Once again Republicans, abetted by a handful of Dinos, have shown their mettle. Like little Hans Brinker with his finger in the dike, like that stalwart gang that defended the Alamo, like many other heroes up against great odds, these guys have succeeded in turning back a dire threat to the Republic and the American way of life -- namely, they blocked legislation that would extend unemployment benefits, and perhaps give the jobless a bit of a break from the economic meltdown they (the Republicans, not the jobless) created.
GOP party leaders and their Democratic remoras say that they're just protecting the fiscal soundness of the nation. Ridiculous. First, a few million here or there will hardly alter the admittedly deep chasm of debt we face. Second, these protectors of the Treasury expressed no qualms about debt with George Bush was at the helm of the ship of state. And third, under the circumstances, doesn't extending unemployment benefits just seem like the right thing to do?
I know, it's an old story, but let's not let them bury it: The national debt now totals $13 trillion, for $10 trillion of which - roughly three-quarters - we have only the Bush administration to thank. A huge percentage of the remaining 3 trillion is for the continuation of the wars Bush started, and for attempts to fix the economic mess he created. Where was Mitch McConnell when we needed him? From the way he acts today, he must have been off getting himself lobotomized.
Here's an interesting quote from the article linked above:
"This is going to cut the heart right out of consumer spending. If they want to cut short the recovery, this is the best way to do it." (Andrew Stettner, deputy director of the National Employment Law Project, as quoted here by Ezra Klein.)
And there's the key. It has nothing to do with budgetary conservatism, and everything to do with politics. The opponents of this legislation would like nothing better than to "cut short the recovery," regardless of its effects on the unemployed, because the worse the recovery looks, the more they hope to gain at the polls in November. It seems to me there's a definite politic risk in proceeding that way, but it fits with tactical decisions the GOP has made in the past 18 months.
So, politics as usual. This is another case, however, that suggests the real political divisions of the U.S. today are not between Republican and Democrat so much as between urban and rural constituencies. Obama is our first truly urban President (I discount those urban sons of privilege like JFK and FDR), the first to see current problems through the prism of the cityscape in which the large majority of Americans now live. His ascent to the Presidency presents a challenge to the longstanding political predominance of non-urban states and attitudes in our politics.
That's the real tide that current Republicans (whose political strength, you may note, lies much more heavily in thinly populated areas) are desperately holding back, with some help from Democrats like Kent Conrad (of teeming North Dakota) and Ben Nelson (from overcrowded Nebraska).
Comments