In the December 2007 edition of "Vanity Fair," Joseph Stiglitz (professor of economics at Columbia University and chairman of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors) wrote a stinging rebuke of Bush's presidency. His premise is that Bush has been the worst President in history in terms of economic stewardship, even surpassing Herbert Hoover.
"The economic effects of Bush’s presidency are more insidious than those of Hoover, harder to reverse, and likely to be longer-lasting. There is no threat of America’s being displaced from its position as the world’s richest economy. But our grandchildren will still be living with, and struggling with, the economic consequences of Mr. Bush."
And he makes a great argument against the Bush tax cuts: "You’ll still hear some - and, loudly, the president himself - argue that the administration’s tax cuts were meant to stimulate the economy, but this was never true. The bang for the buck - the amount of stimulus per dollar of deficit - was astonishingly low. Therefore, the job of economic stimulation fell to the Federal Reserve Board, which stepped on the accelerator in a historically unprecedented way, driving interest rates down to 1 percent. In real terms, taking inflation into account, interest rates actually dropped to negative 2 percent. The predictable result was a consumer spending spree. Looked at another way, Bush’s own fiscal irresponsibility fostered irresponsibility in everyone else."
The article is well worth reading all the way through. Check it out here.
The SF Chronicle has an excellent article on the new figures released by the U.S. Census Bureau. Among many of the disturbing numbers we find more people in our nation going without health care insurance, individuals making less money and more seniors living in poverty.
Tuesday's good news -- that median household income increased from $45,817 in 2004 to $46,326 in 2005 -- raised more questions than it answered about the nation's working population. For California, the figure was $53,629.How could household income go up and individual income drop? Men's income fell to $41,386 and women's to $31,858.
David Johnson, chief of the Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division of the U.S. Census Bureau, suggested there were more people working per household to make ends meet, but working at individual jobs that pay less.
"It's clear that the income increase that happened in 2005 is attributable to elderly households," Sherman said, because their investments paid off well. But "working-age households saw a decline."
While Bush and his administration point to the fact that the number of Americans living below the poverty line has stabilized, the reality is:
that even though the poverty rates stabilized between 2004 and 2005 -- the headline that the Census Bureau used on its news release Tuesday -- the rate in 2005 was well above 2001's 11.7 percent.
The bottom line with the poverty figures is that the number of Americans living in poverty has increased during the GOP takeover of our government, and at the same time CEO's of defense companies are now making double what they did in 2001:
WASHINGTON - The chief executives of corporations making big profits from the war on terror are enjoying far bigger pay increases than CEOs of nondefense companies, according to a study by two liberal groups.The study, conducted by the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy, found that, on average, CEOs of corporations with extensive defense contracts are getting paid about double what they made before Sept. 11, 2001.
Remember, it is OUR tax dollars that are going into the pockets of these defense companies, and while individuals are becoming rich off the war on terror our nation is suffering from lack of infrastructure repair, shortfalls in education funding, a lack of affordable health care for Americans and, well, the list of programs that don't have the money to provide services to working Americans is just too long to post.
More below the fold
Decades ago our nation was warned by President Eisenhower, a Republican and a former General, to be wary of the military industrial complex:
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
President Eisenhower also stated:
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
The report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau underscores both of the above statements. We have allowed unwarranted influence by the military -industrial complex, the CEO's of those companies are not only making huge profits, but are at the same time being allowed to control our government to the determent of our nation.
And while the defense industry continues to gain in power, influence and money, the average American is making less money, has to struggle to afford health care and is losing ground. There is a set amount of ground to deal with, and when one group takes more then a reasonable share that windfall comes from the rest of us. They gain and we lose, as the Census Bureau's figures show.
Right now the defense contractors have control of far more ground then is reasonable or good for our nation. Perhaps even more insulting is the fact that those in our society who are least able to afford to lose what little they have are the ones who end up giving the most. For example more seniors in our nation are finding out that they no longer are able to make ends meet:
-- More seniors over 65 were poor in 2005 -- 3.6 million -- than in 2004, when 3.5 million seniors were poor, according to the federal standard.
12.9 million American children are living in poverty. 12.9 MILLION children, in America, suffer because of the policies of this administration:
"We're seeing a general theme of divergences (between the economic classes), and we can't say the country as a whole is doing better," said Arloc Sherman, a senior researcher with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a think tank.
The children and seniors of our nation deserve better, the working people of our nation deserve better. We are not safer as a nation by allowing the military-industrial complex to become wealthy on our tax dollars, rather we do harm that goes far beyond what any bomb could ever hope to accomplish.
So, the FTC released its report on gas prices and announced confidently that everything was kosher in big oil land. I guess that would have nothing to do with their boss, Dubya, stating confidently that he was sure everything was kosher.
The blogger at Thoughts of an Average Woman notices the same little questionable details in the article that I did, like:
But, wait! There's more to their convoluted justification! Apparently some of these companies WERE price gouging, but only technically not really.The commission said it found 15 examples of pricing by refineries, wholesale companies and retailers that technically fit the definition of "price gouging." (It defined gouging as a price increase in the month after the hurricanes that was not attributable to the additional costs caused by weather-related damage.) But it said that in nearly all of those instances, there was probably not gouging because of regional or local trends that justified the higher prices.
No wonder the president has shifted his focus back to gay marriage. Nothing to see here, just move along now. (And given the recent articles trumpeting how Americans do seem to be driving just as much as ever despite the rising gas prices, apparently that's just what we're doing!)
He has to work really hard, but Dubya found a way to piss of even his right-wing fanboy Grover Norquist, president of the Americans for Tax Reform. By raising taxes on teenagers saving for college. Of course, no one at Norquist's organization "noticed" the provision raising taxation rates on teenagers investment income until it was pointed out by some no-doubt-liberal-and-therefore-biased reporter.
But once it was pointed out to him, he kinda had no choice but to acknowledge it was "a technical violation of the pledge" and noted that his group opposes all retroactive tax increases. The story concludes with "He pledged to immediately begin a campaign to have the tax increases rescinded."
Why am I getting deja vu over this story? And especially when I read this pledge that candidate Bush made to Norquist in a letter: "If elected president, I will oppose and veto any increase in individual or corporate marginal income tax rates or individual or corporate income tax hikes."
Say it with me now: "Read my lips, no new taxes." Yes, that was it.
In line with the post I wrote last week about how you're really not crazy if you haven't been feeling the economic joy, despite the sunshiny reports in the media: investors are worried about inflation, rising interest rates...and now have started a stock market tumble to worry about too.
James Hamilton at EconBrowser shows charts that support his contention that the Fed was "too expansionary" for a few years, but cheers us with his contention that: "That may have been responsible for a slight increase we're seeing now in current inflation. However, the more restrictive measures adopted by the Fed over the last three years should help keep future inflation at acceptable levels."
The Capital Spectator wonders if "stagflation is just around the corner."
This post at Angry Bear illustrates that slight left and slightly right can both be feeling less than optimistic.
I'll close amusingly, by pointing you to The Dead Parrot Society, where Victor opines that all previous generations were "impossibly poor" compared to this one, mostly because they didn't have calculators or the Internet. No really, here's the quote, you be the judge:
"My hunch is that they are both right and both wrong. I do not believe there is a single aggregate statistic that can translate welfare over time. Instead, I ask myself how much money I would have to be given to voluntarily be born in a different year. Personally, I would require an almost infinite amount of money to be born in the eras before modern medicine and pain killers.I would also require an extravagent amount of money to be born when my parents were born. My father went through grad school without calculators. In contrast, I would pay a significant amount of money to spend my life in an age with the internet as opposed to crappy color TV's that get terrible reception (see Cafe Hayek's 1975 catalog discussion for more). Therefore, in my view, people in the distant past *were* impossibly poor, in the sense that almost no amount of money would induce me to trade places with them."
