now mark zandi, let me start with you on this. why does it matter. why did you look back and why does it matter to us now in terms of where we are now. >> it is vital. because if we don't get a better understanding of what we went through and how we responded in success of that, we can't page good policy going forward. we can't have a reasonable debate about whether we should extend emergency unemployment insurance benefits. we can't have a debate, a good debate about should we give more help to the hard-pressed state governments. i mean if john is saying that those things didn't matter than we're not going do those things and i would consider that to be inappropriate policy in the context of where we are today so this is a very important discussion that we need to get some clarity around. >> is that what you are saying professor taylor. >> it certainly is vital and it is important. and of course the conclusion that i come to, and there is difference of opinion. i think people should recognize the difference of opinion. what i come to is that these h

now mark zandi, let me start with you on this. why does it matter. why did you look back and why does it matter to us now in terms of where we are now. >> it is vital. because if we don't get a better understanding of what we went through and how we responded in success of that, we can't page good policy going forward. we can't have a reasonable debate about whether we should extend emergency unemployment insurance benefits. we can't have a debate, a good debate about should we give more help to the hard-pressed state governments. i mean if john is saying that those things didn't matter than we're not going do those things and i would consider that to be inappropriate policy in the context of where we are today so this is a very important discussion that we need to get some clarity around. >> is that what you are saying professor taylor. >> it certainly is vital and it is important. and of course the conclusion that i come to, and there is difference of opinion. i think people should recognize the difference of opinion.what i come to is that e have n

in fact, mark zandi who was senator mccain's economic advisor during the presidential came bain. >> brown: has been on this program a lot. >> has said thief ree dollar we invest in unemployment benefits generates a dollar 60 in economic output. congressional budget office puts it as high as 1.0 so it is like a 2 to 1 return on the unemployment investment that we make. >> brown: because people use the money. >> people have to spend the money. these are not folks who have other income. so everything that they get in unemployment benefits they spend. they're not saving this money, putting it aside for retirement. they are surviving on it. >> well, the benefits are 40 to-- about 40% of your wages, okay, your ending wage. and when you spend that money in the economy you are spending less of that than you were when you were a worker. for short term and might help the economy void up a little bit but other academic studies done by folks who are not 9 congressional budget office, mark zandi working for campaigns have shown that it is about 55 cents on the dollar that comes back to the economy. an

but you're seeing more pressure, mark zandi, the independent economist who democrats cite in support of their spending programs and doesn't make sense to raise them on anybody until the economy is in stronger shape. gloria: so what happens politically? >> the interesting thing is the democrats are split. the republicans are pretty unified. they want to renew the bush era tax cuts. the democrats are a little bit split. because some of them feel as john was saying, you don't let tax cuts expire on anybody in the middle of a recession. but most of them, and certainly nancy pelosi and some people in the administration, are saying emphatically that while we should continue the middle class tax cuts we need to let the ones on the wealthy expire. a little bit of an internal democratic fight and the fight between democrats. >> there's a report this morning that said at the moment there aren't 60 votes for either, just the middle class tax cuts continue or for the ones on the wealthy. is it possible we could get to the end of the year where they all expire for lack of 60 votes? >> that's poss

but before i do, i want to talk about mark zandi. mark zandi, a chief economist at moody's was one of the top economic advisers to then republican presidential candidate john mccain. he says that every dollar invested in unemployment benefits, such as we're going to vote today, produces $1.61 in economic activity. the c.b.o. estimates it i is $1.90. why is that? it's because the people who are getting these funds to survive are going to spend it in the local economy. they're going to go out to the supermarket. they're going to go to the local gas station. economists have all -- of all stripes agree that there's an actual return on investment here. let alone the morality of standing up for people who, through no fault of their own, cannot find a job. let me read when a sacramento woman said to me. days go by when i hardly sleep at all, she wrote, worrying about our bills. since my benefits were cut off on july 1, at the end of my first extension, we've had to concentrate all of our income on paying the rent and buying food and gas. i

