Ordinarily, a bad economy is bad for the party in power. This is far and away the greatest factor working against Democrats in the mid-terms. But the GOP's outright hostility to the unemployed may turn out to be a key factor in muting that effect.
It's a bit strange how things are suddenly moving quickly on this front after uninsurance benefits finally passed the Senate. This morning, Greg Sargent wrote a post, "The 'Let Them Eat Want Ads' Caucus", which began:
Let's call it the "Let Them Eat Want Ads" Caucus -- those candidates and public officials who argue that unemployment benefits are problematic because they discourage people from seeking jobs.
And let's add another Republican to that caucus: Candidate Michele Rollins, who's running for Mike Castle's open House seat in Delaware.
Rollins, who's running in a contested race against green technology exec John Carney, was asked by a constituent if she would have voted to extend unemployment benefits. She suggested she wouldn't, claiming that "for someone who hasn't worked in two years" it's "pretty hard to get energized to go back and look for a job."
In followup, Rollins denied blaming the unemployed for being lazy, but then did a 180 (probably without realizing it--these folks aren't terribly bright):
But Rollins did tell her constituent that giving people benefits risks ensuring that people "will continue to do nothing." And she's only the latest to make this claim. Sharron Angle suggested that the unemployed were getting "spoiled" by benefits, though she later backtracked. Senators Richard Burr and GOP Senate candidate Ron Johnson, who's challenging Russ Feingold, have also argued that unemployment benefits discourage job-seeking. If I've missed others, let me know
Then this afternoon, Greg posted another installment. But before getting into it, I want to share a video--which Greg linked to--of a presentation by economist Raj Chetty showing that unemployment benefits are not a disincentive to finding work. It's true that they look like a disincentive for low-wage workers, Chetty shows, but this effect goes away for those with more savings. The best explanation: it's not a disincentive effect, but a cash-on-hand effect, which moves people somewhat out of panic mode, so that they do things like spend more time with their kids. And to prove his point, he looks at foreign data showing that lump-sum cash payments (which by definition don't continue over time) have the same sort of effect:
GOPer Scott Bruun, a state representative in Oregon who's running to unseat Dem Rep. Kurt Schrader, told a local radio program that extending unemployment benefits beyond two years is "European," adding that an extension would bring "shame on our government" for "encouraging" joblessness.
Asked by KPAM radio host Victoria Taft whether he would have supported extending benefits, Bruun responded that he wouldn't have:
"When we're talking up over close to two years and longer with jobless benefits, I think we really start talking about a European style system and all the problems that that sort of system brings if you try to bring that sort of system to the United States."
A bit later, Bruun said that we have to adopt a new approach to those who have been receiving benefits for a long time:
"We need sort of a new game plan going forward, a new accountability. Shame on our government, if you will, if the government is in a position where we're encouraging people to stay out of the workplace longer."
This comes after Michele Rollins, a GOP Congressional candidate in Delaware, was caught on tape saying that if people get unemployment benefits extended, they "will continue to do nothing for a very long time."....
It should be noted that there's empirical evidence that economics students are more selfish and "economically rational" than those who haven't been exposed to economics as a "science". Given how much Republicans wallow in this sort of theory-heavy, data-poor kind of "scientific" worldview/fantasy, it might well be the case that hard-core Republicans do show some such effect. After all, we already know that they can't be bothered to come up with anything in way of solutions. So why wouldn't they be every bit as lazy and good-for-nothing as they imagine everyone else is?
STATE BLOGS