Tie minimum wage hikes to congressional pay hikes.
Brilliant.
What is the argument against?
Source: CultureKitchen
Yes, thank God! The Senate approved the extension of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, and we can go on as a nation without having to actually suffer or sacrifice for this years-long war we were gotten into under false pretenses. Oh, except perhaps for those families directly affected. The rest of us can slap ribbon magnets on our car and feel all proud and patriotic.
Key excerpt:
"The overwhelming share of the tax cuts the Senate voted to extend will flow to the wealthiest taxpayers. People earning $1 million a year would save about $42,700, and reap about 22 percent of the total tax cut, according to the Tax Policy Center, a research group in Washington. People earning $40,000 to $50,000 a year would save about $47 and receive less than 1 percent of the benefits."
The President, his lackeys, and in fact the so-called-liberal media trumpet economic news every other day that's supposed to make you feel good. Yet I, and most of the people I know don't feel good. We feel nervous. Nervous about the present, and nervous about the future. So are we just Negative Nellies?
According to this NY Times report...not really.
There's an interesting point within: unlike other times of economic uncertainty we are not, as a general rule, worried that the money will stop coming in. We feel like we have jobs, and if we lose them, we can probably find another one (unlike a few years ago.)
But what we're afraid of is that the money will never be enough...that it's becoming increasingly difficult to keep up with basic expenses:
Gas prices
insurance costs
health care costs
These all seem to be soaring unchecked and out of step with how much hope we have that our incomes will increase.
Even home buyers, who usually have more sense of security than non-owners are feeling stressed about the rising interest rates. Foreclosure rates are increasing, and it's mostly due to people being unable to handle adjustable loan rates that kick in.
It's an uncomfortable place to be employed, earning, yet anxious.
I mean who came up with the bright idea to offer a $100 rebate to compensate for rising gas prices? It's missing the point. Not only that, but the next time I hear a Republican accuse Democrats of "throwing money" at something, because they want to fully fund programs in education or health care, I am going to laugh out loud.
What makes the Repugs seem even more desperate is that they're even willing to consider sacrificing their corporate buddies to try to curry favor with the "general public." Trouble is they don't have the cojones to stick with it, though...and they change their minds as soon as the oil folks squwak.
That was just a lose-lose loser move, guys.
The estate tax is opposed by 18 of the most super-wealthy famlies in the country. Who'd a thunk?
Now, the results of the report issued by Public Citizen sound suspiciously the conspiracy theory "international cabal" stuff of novels, but it doesn't mean they're untrue. You gotta be inheriting a chunk of change to have the estate tax hit you hard. And these families (like the family behind Wal-Mart, as one example) certainly are doing that.
I'm just having trouble stirringup the sympathy for them, though.
A new analysis proves what you already knew: the Bush tax cuts help the rich get richer. Key points:
-Among taxpayers with incomes greater than $10 million, the amount by which their investment tax bill was reduced averaged about $500,000 in 2003, and total tax savings, which included the two Bush tax cuts on compensation, nearly doubled, to slightly more than $1 million.-These taxpayers, whose average income was $26 million, paid about the same share of their income in income taxes as those making $200,000 to $500,000 because of the lowered rates on investment income.
-Americans with annual incomes of $1 million or more, about one-tenth of 1 percent all taxpayers, reaped 43 percent of all the savings on investment taxes in 2003. The savings for these taxpayers averaged about $41,400 each. By comparison, these same Americans received less than 10 percent of the savings from the other Bush tax cuts, which applied primarily to wages, though that share is expected to grow in coming years.
-The savings from the investment tax cuts are expected to be larger in subsequent years because of gains in the stock market.
And the rest of us? How'd we fare?
By contrast, few taxpayers with modest incomes benefited because most of them who own stocks held them in retirement accounts, which are not eligible for the investment income tax cuts. Money in these accounts is not taxed until withdrawal, when the higher rates on wages apply.Those making less than $50,000 saved an average of $10 more because of the investment tax cuts, for a total of $435 in total income tax cuts, according to the computer model.
Retro-correcting for administration failures.
This time I'm not talking about retroactively OK'ing Bush's illegal wiretapping activities.
This time I'm talking about a new habit of increasing the federal debt limit, so they can release budgets that exceed the old debt limit. That's just-in-time management if I ever saw it. Or I actually should say just-in-time mis-management.
The latest example:
The Senate narrowly approved a $2.8 trillion election-year budget Thursday that broke spending limits only hours after it increased federal borrowing power to avert a government default.The budget decision at the end of a marathon day of voting followed a separate 52-to-48 Senate vote to increase the federal debt limit by $781 billion, bringing the debt ceiling to nearly $9 trillion.
The Senate budget bill would clear the way to opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, but the outlook for that provision is uncertain given strong resistance by Republican moderates in the House and a long legislative route before final approval.
Well, what's going on is that as long as Dubya and the majority party insist that the tax cuts for the wealthy are not on the table, each individual Congressperson is kinda screwed. This NY Times piece explains why more fully. Key excerpt:
Lawmakers, analysts and others said the Senate's reluctance to clamp down on spending was a natural result of an approach that fails to recognize a sharply changed reality. In some respects, the administration and Congress act as if the surplus that greeted President Bush when he checked into the White House is still in the bank, rather than recognizing that whatever windfall was available then was eaten up and more by tax cuts.The reality is that the cuts, plus two wars, new domestic security needs, natural disasters and a big expansion of Medicare have left the government's account badly overdrawn with no prospect of getting it back in balance anytime soon.
The criticisms set out by many Democrats - that no real progress can be made in setting the nation's finances right until Congress proves willing to revisit the tax cuts and that the nation is failing to invest sufficiently in addressing its economic and social ills- do not receive much of a hearing in a Washington where Republicans are in charge.
[snip]
"The problem we have had on the budget all along is a lack of adult supervision on the part of the White House," said Bruce Bartlett, an economist and author of a new book critical of Mr. Bush's economic record. "You can't blame members of Congress for looking out for their parochial interests. It is the president's responsibility to look out for the national interest."
[snip]
Almost lost in all the budget and spending activity was that House and Senate negotiators continue to try to hammer out an agreement for new tax cuts that could cost an additional $70 billion over five years.
Eek! Feel overwhelmed yet?
True conservatives who support this current rendition of the Republican Party must walk around with their heads bowed in shame. The lack of fiscal responsiblity or, to be frank, rationality, is somewhat astonishing.
First the Republicans (well, most Republicans) voted down legislation that would have put back in place the "pay as you go" concept for budgeting. They're not even very secretive about their reason. They want Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy to stay in place forever, and it is basically impossible to balance our budget without ending those tax cuts.
No, wait. Not impossible. There is a way. Yes, you guessed it. Massive spending cuts on programs that help the weakest amongst us. As the Washington Post points out, there is one group of Republicans who are being honest about it and produced an alternative budget that shows what exactly it would take to actually live up to the Bush Administration claims about getting our deficits down.
