DOWNLOADS: (94)

PLAYS: (729)

Embed

Only on Fox News would unemployment insurance be presented as some kind of “cruelty” to the poor that “deters” them from getting hired at low-paying jobs. That’s right, with a straight face, Fox guest John Tamny said that we should scrap federal unemployment benefits in order to make “existing jobs” more attractive and “help” the unemployed by “luring” them back into the workforce. Naturally, host Tucker Carlson was all ears.

It started with a suggestion by Carlson that unemployment insurance benefits are unnecessary and wasteful. He cited a statistic that, during the past recession, the federal government paid “almost $80 million in jobless benefits to households that made more than $1 million a year.” He added, “Is this proof that the system is broken or should top earners be entitled to federal assistance if they lose their jobs?”

His guest, John Tamny took the concept a few steps further. He thought it would be even worse if millionaires were “forced” to pay into a system “that only non-millionaires could collect from.” But he went on to advocate for getting rid of unemployment insurance altogether - couched in the kind of rhetoric George Orwell would surely have loved - by calling one of our most important social safety nets “anti-poor” because it doesn’t encourage them to work for lower wages.

(The system) makes it that much more expensive for (businesses) to lure workers back from the sidelines. It actually raises their labor cost. If you didn’t have the federal government essentially paying people not to work, their labor demands would naturally fall to the level at which the markets would hire them again and they would get back to work more quickly. I think it’s anti-poor to say only you get a program that’s going to make you unemployed for a longer time.

…If you’re being paid money not to work, it’s going to make it that more expensive for businesses to hire you back into the labor force. So if you wanted to rid that, you’d get rid of unemployment benefits and people would then have to accept the existing jobs that are available. Many of them maybe don’t look attractive now. …Unemployment benefits are a deterrent to getting back into the labor force so I think it would be particularly cruel to say if you’re poor, you get paid to stay on the sidelines.

Predictably, Tamny’s solution is to privatize. He wants “401K-style programs" that both employers and employees would pay into "so that if the unthinkable happens, you have a little cushion that you own for during the time that you’re looking for new job.” What nobody mentioned is that this would do exactly what Carlson was supposedly against in the first place - subsidize higher-paid workers' unemployment longer and better.

But if you're new at a job before getting laid off or working at a low-paying job that would only provide a very small “cushion” or if the stock market should tank again – well, I guess the rest of us could count our “lucky” stars as we flip burgers at McDonald’s.

So what do you do when financial analysts are warning that housing prices are headed for a "triple dip", the second largest Swiss Bank (Credit Suisse) announces it's piling 1,500 additional job cuts - many from the US - on top of its previously announced 2,000 (after a 12 per cent increase in profits this past quarter) and the federal government just sued one of the nation's largest privately held mortgage brokers (Allied Home Mortgage) for a decade of "fraudulent lending practices that forced thousands of Americans to lose their homes."

Seriously, could the economic Big Brains who think it's a good idea to take money out of people's pockets via spending cuts, while rejecting increased spending on our nation's crashing infrastructure, try punching "Japan" and "lost decade" into the Google machine? Or perhaps just admit their relationship to understood economics is like Kim Kardashian's marriage - shallow, somewhat entertaining, but ultimately embarrassing.

These right-wing members of Congress and inhabitants of the "pro-market," think-tank-welfare world, with their flip reaction the ongoing economic crisis, have begun to remind me of an exchange between John Travolta (trying to steal and sell nuclear weapons) and Christian Slater (trying to stop him) in the movie Broken Arrow. Slater's character says to Travolta's: "You're out of your mind," to which Travolta replies - while wearing a spooky Herman Cain-esque, I-just-gave-a-massage-to-my-secretary smile - "Yeah, ain't it cool."

Apparently, the only stimulant conservatives favour is whatever Rick Perry was mainlining during his speech in New Hampshire the other night.

Infrastructure work creates jobs

What's so maddening, however, is that the answer is quite clear to sane people and non-shills-long-term infrastructure projects that, in the near term, provide jobs, and further out will provide ... jobs. And increased productivity. Ever hear of those train things or the internet? Yeah, well, people are more productive when they're faster and stuff.

Part of what's so frustrating is that not only was President Obama's stimulus bill too small by half, which top economists predicted before it passed (but yay, Susan Collins liked it!). But the administration didn't even defend it, which took something the Congressional Budget Office says saved up to 3.6 million jobs - and allowed it to be demonized by politically expedient grifters playing games.

These very same economists who were right about the stimulus are now clamouring for more infrastructure spending. Paul Krugman, who has been banging this drum for a while, pointed out in a recent piece how the very same crowd that flips out over any government spending on, for lack of a better phrase, people who can't afford his and hers dancing water fountains from Neiman Marcus as a stocking-stuffer, continually push for spending for defence contractors without a worry in the world about the budget. Why? Because these hypocritical dunderheads say "such cuts would destroy jobs."

So obviously the deficit hysteria is simply that, a pretend crisis to hide an ideology gunning for its greatest achievement to be reintroducing the elderly to the joys of the appetising and eminently satisfying Purina dinner.

Continue reading »