Did you hear? If we allow the Bush Tax Cuts for the super-rich to continue, something that no decent Republican wants to pay for, that’s a good thing. However, if we extend unemployment benefits for the middle class, something that is also unfunded, well that’s bad. Evil. Socialism. Promoting laziness.
That’s what Arizona Senator John Kyl told Fox News yesterday. And covered at HuffingtonPost. Here is what Kyl, in all earnestness, truly believes:
Now that makes sense, right? In giving tax breaks to the richest among us, we should never pay for that through other taxes. But if we are to increase spending, by say, extending unemployment to the middle class, well that must be paid for.“You should never raise taxes in order to cut taxes. Surely congress has the authority, and it would be right, to – if we decide we want to cut taxes to spur the economy – not to have to raise taxes in order to offset those costs. You do need to offset the increased spending and that’s what Republicans object to, but you should never have to offset the cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans.”
That is, it’s OK to add to the deficit if it benefits the rich, but not so OK to add to the deficit if it helps the middle class.
And why is this twisted logic so true? Well, it seems if you give tax breaks to the rich, they will hire the middle class, and that spurs the economy.
On the other hand, if the middle class, whose consumption of goods and services is the basis upon which our economy depends, has no money to spend, then that doesn’t affect the economy at all.
That’s a logical leap that only borrow and spend Republicans can get behind. Saying that an unfunded $30 billion for the unemployed is bad, but an unfunded debt service cost of $678 billion for tax cuts for the rich over 10 years is good simply boggles the mind.