Bottom line:
Balance could be achieved by 2011, it shows, but only if Americans are willing to sacrifice a good chunk of their health care, education, energy, transportation and foreign aid -- in fact, pretty much all of the federal budget outside defense and veterans.What would go? Extra unemployment benefits and training to workers who lose their jobs as a result of foreign competition, heating assistance for low-income families, family planning funds, subsidized loans for graduate students and, after 2009, funding for the federal highway program. Also, Amtrak, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Agency for International Development and President Bush's Millennium Challenge Account. Substantially reduced would be funding for low-income schools, United Nations peacekeeping forces, the National Institutes of Health and block grants to states to pay for preventive health care for mothers and children. Head Start would be frozen at 2005 levels.
Average enrollment growth in Medicaid, which provides health care to poor people, was more than 7 percent annually between 2000 and 2004, and medical inflation itself is about 5 percent. Yet this budget would limit the growth in federal spending on Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which provides health care to uninsured children just above the poverty line, to 4 percent per year. The result? More poor people, and more poor children in particular, would go without care.
[snip]
These budget cuts would be shortsighted and mean-spirited; they would transform the role of the federal government. We find much of this unthinkable, and we believe most Americans would, too. That's why Mr. Bush doesn't talk about the real-life consequences of his tax cuts, and the real-life people who will suffer from them after he leaves office. So we thank the Republican Study Committee for producing this document. If this is what you want government to look like, go ahead and support the extension of the president's tax cuts and oppose any tax increases.
I often ask "how pro-business do we need to be?" and I often bring up the compeltely disproporionate amounts of money CEOs get paid...whether they succeed or fail.
Billionaire Mark Cuban explains a little bit of why CEOs aren't looking out for the shareholders' interets. Not really.
I may not agree with everything Cuban says (notably his vote for Dubya...wonder how he feels about it now?) but sometimes he is spot on.
Every now and then I blog about this question: how pro-business do we need to be? I say this as an entrepreneur and small business owner. I say this as someone who has paid a lotta taxes in my life. The only union I ever belonged to was Actor's Equity and AFTRA back in my New York starving artist days. I'm, contrary to the belief of some, no socialist or communist. But I do believe in fairness and priorities, and I don't believe you can give all the breaks in the world to businesses and not sacrifice somewhere else.
I think it's far from certain that the Bush Administration's desire to foster "more cooperative relations" with the mining industry has resulted in reduced mining safety. but there's plenty of things to make you go hmmm in the afore-linked NY Times article.
This one may be the most jaw-dropping:
Fines have been reduced in the last few years, but even those fines levied are not being properly handled. When they become delinquent they are supposed to be turned over to the Treasury Department within 180 days. Seems that they haven't turned over any delinquent accounts in over two years. Why, you ask? "Mr. Fillpot also said delinquent cases had not moved to the Treasury Department since 2003 because of computer problems. He could not say when the problems would be corrected. "
Um, can I send my S.O. the programmer over to help 'em out or something? how about the Tech Support guy from Saturday Night Live? Moooove...Mine Safety and Health Administration officials! You clearly aren't up to the job.
Or lack thereof...
Just take a look at the latest proposed Bush budget.
Tax cuts for the upper class.
Service cuts for the lower and middle classes.
Costs from Iraq not even incuded.
And yet still all-time high deficits.
Peachy.
I'm not sure why so-called experts find the Q4 economic slow-down a surprise.
I'm no expert, but I knew about Hurricane Katrina and other natural disasters that happened right before Q4.
I'm no expert, but I heard all about a slower-than-hoped-for holiday shopping season.
I'm no expert, but I heard that Americans weren't feeling too optimistic...and I'm not expert, but I know that consumer confidence plays a big part in the economy.
I'm no expert, but I've certainly heard the dire warnings about the housing bubble inevitable burst.
I'm no expert, but I know that if companies reach Q4 and find they've already reached their annual expense levels, or have not hit anticipated revenue targets...then they take a step back until the New Year.
Could the so-called liberal media be trying to continue the rose-colored glasses view of the economy, and the only way to do that after this Q4 is to say "my goodness, I just don't know what could have happened! I'm flabbergasted!"?
Since the holiday season obviously turns our thoughts to war (I mean serously what is up with those curmudgeonly anti-holiday-greeting people?) I thought I'd bring up a War you may not have noticed: the War on the Poor.
Rarely does a brief NY Times Editorial bring tears to my eyes, but this one about how loans to rebuild are flowing to the rich, not the poor in New Orleans did. Key excerpt:
"No one expects the government to squander tax dollars on bad loans. But there are ways around that, through grants, for instance, and looser standards for the many who straddle the shoulders of good credit and bad credit. Otherwise, the administration has engaged in the worst kind of cruelty - one that encourages the poor to think help is on the way, then swats down anyone who actually requests the promised assistance."
Let's not forget that our Vice President, Dick, emerged from his usual "undisclosed location" (OK, no, actually he was overseas) to cast the tie-breaking vote [Reg. Req'd. Sorry.] to allow Congress to cut spending for the poor, the elderly and college students in need of assistance. All while they refuse to consider those untouchable tax breaks for the wealthy.
But I don't need to say much when Ronni Bennett articulates my disgust so well here.
Shame on them. Shame on us.
A recent article in the Mercury News [Reg. Req'd.] is pretty disheartening...that is, if you believe that a widening gap between the haves and have-nots is of concern.
Seems that over the last 25 years low-wage workers (and that's defined as <$11.50/hour in today's wages, or the bottom 20% of wage-earners) have actually lost purchasing power. Meanwhile middle-wage earners have gained, and high-wage earners have gained the most. The gap between high and low is widening markedly, and the middle group is sort of struggling to keep up.
Education seems absolutely key. The gap between those with a high school diploma and those without is big. The gap between those with a college diploma and those with a high school diploma is even larger.
The Bay Area is actually blessed with a much higher percentage of educated workers, with higher median incomes and surprisingly a higher liklihood of owning a home. (Surprising because we all know how expensive housing is here.)
I'm sure there are those who say that this is Darwinian in some way (I wonder if they're the same people who don't want to teach evolution in school?) But I think that outsourcing of manufacturing jobs has eliminated one way that those without college degrees could often advance. I used to work at a company that had an on-site manufacturing facility. Many of the workers were new Americans or immigrants; many were not lucky enough to have an advanced degree. But with that job they had salary, benefits, stock options etc. Where are those jobs now?
Some people probably are not concerned about the gap, thinking it's inevitable. I think the wider the gap between the have and have-nots, the lower overall quality of our society.
Of course my Singaporean friend who is planning to renounce his citizenship and become an American over a recent execution in Singapore would be swift to point out that Singapore has the richest, most educated populace in the world, the cleanest, safest city, but has other things to be ashamed of.
What do you think of this economic gap?
I love my BlogHer buddy Arse Poetica, because she is filled with the same outrage as I am, and is not shy about expressing it.
Take this post, commenting on the latest research that shows that not only have Dubya's tax cuts not stimulated job growth, but that historically such tax cuts results in something else entirely: a widening gulf between rich and poor.
As she says: "I have to believe that these things are sinking in, or I won't be able to get up in the mornng."
I've read and re-read the recommendations from Dubya's panel on how to reform the tax code.
As you work your way up the ladder some things hold true...you gotta pay state taxes (that deduction is on the cutting room floor in this proposal.) You hope to get a full-time job that provides health insurance (the proposal aims to restrict tax-free employer-paid health insurance.) The you start saving and planning because you want, more than anything, usually, to buy a home. That is the number one investment most Americans feel represents the American Dream (the proposal suggests big cuts in the deduction for mortgage interest.) And if you reach that goal (and often before you ever do reach that goal) you want to give a little back, and donate some portion of your income to charity (the proposal wants to limit those deductions too.)