but before i do, i want to talk out mark zandi. mark zandi, a chief economist at moody's was one of the top economic advisers to then republican presidential candidate john mccain. he says that every dollar invested in unemployment benefits, such as we're going to vote today, produces $1.61 in economic activity. the c.b.o. estimates it i is $1.90. why is that? it's because the people who are getting these funds to survive are going to spend it in the loca economy. they're gog to go out to the supermarket. they're going to go to the local gas station. economists have all -- of all stripes agree that there's an actual return on investment here. let alone the morality of standing up for people who, through no fault of their own, cannot find a job. let me read when a sacramento woman said to me. days go by when i hardly sleep at all, she wrote, worrying about our bills. since my benefits were cut off on july 1, at the end of my first extension, we've had to concentrate all of our income on paying the rent and buying food and gas. i hav

. >> most of you know mark zandi. he updated his estimates of his chart. how much economic growth is expected. calculations suggested the top two brackets would generate something like 29% of economic growth for every dollar of lost revenue. i am told tax cuts will benefit the middle income [unintelligible] and producing a higher bang for the buck. there is an economic case for extending the tax cuts. at the same time, a strong case against extending the tax cuts to benefit the most affluent represents sign of americans. if we could start and work our way down. >> i agree. in terms of bang for the buck, the tax cuts would have the biggest effect. >> i made mark zandi famous. i hired him for the mccain campaign. this is what he puts into the model is what he gets out. it is an assumption. there is good reason to question whether the models were well formulated and to rely on them. >> thank you. >> i will agree. the mainstream view as you described, the decision that you face is going to be, if everything up in terms of bang for buck, you would work through

mark zandi says $1.61. the congressional budget office says $1.9 0. the fact is, it's hard to know with exact specificity but both agree there's a consensus among economic experts that unemployment insurance benefits the economy as a whole. unemployment benefits were responsible for creating 1.1 million jobs since the recession started and adding 1.7% to the gross domestic product of our country. unemployment insurance benefits has a stimlative effect on the economy. no doubt about it. the republican caucus trying to stop it really is dangerous to the economy. not only to the individual family, not just to jane and sam and their two kids, who are unemployed and need those benefits but also to all of us as a whole. let me explain one reason why. our economy is one where corporate profits, as i just pointed out before, have been up in the first quarter of 2010, up about 43%. there's a lot of firms that are sitting on cash. they have money. but they haven't really added to their payrolls. why? because they're nervous. the consumer demand is still weak. c

well, mark zandi who is the chief economist at moody's, who was president bush's -- one of his economists and supporters, says no form of the fiscal stimulus has proved more effective during the past two years than emergency unemployment benefits. providing a bang for the buck of $1.61 for every $1 put in. paul crugman, nobel prize winning economist, that's not a bad little opportunity prize to win, one main reason there aren't enough jobs right now is weak consumer demand. helping the unemployment by putting money into the pockets of people who badly need it help support consumer spending. that's why the c.b.o. rates aiding the unemployment as a highly cost effective form of economic stimulus. timely, targeted and temporary, the three keys to stimulus spending and unemployment compensation goes to people who are the purple hearts of this economic recession, an economic recession caused by george w. bush. my friend from north carolina says we're forgetting history. i'll tell but history. under bill clinton we had a budget surplus, under george bush was a misguided war built on lies and ta

mark zandy, jock jock's economic ad -- john mccain's economic adviser -- we double our investment in the unploim employed. if you think about it, it makes sense. no one is getting rich offer off the $300 check they get each week. these americans turn around and spend the money. they immediately pay a bill, go to the store, keep up with their mortgage payments. they spend it on the basics of bare necessities while they look for work. the money goes right back to the economy, which strengthens it, fuels growth, and let's business create the jobs that unemployed have been looking for for so long. the people are trying to find work and they would much rather get a pay check than an unemployment check. there are people like scott hedrick who has been tryingor few years to find work. democrats aren't going to furnish our backs on them. he sends out resumes and goes to job interviews, but for months and months he's heard nothing but "no." what a shame. >> thank you, mr. president. we are seeing over the last 12 months a recovery in our job market. in the last six months, we have seen that a

