Opinion: The GOP and the Politics of Economic Pain

(June 30) -- With the country fixated on the adventures of Gen. Stanley McChrystal and the BP spill, it's understandable that last week's most depressing news might have passed a few people by: The U.S. Senate is intent on extending America's economic misery.

Led by all its Republican members and Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska, the Senate is filibustering a bill that includes, among other things, emergency jobless benefits. As a result, 1.2 million Americans have seen their checks cut off since June 2, a figure that could rise to 2 million over the next week.

Failure to pass this bill will do more than hurt the unemployed -- it will actually cost jobs. Twenty-four billion dollars in Medicare funding would have helped state legislatures plug their budget gaps. Without it, states like Pennsylvania will have to cut funds for substance abuse and homelessness programs and scale back funding for child welfare by one-quarter, among other steps, according to a report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Colorado will likely have to eliminate state aid for full-day kindergarten. In Arizona, funding would be cut for state courts. And in New Mexico, fewer funds will be available for emergency hospital services. An estimated 200,000 jobs could be lost as a result.

Why is the Senate purposely hurting the unemployed -- and dealing another blow to the country's economic renewal? Well, there's the stated reason and then the real reason.

The stated reason is the deficit. As the country's budget gap has grown, Republicans and some centrist Democrats have used the country's growing red ink as an excuse to resist any measure that calls for expanding the deficit.

They argue it would be morally wrong to stick America's grandchildren with a price tag of long-term debt. As Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., put it, "Increasing the deficit and raising taxes is not what Americans are looking for from their elected leaders in Washington."

It's a bit hard to stomach this sort of anti-deficit mantra, particularly when it comes from Republicans who had no such qualms when it came to cutting taxes in 2001, repeatedly voting for Iraq war supplementals or passing a $700 billion package to add prescription drug benefits to Medicare -- with zero offsetting spending cuts.

But the real immorality of Brown's statement -- and much of the current deficit talk -- is that it seems to ignore the plight of actual children today. Indeed, his argument is akin to saying that firefighters should let a house burn to the ground rather than risk wasting water.

The simple fact is that deficit spending is undoubtedly the most effective short-term way to get the country out of its economic slump. Indeed, this is Keynesian economics 101. As we saw with last year's economic stimulus package, which boosted the country's gross domestic product, created more than 2 million jobs and prevented a far worse economic downturn, this sort of approach pays real dividends.

And the best antidote to today's budget deficit is a growing and vibrant economy. This would not only help millions of Americans but the increased tax revenues that come from such strong economic growth would likely shrink the deficit.

The fact that Democrats like Ben Nelson, Independents like Joe Lieberman and other centrists have opposed a further stimulus as well is perhaps more an indication of political expediency than actual ideological belief. But it gives one a sense of how backward America's political discourse has become -- that expanding the deficit is seen as a greater political liability than doing nothing in the face of 9.7 percent unemployment.

Now of course Republicans will always prefer a tax cut to more government spending. But the principle is the same -- pumping money into the economy, even at the price of increasing the deficit, is the right thing to do at times of economic malaise. Unless, of course, the other party is in power and at risk of losing its control of Congress in midterm elections.

And this gets to the likely real reason why Republicans in the Senate are opposing a meager amount of deficit spending to help the unemployed -- they really don't want to see the economy improve.

While I'm sure such a comment will fill my in-box with howls of complaint, it is actually shrewd politics. Americans are angry at the current state of the economy, and they are likely to blame the incumbent party, not the Republicans.

One can look back to the stimulus package of 2009, the health care bill and this rather small bit of economic assistance to see repeated examples of Republican opposition to any government policy that would help those in economic need. Serious GOP alternatives have been few and far between.

Certainly one can't dismiss the role of conservative ideology, but to ignore the political implications of obstruction is to ignore reality. It's perhaps something voters will want to keep in mind come November.

To submit an op-ed or letter to the editor, write to opinion@aolnews.com. If you intend your letter to be published, please specify that and provide your name and location (city and state).