These are the ways this panel suggests that Dubya can make his tax cuts for the wealthy permanent and compensate for that revenue loss. Go after the deductions that actually help a broad swath of the public.
Meanwhile they propose lowering the tax rate for the highest tax brackets and lowering the tax on investment income.
It seems so very blatant.
Do What?
Deter Republicans from reverse-Robin Hood'ing and stealing from the poor to give to the rich.
Read this NY Times editorial. Prepare to be sickened.
They have no shame.
Bonus: Neither does Wal*Mart, as an internal memo show their cynical efforts to avoid looking bad, but avoid investing in employee benefits.
Isn't it illegal for employers to use the health of the prospective employee as a criteria for hiring? Don't know. Just asking.
Still seems pretty messy to me.
It wasn't just the Louisiana officials' fault, obviously, since problems continue. FEMA is slow. FEMA is unable to account for money. FEMA is only now getting around to examining the no-bid contracts they passed out like candy.
What a mess.
I think the nations at the UN could be forgiven for greeting Dubya's most recent speech with stony silence and skepticism.
He hasn't exactly gone out of his way to establish strong, trusting ties with most of them. Nor to help the world's poor (even though he now wants to act like their savior) nor to promote peace in the world.
This will be the lasting legacy (and problem left behind) of the Bush Administration. A world that no longer looks to us. Admires us. Trusts us. Gives us the benefit of the doubt. Believes us.
This is one of my pet rants.
No one ever said that making a fair profit meant making unfettered profit. We place controls on companies in a variety of ways.
But apparently asking that executives are paid what they deserve and that it not exceed ungodly amounts isn't one of those things we're willing to control. It's a field day for executives while many "rank and file" employees, especially in the Silicon Valley haven't seen merit increases since the bust started in the year 2000.
If they still have their job. And if it pays even 80% of what they were making before.
Case in point, this brief item from the NY Times that notes that chief execs are now making way over $400 for every $1 a production worker makes at 367 top companies.
So let's all honor Labor tomorrow shall we?
At least in words...because the American corporate world (and I include the Bush Administration in that description) are a hell of a lot better at words, than actions.
Several bloggers commenting on recent statistics on the rich vs. poor in this country.
ArgMax lays out the high level findings, and it is ugly. Poverty up. Median income down. The uninsured up. And get a load of this one:
"Shares of income in the middle 3 quintiles declined, while incomes in the highest quntile increased."
So, it's no longer the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It's the rich get richer, and everyone else gets poorer.
Of course Daniel Gross points out that the percentage of folks who fall into that "richest" category has declined a bit. So we really do have the wealth of this great country concentrating into fewer and fewer hands.
But Gross also points out that there's really no limit to the ways Bushies will try to spin the economic news in a positive light to kiss Dubya's ass.
Feh.
God I love hearing that Dubya gave a speech to mark the 70th anniversary of the creation of Social Security. What hypocrisy. Or, really, what gonads, to even bring it up.
But lest we all forget, Paul Krugman is here to remind us:
-That Dubya came to destroy SS not to reform it
-That he lied to do try to do it, and that he used public funds to spread those lies
Eventually he may come back to this issue, and when and if he dares to, we should remember not to let him get away with it.
I know, I know, you're sick of hearing all the reasons that repealing the estate tax is lunacy.
But you must hear it again.
You may have heard the news trumpeted near and far about how great the recent figures about 207000 new jobs are.
I'm hear to make sure you understand the spin...or rather this NY Times editorial is.
Bottom line: We're finally creating enough jobs to cover just the new workers entering the work force, plus a little more, but compared to other periods of recovery in our nation's history the job growth is weak. So don't let anyone tell you this is the strongest economy ever, or a perfect economy, as I've seen bandied about. Not only that, but employment rates are still lower than back in 2000 when Bush took office. So the fact that unemployment rates can be down while employment are not up simply means that more folks have aged off the unemployment rolls.
Even more disheartening is the fact that wages are not increasing enough to keep up with inflation. Now the Labor Dept. will try to spin that overall compensation has increased more than just wAges, but most of that is employers trying to cover the ever-increasing cost of providing health care. Meanwhile employees are also pitching in more for health care than ever before. So the "overall compensation" argument is really just exposing that employers are having to divert money from worker wages to health care. And no one yet has the solution for the increasing costs for employers or workers.
The people who got new jobs last month are understandably happy. But none of us should feel pleased.
Fascinating and lengthy post from the Emerging Democratic Majority blog about the discontent the public feels about the economy, and how the Democrats may be able to leverage it.
Why it's fascinating to me is that I see headlines in the San Jose Mercury on a regular basis now talking about how great the economy is. One recent headline talked about a "near-perfect" economy.
And I was thinking, hmmm, why doesn't it feel that way to me...or to any single person I've talked to. I know exactly no one who is jumping up and down about the economy. I think we all feel some underlying suspicion that the regular economic indicators don't tell the whole story.
The unemployment rate is down and productivity is up, but there are not more employed people. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a) people are leaving the valley...which might help our traffic problems, but doesn't help the state's economy and b) people are simply aging off the unemployment tolls and c) the people who are employed are working even harder, even longer, and most of them for no more compensation.
That's just one example.
So, yes, the Democrats can likely use this feeling of economic insecurity. We should remember that statistics only tell part of the story. And that they can be easily manipulated and presented with plenty of spin.
Couple of NY Times stories this weekend that debunk the fond fairy tales that Bushies tell:
1. Tax cuts for the rich stimulate employment.
Not so, says economist Robert H. Frank. While I'm not sure his assumptions about how middle class folk would have spent the tax savings had they received them are anything more than assumptions, his look at how tax savings are not a business-savvy justification for new hiring is right to the point. Bush sells his tax cuts much as he has sold the Iraq War...with whatever argument seems handy...he's always testing out a new justification. Unfortunately none of them really make sense.
2. The estate tax will hurt farmers.
Not so, says a new study from the Congressional Budget Office. But this one you knew right?
Are we returning to the robber baron era?
Read this Op-ed by brain-crush Paul Krugman and you will likely think so.
The difference now is that we used to have leaders a la Roosevelt and Kennedy who came from privilege and thought it was their duty in life to look out for those who hadn't been so fortunate.
Now we have leaders born into privilege who see that as God's reward and sure as hell don't want to spread it around.
Day 217 is a day to take a moment and thank Dubya for all he's doing for the super-rich?
What? You're not one of 'em, you say?
Too bad for you, as this NY Times analysis of the "Bush Economy" makes clear.
And this Op-Ed by Bob Herbert certainly won't make you feel any better! It's called the Mobility Myth, if that gives you a clue.
So I hope you like where you're at...'cause that American Dream, our Land of Opportunity is rapidly changing...and you're likely to stay right there.
You know, some things are just fact. And despite the fact that Republicans have been desperately trying it plant an image in your head of a sullen, spoiled teenager making minimum wage...the better to discourage the idea of raising it... the fact simply don't support that image.
Ezra Klien does us all the great favor of pulling out the highlights from a recent report on the state of the minimum wage worker, thereby alleviating me of the need to download yet another pdf.
Hint: Most minimum wage workers are NOT teenagers. But you knew that already, right?
[Note, i just caught the terrible egregious typo where I forgot the word NOT in the sentence above. So make sure you get that most minimum wage works are actually adults, many with families.]
Here's an excellent run down from economist Robert Frank on why the estate tax is fair, efficient and misunderstood. read it and educate yourself.
And the elderly lose again.
At least according to one of my blogging gurus, ShortWoman.com.
