Today more than 7 million Americans are out of work - 186,000 in South Carolina.  More than half of these unemployed people do not qualify for unemployment benefits, and the vast majority cannot afford health care coverage under our current system.  And our economy is continuing to deteriorate.

            There are currently two very different approaches being considered by Congress to stimulate the economy.  They hinge on the philosophical differences of our two-party political system.  It has been argued since the terrorist attacks that Congress should put partisanship aside and work in the best interest of the country.  My response is "who determines which approach represents that best interest?"  Our nation has thrived on the two-party system since its inception, because it allows for a discussion of differing opinions.  For us to abandon this give and take would negate the very foundation of our government. 

            In trying to figure the best way to deal with the current economic crisis, I say listen to the American people.  In a survey conducted by CNN, USA Today and the Gallup organization earlier this month, the question was asked, "what should Congress include in any bill to stimulate the economy?"  The majority of respondents answered that most of the money should be spent on things like benefits for the recently unemployed and construction projects.  Only 32% supported spending money on new tax cuts.  In fact, those are the two general characteristics of the two economic stimulus packages currently under consideration by Congress. 

The Democratic proposal, which I support, would extend unemployment benefits for 26 weeks, include part-time workers, and raise the weekly benefits.  This plan would also cover at least half of the health insurance premiums for up to a year for the unemployed.  The Democratic package includes funding for ready-to-go construction projects, such as airport improvements and school modernization.  This will immediately create jobs while improving our nation's infrastructure.

 Money to fund these proposals would come from delaying the planned tax cut for the wealthiest 1% of Americans - those earning more than $375,000 a year.  By doing this we can make sure we don't keep borrowing from the Social Security trust fund. 

The alternate proposal put forth by the Republicans, and supported by President Bush, would give $46 billion in tax breaks to corporate America.  Under current law all corporations are required to pay a minimum tax.  The Republicans would begin by repealing the corporate minimum tax immediately giving corporate giants like IBM and General Electric  $1.4 billion and $833 million respectively.  They would also realize substantial savings by changing the tax laws to reduce taxes on corporations' overseas investment income.  This would merely encourage companies to keep their money outside the country, which would hardly stimulate the American economy.  There are other corporate give-aways like cutting the corporate tax rate by 10%.  All of these concepts come under the heading of trickle-down economics that failed miserably in the 1980s. 

The American people believe the Democratic approach is the best.  They don't believe that we can shore up our nation's infrastructure and security while cutting taxes.  The Democrats have a sensible plan that can achieve those goals and stimulate the economy without further compromising the Social Security Trust Fund.  These are some of the basic ideological differences between the two political parties, and no one should reasonably expect that either side of the aisle would abandon their beliefs.  But in this era when we must come together to do what is in the best interest of America, shouldn't we find our solution by listening to what the people have to say? 

#   #   #