mark zandy, who was john mccain's economic advisor when he ran for president, calculated that every time a dollar goes out in unemployment benefits, $1.61 comes back to the economy. the congressional budget office has estimated that number could actually be as high as $2, meaning we'd double our investment in the unemployed. and if you think about it, it makes sense. nobody's getting rich off the $300 unemployment check they get each week and nobody keeps those checks under their mattress. these americans turn around and spend the money. they immediately pay their bills, go to the store, keep up with their mortgage payments, which stimulates the economy. they spend it on the basics and bare necessities while they look for work. the money goes right back into the economy, which strengthens it, fuels growth and let's businesses create the very jobs the unemployed have been looking for, for so long. the people we're trying to help want to find work. they're trying to find work. and they'd much rather get a paycheck than an unemployment check. nevadans like scott hedrick, who lost his job tw

it is incredibly important both the congressional budget office, private analysts like mark zandy identify unemployment insurance as one of the stimulus things you can do that has the highest bang for the buck. that is incredibly important for us to keep in mind. >> one last question before i go back to senator brownback. one of the things i've noticed in our state that, there are businesses looking for workers and they don't always match-up with the location of where the workers are. i just want to make a pitch for three business iz just visited in the last few weeks. one nest last few months, digi key was hiring over 100 people. they make innards for computers. new french bakery in st. paul, mind, needed people for their nightshift. they don't have the enough people to produce the bread. monogram breads in chandler, minnesota, that i visite just a few weeks ago, was also looking for new employees. so i end with that. my last question will be how do you deal with that wn there are places looking for workers but it's not whe the rkers are. to end with the positive note there clear little a

it is incredibly important both the congressional budget office, private analysts like mark zandy identify unemployment insurance as one of the stimulus things you can do that has the highest bang for the buck. that is incredibly important for us to keep in mind. >> one last question before i go back to senator brownback. one of the things i've noticed in our state that, there are businesses looking for workers and they don't always match-up with the location of where the workers are. i just want to make a pitch for three business iz just visited in the last few weeks. one nest last few months, digi key was hiring over 100 people. they make innards for computers. new french bakery in st. paul, mind, needed people for their nightshift. they don't have the enough people to produce the bread. monogram breads in chandler, minnesota, that i visited just a few weeks ago, was also looking for new employees. so i end with that. my last question will be how do you deal with that when there are places looking for workers but it's not where the workers are. to end with the positive note there clear l

i spoke to mark zandi who has one of these models with moodys. he told me that he was treating federal purchases as exogenous. he told me that state and local purchases or somehow related to movements in state and local revenue, and transfers from the federal government to the state and local government. somehow, he was not treating those the same way. i do not see how you can identify that. i thought it made a lot of sense that he was treating state and local revenues as endogenous. i did not know what the source of identification was from that channel, if you are doing it that way. i did not know if it was driven over a federal-to-state transfers. i have not been able to pin that down. if i speak to mark more, i would ask him. i spoke to others, and there are basically the same. there is a separate statistical literature which makes the same assumption, that the movement that a quarterly frequency in the government purchases are exogenous. they get to move first. the association would gdp is treated as causation. that is indeed academic literat

economists of all political stripes agree, even john mccain's economic advisor, mark standy -- zandy, said, none has prove more effective in the last two years than unemployment insurance benefits providing a bang for the buck of $1.61 for every dollar of unemployment benefits. it's time for us act to provide a lifeline. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. wilson: before congress adjourned before the july 4 recess i stood in this spot with a plea for the democratic leadership to do the right thing and bring the military supplemental bill forward as a clean bill for quick passage. my request and those of many of my colleagues went unanswered. the result? our troops at risk do not have the funding they need. it is a shame that congress could not get this troop funding bill passed before the pentagon's deadline. by not passing or debating a budget, another travesty, congress c