So, if the elderly take "advantage" of the Medicare prescription drug car, the government will cut their food stamp benefits. So the Medicare benefit which was supposed to alleviate the need to choose between food and drugs, will be used to put them in the position of choosing between food and drugs.
Nice.
You know, I tend to focus on Social Security, occasionally veering off into budget deficit land, passing tax cuts for the wealthy vs. services for the less wealthy along the way.
That's why it's instructive for me to read ShortWoman.com, a blog that has a much more diverse approach to looking at our economy.
Check out this post where ShortWoman talks about trade gaps, high gas prices, de-linking the Chinese currency valuation from the dollar, and the fact that all Americans have gotten an effective, across-the board pay cut.
And the post below is no cheerier, sad to say.
But if we're into a reality-based existence, it ain't cheery that matters.
Check out ShortWoman to get your dose of reality for the day.
The NY Times has laid out beautifully why Dubya's contention that there is no Social Security trust fund is not only a crock, but an insult to America and its credibility, its international reputation and whatever else you can name.
Why does Dubya hate America so much?
Read what I mean in the NY Times here.
The plan to pass actual legislation on Social Security this year seems to be in a bit of a shambles, according to this WaPo article
And at least one Republican Senator, Lindsay Graham, is trying to be the maverick...and is kind of making sense! Do I have a fever?
But David Sirota points out what I've pointed out myself: it's Bush who has brought no plan to the table, while the intrepid Graham and a handful of Democrats have been trying to get some ideas on the table.
Other Social Security item of note:
Ezra Klein points out why Bush's Social Security Phase-Out plan will also destroy Medicare. It's not pretty.
This WaPo article indicates that traditional conservatives are starting to break ranks, losing faith in Bush's Social Security "plan", as vague and unexplained as it is.
Dubya has been thinking that he could let Congress somehow hash out some of the more difficult elements (and thereby take the heat for them) and has said he won't be putting forward a specific plan until they work some stuff out in Congress.
But the WaPo article indicates that conservative economists and stalwarts aren't too happy about that laissez-faire attitude.
Aww, Poor Dubya...seems like lately his appalling tactics (congressional intrusion into private medical decisions; scare tactics on safety net programs) aren't really getting traction.
There's not much to add to this column. Herbert succinctly packs into one column many points we've made here before:
-That huge cuts are necessary because Dubya cares about his tax cuts for the wealthy above all else.
-That Dubya's ownership society is inherently burdensome on the middle and lower classes.
-That the hypocrisy over Terri Schiavo and the pro-life stance in general is shown in stark relief against the cuts in Medicaid, pre-natal assistance, and aid for children of poor families.
Oh, the hypocrisy. Oh, the sad, backward slide of a good nation.
I'm only wishing he didn't quote Herbert Hoover at the end. Not really the guy you want to be rallying behind, is it?
Apparently the trustees of Social Security have come out to say that the system starts to put out more money than it takes in one year earlier than previously thought.
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
Seriously, I think the Republicans have finally woken up and realized that the Schiavo case, that was supposed to save them from having to talk about Social Security and was supposed to please their right wing constituency, was a big, fat failure. They're on the wrong side of the issue, even amongst self-identified evangelicals.
So, now, they have no choice but to go back to SS, but they gotta do so with something catchy, something big. Something like a one year earlier difference! (Oh, and make sure no one realizes that it's really Medicare that is in more serious straits.)
Here are more people you can read on this:
Ezra Klein
Digby, briefly and with a touch of black humor
Kicking Ass
Matthew Yglesias and again.
Slactivist
AmericaBlog
Talking Points Memo
Why?
Because it's fun to watch something implode slowly, while those in charge feign lack of concern. All I can say is those people who thought that at least they knew what Dubya stood for...should be feeling very disappointed right now.
Read all about it in the extended entry:
Dubya himself is refusing to lay out any plan, this despite the fact that it's supposed to be his big priority. Why? Because he figures it won't pass Congress. So, he wants them to come up with something. Kind of smells like a "take credit if it goes; disavow if it flops" kind of deal, don't you think?
So, I guess Dubya isn't one to put himself on the line for those famous "stands" that so many voters though they knew. Other presidents come up with sweeping plans from the New Deal to the Great Society to welfare reform, for goodness sake, and they go make it happen...twisting every Congressional arm they can find.
Not our Dubya. Yeah, he's a real stand-up guy. Well, no, right now he's more of a cowering guy.
So, anyway the Democrats tried to force a vote on the subject of private accounts, but the Republicans refused to even let the vote occur, voting down the vote, as it were. They don't want to go on record saying they're willing to rob Peter to pay Paul.
BUt meanwhile Dubya is pretty much saying the government intends to default on its commitments. How so? Well, here is what Dubya says:
"A lot of people in America think there is a trust: Your money goes in, the government holds it, and then the government gives your money back when you retire," the president said. "That's just not the way it works." Source: AP
Why is that utter crap? Well, once again we turn to shortwoman.com:
"The fact of the matter is that Social Security will take in more money than it hands out in benefits until about 2018. Furthermore, the extra money that has been taken in over the years has been put in nice, safe United States Bonds and Treasury Bills. Yes, that's right, the Social Security Administration owns a big chunk of the National Debt, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. The Feds can't default on this obligation without either defaulting on bonds held by private holders, banks or other nations, or by special, politically suicidal act of Congress. Either way, worldwide economic chaos would ensue. Yes, these bonds earn less over the theoretical long term gain in the stock market, but frankly that is irrelevant. Benefits paid are not linked in any way to performance of the trust fund. Putting the returns on trust fund investments into the argument is a big, fat, red herring."
So, I guess Dubya is willing to default on US bonds and Bills. Nice, huh?
But hey, cheer up. On one last cynical note, the AP reports that Americans' obesity is going to significantly shorten our life spans within, stopping and reversing the upward trend. So all that scary talk about long-lived Americans? Apparently we spoke too soon.
This Sunday the NY Times had a scathing look at the Bush tax cut plan and the ever-more-inequitable Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT.)
And they hit the nail on the head when they see another case of creating a crisis, so that people will eagerly accept whatever solution the Administration puts forth to solve...well, the crisis that never had to be created in the first place.
It's very cynical. It's very typical. What else is there to say?
I just can't resist posting this WaPo article showing rational Republicans (yes they exist) squabbling with Bush Republicans over Social Security.
Lindsay Graham better seriously consider his party affiliation, because if the Bush Reps. stay in power he is going to get skewered.
Sometimes I know something's going on that's going to be bad for the regular people. But I'm no economist, and the way they shove all sorts of addendums and riders to congressional bills starts to overwhelm me.
Luckily we have other people who manage to explain things clearly and simply.
I saw my brain-crush Paul Krugman on The Daily Show last night, and he brought up the bankruptcy bill that seems certain to make its way through Congress. He reminded me that it's bad for you and me, wonderful for big business (and Dubya's "base.")
And he reminded me that I'd been meaning to point to this Arianna Huffington column that manages to make it clear exactly why.
As always, you can use the SCC DP site to contact both your local representatives and your local media.
Other Sources: 03/09 WaPo article
UPDATED: ShortWoman also provides a succinct dissection of this bad bad bankruptcy bill.
I'd be a little concerned if I was part of the Republican leadership. I mean weren't they supposed to have achieved total world dominance with their razor thin presidential win and Texas re-districting congressional wins?
Well, first of all Social Security continues to be anything but a winning issue for Dubya.
