to pass a single-payer healthcare system. No other country penalizes corporations as we do, and if you are concerned about the little guy the best thing we could do is eliminate the corporate tax that he pays, much like a national sales tax.

Let's have a more progressive tax on wages and eliminate the tax breaks on capital investments. These guys aren't going to quit investing; their greed won't allow them to quit.

Jack Lohman (Tue Jun 29 09:15:51 2010)

Spoken like a true Marxist (progressive income tax; second "plank" of Marx's manifesto). Don't worry, though--when hyperinflation arrives, NObody will be "the rich" anymore and we can all go down together in squalor.

emily matthews (Wed Jun 30 09:38:28 2010)

That's sort of silly, Emily. Some of this nation's better days was when the high-end tax rate was over 50%... even up to 90%. Where were you?

Jack Lohman (Wed Jun 30 10:00:41 2010)

I must say, I never in my wildest dreams thought I would find myself in this position. I am a New York resident, with my MBA. I was working for a bank making just about $80k a year. Then the rug was pulled from under me, and I was one of the many laid off by the bank. A year and a half later, I have applied for 400 jobs and worked with 7 different headhunters. Trust me, there ARE NO JOBS!!! I've lowered my standards considerably, but it's a cat

Tim T (Sun Jul 04 12:28:30 2010)

400 applications. Wow. I wish you the best Tim. Yes, unemployment benefits are important - but the question is - how should they be paid for? Republicans are insisting they be paid from stimulus funds already appropriated and not yet committed, i.e., the government must make choices about how the stimulus dollars can/should/might best be spent - and not continue to add dollars to stimulus spending.

Jo (Sun Jul 04 21:43:54 2010)

Post a Reply

Print this Article

Email Article to a Friend