Dissing the jobless
Why the Republicans feel comfortable dumping on people out of work
Dissing the jobless
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Pennsylvania Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett has rightly sparked a controversy with his Friday lament about how jobless people would supposedly prefer to suck for eternity on the public teat rather than seek an honest day's pay. In Corbett's words, "The jobs are there. But if we keep extending unemployment, people are just going to sit there." Hence, his exhortation to the jobless: "Get off your duffs and go to work."
It's probably a waste of cyberspace to detail the obvious - that millions of jobless people would clearly prefer to be working full-time with health benefits, as opposed to sinking into despair at home with no such benefits and a weekly unemployment check capped in Pennsylvania at roughly $560 (with the more typical stipend at $310); that, on average nationwide, there are five active job seekers for every opening (and a far worse ratio for the quality openings); and that these unemployment checks at least give the jobless an opportunity to function as consumers and prime the economic pump (a new study by Moody's Analytics concludes that each dollar spent by the government on jobless pay yields an overall return of $1.61 for the economy).
So let's just look at the politics. Bottom line, Corbett's basic narrative about shiftless slackers is fully in sync with his party's fundamental 'tude. Among other examples, Nevada Senate candidate and tea-party heroine Sharron Angle insists that the long-term jobless are "spoiled," House member Dean Heller has condemned them as "hobos," Senator Orrin Hatch has suggested that jobless people applying for extended benefits should first be required to pass a drug test (jobless = junkies), and Senator John Kyl says that the jobless shouldn't get extended benefits because those benefits make the federal deficit worse (by contrast, this weekend Kyl told Fox News Sunday that tax cuts for the wealthy should be extended, even if they make the federal deficit worse). All of this explains why Senate Republicans (joined by Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson, whose state of Nebraska enjoys a 4.9 percent jobless rate) have blocked the latest push to extend benefits for those on verge of being cut off.
It would appear - at first glance, anyway - that the Republican stance toward the jobless is wildly at odds with the prevailing public mood. In the latest Washington Post-ABC Poll, this question was posed: "Because of the economic downturn, Congress has extended the period in which people can receive unemployment benefits, and is considering doing so again. Supporters say this will help those who can't find work. Opponents say this adds too much to the federal budget deficit. Do you think Congress should or should not approve another extension of unemployment benefits?"
The percentage of those who said that Congress should again extend benefits: 62. The percentage of those opposed: 36.
Even 43 percent of self-identified Republicans (and 57 percent of self-identified moderate/liberal Republicans) are in the Yes camp, apparently buying the basic argument voiced yesterday by a spokesman at the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry: "People are not getting rich off of unemployment. They are not putting money in the bank. It's keeping food on the table and a roof over their heads."
But what's striking is that the aforementioned Republican candidates and lawmakers seem not to fear that their Marie Antoinette let-them-eat-cake rhetoric will backfire at the ballot box. The Post-ABC survey only measures general public sentiment, not the sentiment of those who seem most motivated to vote in November. And those with the greatest enthusiasm - notably, tea-party conservatives who (studies show) are more affluent than the norm - generally buy the GOP's harsh caricature.
To borrow Tom Corbett's terminology, the real question is whether diehard Democrats will get off their duffs and go to the polls en masse in November, or whether they're too demoralized by the current state of play. The GOP's willingness to diss the jobless is proof that they anticipate a decisive conservative turnout.
To a Liberal Democrat compassion is defined by how many people are on the government dole. To a Conservative compassion is defined by how many people no longer need government assistance!— AuH20
There are jobs available - if you want to be a Starbucks barista or work the cash register at Walgreens. I'd like to see someone 50 years old hustle behind the espresso bar at a busy Starbucks. There are deeper problems with our economy. You can't just leave people to twist in the wind. As far as the welfare queen stuff - like the AZ immigration law and the pro-gun rights rhetoric, it is designed to whip up enthusiasm for the upcoming election. It's mean as hell, but it works, because some people ARE mean as hell when it comes to seeing the world outside their bubble.— p-diddy- Welbourn, Checcia, etc.: Many Tea Party members ARE racist. Not all of course, but I'd say there's a significant number that are racist. How many blacks do you see at a Tea Party rally? Do you consider that coincidence? That welfare queen rhetoric has always been laced with racial undertones. When you throw in the support for the AZ immigration law and other issues, there is a broad platform that is fertile ground for racial animosity. And it's just beneath surface. Like anyone doesn't already know this!— p-diddy
- "In my experience whenever you yell Racist you have nothing else to say." Racism doesn't exist. Got it.— p-diddy
- pdiddy- what examples can you provide of racism among the tea partiers? Their issues appear to be fiscal conservatism.