Digby has a good analysis of why it's just not resonating for Dubya...like maybe people are wondering why the guy who was supposed to protect us and has a war in Iraq to extricate us from instead seems obsessed with a program that we all figured on relying on, and that we can't quite buy is really going to be bankrupt in a decade, given all the evidence that, well, it's not going to be.
Now, even Bush's vaunted tax cuts for the wealthy...a cornerstone of his first term and campaign...well, they're in more crisis than Social Security! According to this WaPo article, even Republicans are realizing just how bad it looks to try to lower taxes more, or even make existing tax cuts permanent...what with all the scary talk about Social Security and Medicare, not to mention the war stuff.
Looks like Dubya's effort to have his Social Security crisis cake and eat his tax cuts for the wealthy too is failing.
Now, why couldn't people figure out this was a scam before November 2nd?
Day 123's theme: The Econnomy
What you should know this week to push back on Bush's anti-average person agenda:
1. It's Old Faithful Paul Krugman showing us the way again on Social Security. The Democrats are really winning on this one, and the Bush Administration knows it, so lately they have been putting feelers out there about a compromise solution. Krugman reminds us that their real goal is Social Security Elimination, and that their compromise is still something to "Just Say No" to.
2. Krugman does it again by reminding us that our ginormous deficits are playing into the arch-conservatives game plan...starving what they consider the "beast" of social programs of any kind. Social Security Elimination is just first on the list. If you think this is crazy, go back and read a post I made months ago about the 2000 Texan Republican Party Platform. Key excerpt:
"Social Security – The Party supports an orderly transition to a system of private pensions based on the concept of individual retirement accounts, and gradually phasing out the Social Security tax."
3. But at least Krugman isn't the only voice of reason. Our very own Senate Minority Leader, Senator Reid, joined Krugman in calling it like he sees it: Alan Greenspan has become Bush's cheerleader and a partisan hack. Citing the deficit that his boy has created, Greenspan vocally leans toward cuts in social programs (which have somehow miraculously been re-named "entitlement" programs...even in that damn liberal media) over tax "increases" (which is what opposing Bush's insane desire to make permanent his tax cuts for the wealthy is now miraculously equivalent to...even in that damn liberal media.)
The fight is far from over on Social Security, the ballooning deficits and more of Bush's destructive policies...stay on top of it by reading the links above.
OK, I admit I have not done some major due diligence on this little online application, but DISCLAIMER: I am not a journalist. I am a partisan commentator.
This is a cool link, and I think you should check it out. It shows you how much less your annual SS benefit will be under Bush's plan (at least what they'll release bout the plan) vs. under the current plan.
You can go read all the details behind how they claim to be making the calculations.
Who has time for that? Not me, the partisan commentator. If one of you journalists out there want to prove their calculations are all wrong, go for it!
Thanks to Talking Points Memo for links to the well-reasoned thoughts of both Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein on the topic of Social Security.
And since we're linking to interesting women's thoughts on Social Security, check out the long, multi-part, thoughtful series on Social Security written by this blogger at her Time Goes By blog. She writes about the issues facing Americans as they age, and obviously spends a lot of time on Social Security. It's definitely worth the investment of time to read her thoughts.
I hope no one is getting bored of Social Security talk, but after all it is the linchpin of Bush's second term.
Of course some people think it's going to do as much for him as the health care plan Clinton tried to introduce did for him!
There is something new to talk about because they've finally started revealing some of the actual details behind their grand "privatization" scheme. It boggles the mind.
Look, here's what you should know:
1. It doesn't solve the Social Security "problem" of needing to dole out more $$ than was taken in.
2. It's still not going to be "your" money. You'll set it aside, and then you'll still give it back to the government for them to dole out. And you still might not ever get back all you put in. And no one gets to inherit what you don't pull out. So again, it is not "your money."
But, as I often admit, economics is not my subject, so I'll let a couple of other folks explain:
Pandagon explains it all to you.
But wait! There's more! Pandagon then realizes he made a little mistake...it's even worse than he originally thought!
Lastly, Digby suggests, with only a little irony, that the Democrats simply offer up today's Social Security as the viable alternative!
Things surely aren't going as Bush had hoped or intended.
But then people on his own side keep mucking up the works:
1. I doubt it helps Bush to have representative Thomas talking about associating benefits with race and gender. I know they have some strange kind of rationale for it, but it just sounds suspect. And certainly it might play better in the African-american community if they worried as much about finding out why black men have shorter life spans and addressing that issue, rather than using it as an excuse to muck around with their benefits.
2. And despite Bull Moose suggesting that the right, flexible point of view could help Bush use the vast amount of public resistance as a helpful tool, his sources indicate that stubbornness (oops, of course I mean "resolve") is going to rule the day as per usual.
3. The example Bush trotted out to trumpet the SS privatization (actually Phase-out) concept has recently proven to be disastrous for people retiring. In addition, old Bush quotes about Social Security and its impending doom demonstrate that he'll say just about anything, manufacture any crisis he can to pursue his agenda.
I look to ShortWoman.com as I often do to help me understand economic issue in a clear, simple way. She provides just such a wonderful public service in her latest Social Security post.
UPDATED: Should also have included this Krugman column debunking the Social Security and Race card thrown by the Administration.
Republican Language on Taxes:
Democrats who oppose tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of our population and who want to get rid of corporate off-shoring loopholes are for raising taxes.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is closing the California budget gap by, among other measures, eliminating the rent tax credit for many elderly Californians, is lauded for keeping his pledge to not raise taxes.
Can someone explain to me how opposing a tax cut for the wealthy is "raising taxes", but eliminating a tax credit for the elderly (wealthy or not) is not?
I'm completely flummoxed.
I can't help it...I think this is an important issue for Democrats to stick to their guns on. Before Social Security the majority of elderly in the country fell into living under the poverty line after retirement.
That's not OK for a civilized society. And unless all those right-wing folks screaming for Social Security Reduction are ready to go back to the multi-generational living arrangements that I'm sure they talk about, misty-eyed, as being how we handled caring for our parents' generation in the "good old days", they better think about that.
You know it's not just the working generation that might not want that...our parents might not want to be living with a bunch of screaming kids under one roof either, you know? Being turned into de facto babysitters. Don't they deserve a little peace and quiet, and their own home and security in their old age?
Anyway, two more interesting missives on Social Security from Paul Krugman:
The myth of the Social Security "Iceberg", and why Karl Rove and the Bush Administration is doing everything they can to get you to believe in it.
A Real-Life Example of a partially privatized Social Security System...and why it's failing.
[Registration Required on both]
It's up to us folks. We have to let our representatives know if we object to Bush's Social Security Elimination program.
Don't forget the good commentary on it that I've already linked to. And here are some more links to help you decide whether you're against it or not:
A little comparison from Talking Points Memo (one of his many posts on the topic.)
Quotes from this week's Democratic Party radio address
If Bush's plan was really a solution, why would he have to mislead about the state of Social Security, defer budgeting for his plan, and send secret emails? Short answer: he wouldn't.
Let's nip this in the bud.
UPDATED: Coincidentally, Krugman's column in the Times today was about this very issue, so it would be remiss of me not to add it to the list at the bottom.
----------------
I was talking to my mom yesterday, and it occurred to me that we lend Dubya a little moral support every time we discuss "Social Security privatization."
It's "Social Security Elimination" that he's shooting for, and in the interest of leaving Republican framing behind and joining the reality-based community, we should start calling it like it is.
Here are some sources to back you up:
Read anything Matthew Yglesias writes about Social Security.
A little Paul Krugman on the issue.
Mark Cuban on the issue (with a link to Michael Kinsley on the issue.)
