Unemployment Benefits
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator for his time and his leadership on this issue. I am happy to join him. I want to make sure we put this into the context of the lameduck session. This is a session when we are debating tax cuts, and the position held by the other side of the aisle is that we should give tax cuts to those making $1 million a year in income, which is roughly $20,000 a week. If I understand the differences in the Democratic position and the Republican position, we think those making $1 million a year should get roughly $6,000 in tax cuts. They believe those making $1 million year should get $100,000 in tax cuts. I also understand if the Republican position prevails, it will add $700 billion to the deficit over 10 years, just to give tax cuts to those making over $250,000 a year or $70 billion a year.
So their position, when it comes to tax cuts for the wealthiest in America, is that we can afford to add $70 billion to the deficit with a tax cut for millionaires each year and not accept the reality that that is one of the poorest ways to spark growth in our economy. Our position is that, historically, when we reach high levels of unemployment--over 7.2 percent--we have extended unemployment benefits. We are now at about 9.6 percent.
And we believe we should extend unemployment benefits for those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. The benefits average about $300 a week for someone to keep their family in food, clothing, pay the utility bills in the winter, that sort of thing. And we are told by the Congressional Budget Office that unemployment benefits are the best catalyst for sparking growth in the economy. It is money spent immediately by people who need disposable income and who will turn around and purchase goods and services immediately with it.
So $70 billion for tax breaks--$70 billion in deficits each year for tax breaks for the wealthiest people in America, for something that doesn't spark the economy, versus some $60 billion for extending the unemployment insurance benefits for 1 year, which will spark growth in the economy. Is that the choice we are facing?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, every once in a while, Congress is faced with a policy choice that clearly defines for the American people exactly who each member is fighting for.
We are nearing one of those clarifying moments here on the Senate floor.
Today, the authorization for emergency unemployment insurance expires.
For the 15 million Americans who are struggling to put food on the table as they look for work during this Great Recession, the Republicans are demanding that we cancel the extra assistance we have provided since the economic crisis began.
The Democrats will fight to ensure that this assistance to struggling middle class families continues through the holidays and through next year.
Even as emergency unemployment assistance expires, the Republicans are demanding that the Bush-era tax cuts be extended for everyone.
Most importantly for them, the Republicans are demanding that the wealthiest people in America receive a massive tax cut, on top of the hundreds of billions of dollars of tax cuts they have already pocketed over the last 10 years.
The Republicans don't think a $6,300 tax cut per year is good enough for millionaires. They are demanding that millionaires receive $100,000 in tax cuts every single year--and if not, no one should receive anything.
The cost for permanently extending the Bush tax cuts for people making over $250,000? About $700 billion over the next 10 years alone. Plus interest.
Meanwhile, the Republicans oppose extending emergency assistance to the unemployed, supposedly because it costs too much.
The cost for extending emergency unemployment assistance for 1 year? About $60 billion.
Just as importantly, the Republicans are demanding that we spend another $700 billion on what CBO has determined is one of the weakest options we have for spurring job growth.
The wealthy don't spend extra money they receive. That doesn't drive up demand for goods and services. Employers don't hire more people if they can't sell more things.
At the same time, the Republicans oppose spending $60 billion on what CBO has determined is one of the strongest options we have for spurring job growth.
The unemployed spend every extra penny they receive as they buy the bare necessities, so aggregate demand gets a boost. Employers hire more people when they can sell more things.
Democrats oppose spending $700 billion we don't have on tax cuts that don't help people get back to work.
We support spending less than 10 percent of that amount--$60 billion--on assistance to the unemployed that does help people get back to work.
We have seen this movie before, of course.
Republicans opposed extending the TANF Jobs program, which helped create 250,000 new jobs and which even some Republican Governors applauded as an example of smart government. That program expired at the end of September.
They oppose extending the Obama tax provisions from the Recovery Act which benefit middle-class Americans, including the earned-income tax credit, the child tax credit, and the making work pay credit. Those provisions expire at the end of the year.
We can't afford those, the say. But we can afford to give another $700 billion to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans, according to the Republicans.
We have the money for the equivalent of another economic recovery bill but we can't afford a small fraction of that cost to help middle-class families who need a helping hand.
The difference between the Republicans and Democrats couldn't be more clear.
Republicans won't allow tax cuts for anyone unless the rich get a far bigger share, and won't allow those looking for work to receive any continued emergency assistance.
The Democrats, on the other hand, want to give 98 percent of Americans a tax cut, and want to help the unemployed keep food on the able for their children while they compete with the other 15 million unemployed Americans in looking for work.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source