On the recordFebruary 25, 2010
Let me add that the reference to the Congressional Budget Office--that has been the referee or the arbiter of what is used as a number for health care, what protections are for spending--I heard the summary of that same report on the House side at a Joint Economic Committee meeting. But the reference I made earlier is a very similar analysis made by Mark Zandi. Mark Zandi is an economist from moodys.com. He happened to be an adviser to John McCain's Presidential campaign, so he is not some partisan in this debate. But he said, going back a year ago, when we were debating the recovery bill--whether to enact it or not--he said that if you spend $1 on unemployment insurance, you get I think it is more than $1.60 back, somewhere in the $1.60 to $1.70 range. So this is not only a question of how we help people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own; the secondary benefit here is it can help people who are out of work and need a stimulated economy, need an economy that is jump-started by the spending we would provide through unemployment insurance. So it makes no sense. As the Senator from Illinois said earlier, there are lots of ways to make the argument that our friend from Kentucky is making, but this is not the time or the place, when all we are talking about is a 30-day extension of unemployment insurance for people who, through no fault of their own, have lost their jobs. It makes no sense.…