Up to the minute Krugman on the issue.
I dare you to read this NY Times report on how Bush intends to keep his "reduce the deficit by half" campaign promise and not feel completely appalled.
Start with some phony numbers, exclude some known costs, and project wildly improved revenues without much supporting evidence.
Boy, I think I should start budgeting like this.
From Mark Cuban.
I have to say this guy's blog never disappoints. I don't care if it's all a pose, he poses as a straightforward, plain speaking, no-nonsense, millionaire regular guy better than anybody.
And here he gives what seems to be a simple, obvious explanation of why Bush's plans for Social Security Suck! (Couldn't resist the alliteration.)
Check out his post, and the Kinsley piece he refers to in it here.
While Dubya seems to think he's got his economic policies in "sharp focus" and not only that, a mandate to execute on said policies...his traditional allies are backing slooowly away.
According to this article in the WaPo anyway.
Seems different groups who were previously supporting Dubya think these new, radical, and shall we say potentially disastrous policies are scaring them off because they think they will be...you guessed it...bad for the economy.
Aww. Poor Dubya.
By removing the tax deduction business owners get for giving employees health benefits, apparently.
Once again, favoring the better off vs. the getting by.
From Atrios
Why?
Fears of our ever-growing deficits and reliance on foreign...no, not oil this time...investment and acquisition of our debt.
Source: Washington post
Still ranting at my Personal Blog.
But here, in a much more measured tone, I am simply going to point out that from Day One, Bush's destructive policies are on full display:
They didn't want to bring it up pre-election, but exactly one day post-election, Bush needs Congress to raise the debt ceiling, or we won't be able to conduct a T-Bill auction scheduled for 11/18.
I'm betting that if I wanted to simply come to this blog every day and post one bad thing the Bush Administration did the previous day, it would be a piece of cake.
Oh, that's right, he can't. He's always got that odd, smirky look on his face.
It must be because he can't believe people actually listen to some of his stump speech rhetoric and take it seriously.
I have heard Bush say, quite seriously, that this is the fastest growing economy ever and we've turned the corner, and blah blah blah. Well, maybe living in the White House surrounded by people who won't let you hear any bad news could give you that impression.
But the rest of us live in the real world. Do you think things are growing rapidly? Do you feel like everything is on the road to economic nirvana?
The latest economic indicators only support the fact that this economy is slowing down from the snail's pace it was on.
But it's no surprise to most of us.
Interesting item over at Atrios about social security.
Most interesting of all is his link to a salon.com story by James Galbraith stating that the conventional wisdom that Social Security is "running out of money" is just not so.
You need to watch a brief ad to view the whole Salon story if you're not a Premium member, but it's worth it.
Bush's plan is not only a disaster for the rapidly approaching retirement age baby boomers, but also for the generation right behind.
And we know he'll saddle the next couple of generation with huge debt and deficits.
I'm not anxious to figure out how Bush could screw the few generations after that with another 4-year term, are you?
Wanna guess who has done better on all of the accepted measures of economic policy since WW II?
Well, you might not be surprised to find out it's Democrats.
There is great data, and therefore great ammunition in the extended entry. Please forward to all of your "fiscally conservative" friends.
From the LA Times:
WHO MANAGES THE ECONOMY BETTER - REPUBLICANS OR DEMOCRATS?
Arthur I. Blaustein
A businessman who voted for Bush four years ago, and Clinton in '96, told me, "John Kerry sounds really impressive and I have to admit that the goals of his
social programs - particularly health care, education and the environment - seem good. But I'm worried the Democrats can't manage the economy as well and they'll get into my wallet."
Many voters agree, and a recent poll shows that the majority cites the economy as their top concern. For years the pollsters have found that most voters believe the Republicans do better with the economy. I've heard the businessman's basic point - that the Democrats have better social policies but the Republicans are better managers of the economy - more often than I've heard Judy Garland sing "Over the Rainbow." But is it true?
Don't count on this question being examined and answered in a full, open, and honest debate. Twenty-five years ago, we entered an entirely new phase of presidential politics. The focus now is on who can raise the most money and package the best media image, rather than who can demonstrate the most
competence and capacity to govern. Our country's political, economic, and social life has been reduced to a battle of fifteen-second sound bites and
thirty-second commercials, with results reported like a football score. TV news has turned democracy into "duhmocracy."
Fortunately, we don't have to depend on campaign slogans or advertising bucks to frame the debate. We can look to the record. Here's the Economic Sweepstakes Quiz. The rules are simple. Guess which president since World War II did best on these eight most generally accepted measures of good management of the nation's economy.
You can choose among six Republicans: Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bushes I and II; and five Democrats: Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. (No peeking.)
Which president produced:
1. The highest growth in the gross domestic product?
2. The highest growth in jobs?
3. The biggest increase in personal disposable income after taxes?
4. The highest growth in industrial production?
5. The highest growth in hourly wages?
6. The lowest Misery Index (inflation plus unemployment)?
7. The lowest inflation?
8. The largest reduction in the deficit?
The answers are:
1. Harry Truman, 2. Bill Clinton, 3. Lyndon Johnson, 4. John F. Kennedy, 5. Johnson, 6. Truman, 7. Truman, 8. Clinton.
In the Economic Sweepstakes, Democratic presidents trounce Republicans eight times out of eight! If this isn't enough to destroy the myth that the economy has performed better under Republicans, the stock market has also done better under the Democrats. The Dow Jones Industrial Average during the twentieth century has risen 7.3 percent on average per year under Republican presidents. Under Democrats, it rose 10.3 percent - which means investors gained a whopping 41 percent more. And the stock market declined 4 percent, on average, during George W's first three years.
Moreover, since WWII, Democratic presidents have increased the national debt by an average of 3.7% per year and Republican presidents have increased it an
average of 9.1%. During the same time period, Democratic presidents produced, on average, an unemployment rate of 4.8%; Republicans, 6.3%.
That's the historical record.
What about present policies? The Clinton-Gore administration presided over the
longest peacetime economic expansion in our history. The national debt was reduced dramatically, the industrial sector boomed, wages grew, and more
Americans found jobs. How has the Bush-Cheney team fared? In the past three years, we have experienced the weakest job creation cycle since the Great Depression, record household debt, a record bankruptcy rate, and a substantial increase in poverty. We have gone from being the nation with the biggest budget surplus in history to becoming the nation with the largest deficit in history.
Bush believes the free market will solve America's economic problems. Kerry, on the other hand, maintains that government has the responsibility to
keep our economy on the right track. Kerry says he will work toward reducing the debt and deficit. He pledges to help the middle class and the working poor
by maintaining benefit levels and eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit. He will hold the line on our tax progressivity and fairness, by rolling back
the Bush tax giveaways to taxpayers earning over $200,000 annually. And Kerry wants to target health care, education, affordable housing, and the
environment with critical investments.
Bush wants to privatize Social Security and Medicare, although he gets dangerously vague about this at election time. To finance government spending in the wake of his tax cuts for the wealthy, Bush is borrowing heavily from the Social Security Trust Fund. At the same time, the United States owes huge amounts to foreign investors, and the federal debt has soared 29% since Bush took office, to reach $7.3 trillion. George W. is mired in the failed economic policies of his Republican predecessors. In 1980, Bush I called
supply-side policies "voodoo economics." But he embraced these "trickle-down" policies in order to become vice-president and then president. Reagan and Bush's royalist economic policies of the '80's were failures - a fool's paradise built on the sands of borrowed time and borrowed money. The consequences were staggering debt, industrial decline, shrinking wages, two painful recessions, increased poverty, and structural unemployment. The reckless Reagan-Bush spending and borrowing brought us to the brink of
social catastrophe and economic depression.
