Mike Pence (R-IN) Explains Why America Can Afford Tax Cuts For The Rich But Not Jobless Aid

Mike Pence Explains Why America Can Afford Tax Cuts For The Rich But Not Jobless Aid

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/18/mike-pence-explains-why-a_n_650374.html



The unsavory task of explaining why America apparently can't afford to help the unemployed but can afford tax cuts for the rich fell to Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) on Sunday.

"Republicans, me included, have supported numerous extensions of unemployment benefits and we're anxious to do so again," the Indiana Republican told interviewer Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday." "The deficit this year is a trillion dollars for the second year in a row ... The American people have had it with runaway federal spending, deficits and debt, and they want to see men and women in Washington, D.C. make the hard choices."

Polls released last week showed that despite anxiety about spending, registered voters actually favor helping the unemployed even if it adds to the deficit.

Nevertheless, extended unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless lapsed at the beginning of June because Republicans in the Senate, joined by Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson, insisted that the $33 billion cost of reauthorizing the benefits not be added to the deficit (though some deficit hawks actually don't consider stiffing the jobless a smart way to reduce the deficit to begin with). Fox's Wallace said he understood the Republicans' argument that the unemployment benefits be "paid for" -- but why not also "pay for" a reauthorization of the tax cuts, which will cost $678 billion?

"The reality is that as you study -- when President Kennedy cut marginal tax rates, when Ronald Reagan cut marginal tax rates, when President Bush imposed those tax cuts, they actually generated economic growth, they expand the economy, they expand tax revenue," Pence said. "The point is we've got to get this economy moving again and we can't go back to the tax-and-spend policies of the Democrats or the tax-cut-and-spend policies of the prior administration."

Under Clinton, the median income increased 14 per cent. Under Bush it declined 4.2 per cent.

Under Clinton the total number of Americans in poverty declined 16.9 per cent; under Bush it increased 26.1 per cent.

Under Clinton the number of children in poverty declined 24.2 per cent; under Bush it increased by 21.4 per cent.

Under Clinton, the number of Americans without health insurance, remained essentially even (down six-tenths of one per cent); under Bush it increased by 20.6 per cent.

Under Reagan, the median income grew, in contrast to both Bush the younger and Bush the elder. (The median income declined 3.2 per cent during the elder Bush's single term.) When Reagan was done, the median income stood at $47,614 (again in constant 2008 dollars), 8.1 per cent higher than when Jimmy Carter left office in 1980.

But despite that income growth, both overall and childhood poverty were higher when Reagan rode off into the sunset than when he arrived. The number of poor Americans increased from 29.3 million in 1980 to 31.7 million in 1988, an increase of 8.4 per cent. The number of children in poverty trended up from 11.5 million when Carter left to 12.5 million when Reagan stepped down, a comparable increase of 7.9 per cent. The total share of Americans in poverty didn't change over Reagan's eight years (at 13 per cent), but the share of children in poverty actually increased (from 18.3 to 19.5 per cent) despite the median income gains.

The fact that the economy performed significantly better for average families under Clinton than under the elder or younger Bush or Ronald Reagan doesn't conclusively answer how the country should proceed now. Obama isn't replicating the Clinton economic strategy (which increased federal spending in areas like education and research much more modestly, and placed greater emphasis on deficit reduction-to the point of increasing taxes in his first term). Nor has anyone suggested that it would make sense to reprise that approach in today's conditions. But at the least, the wretched two-term record compiled by the younger Bush on income, poverty and access to health care should compel Republicans to answer a straightforward question: if tax cuts are truly the best means to stimulate broadly shared prosperity, why did the Bush years yield such disastrous results for American families on these core measures of economic well being?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/09/closing-the-book-on-the-bush-legacy/26402/