p-diddy doesn't need any stinking examples. p-diddy knows what's in people's hearts. p-diddy can look at a group of people and instantly divine whether they're racist cracker pigs or not. p-diddy can look at the people of color who ARE at the Tea Parties and can instantly divine that they are Oreos and Uncle Toms. p-diddy isn't a bigot doesn't stereotype at all because p-diddy knows that these people are racist to the core.- The racism p-diddy is talking about probably comes from the health-care debates... People being spit on, being called the "n" word, etc. Sure, one could argue that they are Democrat "plants", but who knows. Still, I think there's an interesting coincidence here. The Tea Party, which promotes fiscal conservatism and a "return" to American principles, didn't exist when Bush was in office, did it? I mean, they weren't raising the issue about spending when two wars were wages, a tax cut that wasn't paid for, the passing of the Patriot Act, etc. So, one could infer that now there's a black President and this party suddenly appeared and started caring about things they shouldn't cared about years ago, that there may be a small iota of racism within the party.. Thoughts?— middie
- And I just saw that some of my words were incorrect.. Should be "waged" and "should've"!— middie
- That's a problem when people have legitimate concerns over government policy and they are labled racists for exercising their first amendment rights. I have yet to see a shred of evidence of racism among tea partiers. Seems like the Democrats are counting on their fringe groups to return some political gain by their diversionary tactics. I think it will drive more votes away from the Democrats.
- Uh, Middie, please provide proof that people were spit on and called the n word. I assume your talking about the walk through the crowd up the steps of the capital. It's all made up. didn't happen. There were cameras all over the place yet not one shred of evidence. Give it up.
- middie - The congressmen being spit on and called the "n" word incident never happened. As for the Tea Party, don't you think it possible it formed for the very issues you state, but for different reasons? With the nomination of McCain as the republican candidate for president that perhaps many of these folks finally gave up on the republican party as one of being for fiscal restraint? Do you realize the "Tea" stands for "taxed enough already" and that the issues of the Patriot Act and the war on terrorism aren't the raison d'etre for the Tea Party? Do you realize that most in the Tea Party believe national defense to be a legitimate function of the federal government, while abhorring the redistributionist role the government has taken?
- Middie, you are one lost puppy. The whole reason Bush's approval ratings were so low is because there was a segement of conservatives he was not popular with. Bush passed liberal legistlation with massive bipartisan support. Like prescription drug and creation of the office of Homeland Security. All bad liberal legislation and all supported widely by Democrats. Liberals come from both parties. And the Bush family has always been very liberal. So while your" butwhatabout "post does have a kernel of truth it to you fail to understand what most American think about spending more money than you receive. And furthermore this President is running deficits 3 times that of Bush. Obama will have added more to our debt in just 4 years than Bush did in 8 years. As for the wars- end them! You're in charge, you have super majorities, end them already. I don't think you have a leg to stand on when it comes to complaing about the wars while you've ramped up troops and increased our involvement. Not to mention the fact that there was massive bipartisan support to authorize the use of force in the first place.
- Easy, guys.. Just asking the question! I don't have proof and to be honest, don't eally care about the Congressmen being spit on. In today's news, everything can be manufactured. Hard to trust anything or anyone. Just saying that's probably where he got his information from, that's all. As for the rest.. I'm not really worried about approval ratings, just trying to figure out the "hows" and "whys" of the Party's origins. I simply find it interesting that the Party suddenly popped up or at least gained attention when our President came into office. Who knows, maybe they've been around for a long time! Swedesboro - I completely agree with you about the wars. I don't like how he ramped them up when they really should be ending!— middie
- swedesboromike - you can not be that willingly ignorant of facts - there are literally THOUSANDS of pages of photographic evidence on the internet of placards, signs, t-shirts, billboards along with video clips of interviews with tea-party rally attendees that declare some of the most horrific and vile racist sentiments expressed since pre-Civil Rights. Just because you CHOOSE to read information from sources that coddle your rigid point of view, doesn't mean that an opposing view isn't true. Haven't you learned yet: Fox, Drudge and Rush are NOT News sources - they opinion media propaganda machines - they'll dupe their true believers EVERY TIME. Seems they've gotten you once again.— Nebuchadrezzar II
- NEPhilly: while I tend to agree that unemployment benefits aren't a particularly efficient means of stimulus, you need to acknowledge that all the studies (well both of them) you've cited are not valid during a severe recession, as the authors have acknowledged. With low, "normal" unemployment, it probably does create a negative incentive towards finding work. But when there's widespread unemployment, especially amongst those a ta ahigher income level, that kind of goes away. It's anecdotal, but there was a job fair not long ago for one of the new local casinos. Over 8,000 people showed up for the potential of 800 jobs. A new supermarket was being build in SJ, a few thousand people showed up for the couple of hundred jobs. In neither case are these high paying jobs. How can, on this thread alone, we argue that a) no businesses will hire anyone because of the environment that Obama and the democrats have fostered and b) there are lots of jobs but no one will take them? Which is it? they both can't be true. ... Perhaps a phased unemployment benefit could be created? One of the problems is that if you get ANY job, even part time, you lose your benefits. Maybe you could earn up to, say 100% of poverty and still collect some percentage of unemployment benefits, and phase it out up to 200%? The government would pay less, and there's be more incentive to get work (if you think it's a disincentive).— still_independent
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