Claims of compassion aside, Bush II has emerged as nothing more than a supply-sider in the mold of his father and his father's former boss. Since George W. Bush took office, corporate profits have gone up 57.5%, while workers' wages and benefits have increased a miniscule 1.57%. That shows just who is the object of Bush's compassion. The Bush administration, supported by Republicans on Capitol Hill, pushed through a sweeping tax cut in
2001, under which the wealthiest one percent of Americans reaped 43 percent of the gain. In less than a year and a half, the federal government's 10-year
projected budget surplus of $1.6 trillion has vanished. In 2000, we had a surplus of $236 billion. In 2003, we had a deficit of $375 billion. This dramatic reversal is the direct consequence of Bush's tax cuts.
Since then, the Bush administration's answer for the nation's economic woes is two more tax cuts for the wealthy individuals and corporations who, by no
coincidence, contribute to the Bush campaign. It's "trickle-down" economics with a vengeance. In denying the tax cut's role in the nation's current problems, and placing the blame instead on 9/11 and corporate malfeasance, the administration is trying to cook the books - not unlike Enron, WorldCom, and Arthur Andersen.
Back during the 2000 campaign, Bush and Cheney took pains to brag about their CEO credentials. We've since learned exactly what kind of real world skills
the pair picked up: fudging, manipulating, wheedling government contracts and favors, and generally working the system for all it's worth. Bush and Cheney have been schooled in a corporate culture that believes success is achieved by exploiting the government, the economy, and the environment. They have brought that same culture to the White House. To them the national treasury is a personal piggy bank they use to quietly reward the Haliburtons, Enrons, and the same CEOs they have so loudly attacked in the media.
In 2004 we need genuine leadership in Washington. We don't need more quick-fix schemes or lopsided tax cuts. With four more years of George W. practicing
Reaganomics II we could wake up one morning on the economic endangered nations list. Deficits and debt could strangle our economy for the next generation; and all but the wealthy will have a tough time making ends meet. John Kerry has demonstrated a willingness to confront these painful realities. On overall economic policy, he offers qualities indispensable to genuine leadership for America - patience, fairness, candor, and vision. We need an administration that understands and believes in coherent, comprehensive
and equitable policies that promote sustainable economic growth - and, on that count, Democrats have the winning record.
Arthur Blaustein was chairman of the President's National Advisory Council on Economic Opportunity during the Carter administration. He is a professor
at the University of California, Berkeley, where he teaches social and economic policy. His most recent books are Make a Difference and The American Promise.
I've heard that job figures are due to be release very close to the election, and they could have quite an impact on the race.
Well, if these figures about projected lay-offs and hiring for September are any indication, it's not going to be such good thing for the incumbents.
Check it out in this article from the Daily Kos.
Mark Cuban is a very wealthy man. Owner of the Dallas Mavericks, star of a new series called "The Benefactor."
I know him more from my days in the cable industry, as he is also the owner HDNet, a network providing solely HD content.
He has started a blog, and while I haven't read a lot of it yet, I have a feeling I'm going to enjoy it. He seems like a straight-talking and unpredictable kind of guy.
He has a statement about outsourcing/offshoring in a recent blog entry that completely aligns with my usual rants on it. Only perhaps coming from this extremely wealthy businessman, rather than me, it will carry more weight.
The excerpt just on offshoring is in the extended entry.
Check out the entire entry here.
Offshoring, according to Mark Cuban:
Where I have an issue, and where I think there needs to be controls put in place, is when corporate insiders in essence put the money saved from outsourcing in their own pockets. If you go through the list of companies that outsource and start looking at stock sales, bonuses and other incentives, you quickly see that a material portion of the money saved is going into the pockets of insiders. That’s wrong. Or the outsourcing is being used to hit a Wall Street expectation for quarterly earnings, maintaining stock prices and enabling insider stock sales. That’s wrong.
If we want to make outsourcing the route of last resort and to make sure its only used when it makes absolute business sense, Prevent insiders from selling stock or earning corporate bonuses in any year they outsource jobs.
The latest work out of this Republican Congress confirms what you probably already suspected: the President and his party have given up all pretense of caring about those out of the top-most segment of American society.
And in this election year, the Democrats have given in to the Republican spin machine, in fear for their jobs.
And you know what? You can blame the Democrats and the few remaining Republican moderates for not holding firm against the right wing of the Republican Party, carrying out their leader's wishes. You can do that, but it would be ignoring one basic fact: it is the people who have punished those who try to hold the line on tax cuts. The Republicans make the claim that voting against tax cut = voting for tax increases, and it is the people who buy that claim.
It's not extending the tax cuts for the middle class that bothers me. It's doing it while refusing to pay for it, so our deficit picture just gets worse and worse. And it's making sure to protect the tax cuts for the wealthy and to add $13 billion more in tax cuts for corporations, while at the same time making sure that some of the lowest-income families don't get their tax cut extended.
But one compassionate Republican Congressperson has the answer for that: ""The tax credit is for taxpayers,'' said Senator Don Nickles, Republican of Oklahoma. "If you want to change the welfare system, then change the welfare system.''
Truly, they are the big tent party.
Source:
NY Times
Washington Post
OK, perhaps this is just a local issue.
Why, oh why, does the local media do stories about poor commutes as though it was a plus, a positive, a good thing for you and me?
ESPECIALLY when the latest job figures show that FEWER people are employed?
I know people like to think the Mercury is liberal, but what other reason can they have for touting a big headline "The Back-ups are Back!", and then only putting in small print that no one can explain why, given the crappy job market.
People: back in the boom, when people listed issues that were the biggest concerns to them...traffic came up number one. More than taxes or education or other stuff. Traffic.
People don't like it. It really degrades your quality of life.
And I'd really like the local media to stop trying to cheer us UP by bragging about traffic, okay?
Rant over.
You asked for it; you got it...Kerry & Edwards on the offensive.
And more to the point...finally getting some press coverage for it.
In the Washington Post. In the New York Times. And again.
And yet some Democrats just can't help themselves. They have to keep giving their free and very public advice to the campaign. Listen, if you didn't get a campaign job by now., You're probably not going to, okay?
Kerry had an Op-Ed piece published in the Wall Street Journal on how he would approach the economy.
This is kind of unusual, because while the news pages of the WSJ are as balanced as can be expected from a mainstream media source, its Op-Ed pages have been filled with quite right-wing editorials for years.
I'm sure that must have been part of why Kerry would go for publishing his piece there.
Anyway, read it. It's quite comprehensive. And certainly way more detailed and specific than anything you'll ever catch coming out of the mouths of Bush or any of his surrogates.
I'm not getting something here. The headline trumpets that the unemployment rate has gone way down in the Valley.
But then the article says that the number of jobs has gone down too. So there are actually fewer people employed than there were before. How could the unemployment rate go down then?
Because people have left the state or stopped looking and are no longer getting unemployment benefits.
How is this a good headline? How is this good news?
Because when people move out they stop paying taxes; they stop being consumers. We lose revenue.
But it's a liberal media, uh huh.
Here's a good one from Alan Greenspan.
If it weren't for the surge in oil prices, our economy would be growing at a strong rate.
Yeah? Well, if it weren't for all of those desserts and fatty foods I ate, I would be losing weight at a faster rate.
Really. What kind of argument is that? If it weren't for the truth, we'd have a different truth.
Whatever.