I find this type of reporting very frustrating. Delaney has reported on what a politician said on TV. But he has done nothing to confirm or refute what he's said. Did those tax cuts actually stimulate the economy? Is Pence right? Or not? My own recollection, having lived through all of these administrations, is that the economy shrank, interest rates were high, the middle class got poorer, and the gap widened between the rich and poor--while services for the majority of citizens were slashed. But it would have been nice for the "journalist" to have done some actual research on this important point.

The abundant hypocrisy of fighting support for hard up unemployed because of it adding to the deficit, and at the same time supporting a tax cut for the super-rich and ignoring and lying about the deficit increase that would cause, that hypocrisy is not clearly conveyed in this article.

This isn't really a story per se but a recitation of statements. Nothing is analyzed. It's really neither good or bad, just filler.

This opinion piece is poor journalism. The argument over the extension of unemployment benefits is whether to use unexpended funds from the failed stimulus to cover it. The author does not understand economics: he does not know the difference between tax rate cuts (which the Republicans support) and tax cuts (which the government cannot do). He does not know that the tax rate cuts under Bush increased the percentage of income taxes paid by the wealthiest 10% and dropped the share paid by the lower 50% very close to 0. He does not know that the tax rate increases planned for 2011 will hit those with lower incomes hardest.