My must read of the day is "Republican Disdain for the Jobless," in the New York Times:
One of the first votes the Senate plans to take when it returns Monday is on restoring unemployment benefits to 1.3 million people who lost them on Dec. 28. It’s hard to imagine a more important action for those who have been out of work the longest and for the economy.
And what’s at the top of the House’s agenda? Yet another vote to undermine the health care reform law. (In this case, a bill to impose unnecessary security requirements on the health care website, though there is not the slightest indication of security problems.)
Nothing could show the priorities of the two chambers — and the slog that lies ahead this year — better than these votes. At one end of the Capitol, lawmakers are actually trying to help people in deep financial distress, continuing a vital Washington practice. The other end is holding a meaningless symbolic vote, designed solely to embarrass the Obama administration and continue its politically motivated attacks on the health law.
I did not even need to read this article to be agitated; the title proved frustrating all by itself – so let’s start there.
The notion that hesitancy to renew federal jobless benefits simply because they are expiring equates to a "disdain for the jobless" is egregiously simple minded. Surely the New York Times editorial board is smart enough to recognize that.
But it does show the difficulties of talking about these types of things. I’ve been pretty clear I personally support extending these benefits, but I recognize there are valid reasons behind the disinclination of others. If this editorial shows us anything, it’s very easy for others to interpret that as callousness.
The most important thing to convey to people when having these arguments is not the technical jargon of how entitlements are abused – or how we don’t want a welfare state or whatever common idiom you have heard. To a lot of people those statements sound as if a group of people is being singled out as lazy do-nothings. I don’t believe that’s necessarily the case, and I don’t believe that’s what most Republicans or conservatives mean to imply when they criticize these types of programs.
The counter argument needs to be about individual people.
It’s not that conservatives don’t want to help people – most do, and that is why arbitrarily extending and creating entitlement programs is not something worthy of praise. When you repeatedly extend government entitlements, you inadvertently create a culture of dependency. That does a great disservice to the people who use them. Few people want to be using these programs. When the solution is just more money, the problems of unemployment and poverty have not been addressed.
People find their value and self-worth through having a job; when all you offer the unemployed and poor is a check, you rob them of the opportunity to find their own self-worth – that needs to be the point hammered in by Republicans.
The essence of the Times piece is, "You guys are mean because you won’t just extend benefits. Like, really mean."
That’s a fine sentiment to hold, but beyond the age of 13 it does not count as a real argument, and it will do nothing to change the opinion of opponents. However, conservatives would do well to address the "meanness" angle before diving into the details of abuse and program costs.