Economy is Bush's downfall.
Find a Conversation
| Wed, 08-11-2004 - 11:20am |
Sometimes I sympathize with President Bush. Really.
Last week's dismal report on job creation -- a scant 32,000 jobs created versus 240,000 expected -- left our re-election-seeking president little wiggle room on the economic front.
"Economic growth is strong and getting stronger," Bush told a gathering of minority journalists after the jobs number was released.
It can't be easy to have to defend your economic policies when all evidence suggests that average Americans are worse off today than they were four years ago.
Here are just a few of the numbers:
-- When Bush took office on Jan. 20, 2001, the Dow Jones industrial average was at 10,587.59. It closed Tuesday at 9,944.67.
-- When Bush took office, the unemployment rate was 4.2 percent. It's now 5.5 percent, according to the Labor Department.
-- When Bush took office, U.S. consumer debt totaled almost $1.7 trillion. It's now $2.038 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve.
-- When Bush took office, bankruptcy filings during the previous year totaled almost 1.3 million, down 5 percent from a year before. By Dec. 31, 2003, bankruptcies had hit a record of nearly 1.7 million, up 5.2 percent from 2002, according to the American Bankruptcy Institute.
-- When Bush took office, the federal budget had been balanced for three straight years and was, in the 2000 fiscal year, running a surplus of $236 billion -- the largest in U.S. history. The White House is projecting a record budget deficit this year of $445 billion.
All this must be placed in context, though. When Bush came to power, the U.S. economy was at the tail end of a dot-com-fueled bubble that couldn't have been sustained under any circumstances. A recession, most economists believe, was all but inevitable.
Then there was Sept. 11.
A tough hand
"Every president is dealt a hand of cards," said John Shoven, a Stanford University economist and senior fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution. "Bush inherited a pretty tough hand."
The average American is indeed worse off now than four years ago, he said. But Shoven gives Bush "a passing grade, maybe a B-plus," for his handling of the economy.
"Overall, the economy has performed pretty well given the shocks it has faced," he said, adding that credit for this "has to be significantly shared with Alan Greenspan," the Fed chief, who boosted a key interest rate Tuesday by a quarter-point.
Jared Bernstein, senior economist at the liberal Economic Policy Institute in Washington, agreed that Bush was dealt a tough hand when he took office.
"What he failed to do, though, was take decisive action to ameliorate the problems he inherited," Bernstein said.
The president's key economic error, he said, was to attempt to stimulate the economy by skewing the benefits of three tax cuts toward wealthy Americans.
According to Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal-leaning Washington think tank, nearly 40 percent of the benefits from Bush's tax cuts will go to the richest 1 percent of Americans, those earning on average $1 million a year.
By contrast, only about 17 percent of the benefits will go to the 60 percent of the population earning $45,000 or less.
"The tax cuts made no sense as a stimulus measure," said Bob McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice. "If you want to stimulate the economy, you have to give money to people who don't already have it."
Bernstein said a crucial problem for many Americans today is that wages are significantly lagging behind inflation.
Prices up 3%
During the past 12 months, average hourly earnings increased by 1.9 percent, according to the Labor Department. Consumer prices, meanwhile, have risen by about 3 percent.
"The middle-income family is definitely worse off than four years ago," Bernstein said.
He noted that it would take extraordinary growth -- about 400,000 new jobs a month between now and November -- for Bush to avoid the dubious distinction of being the first president since Herbert Hoover to see a net decline in jobs during a term of office.
"We are more than a million jobs below where we were at the employment peak in March 2001," Bernstein observed.
Even Shoven at the Hoover Institution had to acknowledge the seriousness of the job-loss situation. "It's bad," he said.
People I spoke with in random encounters this week conveyed a clear perception that things are tougher for them economically than when Bush first took power.
"Real estate's through the roof, gas prices, tolls, food, movies, cigarettes -- everything's gone up," observed Ron Cairns, 40, a Redwood City electrician. "But wages have stayed the same."
Cairns, a Democrat, blamed Bush for most of the current difficulties.
"Everyone's in a state of fear," he said, "worrying about the war and worrying about their next paycheck."
Niles Helmboldt, 37, a San Francisco banker and a Republican, offered an almost identical perspective.
"I'm not as well off as I was," he acknowledged. "My cost of living has gone up, but wages have not kept pace."
Not helping
Is this Bush's fault?
"I don't see his economic policies helping," Helmboldt replied. "It's not a pretty picture."
After it was reported last week that just 32,000 jobs were created in July and that 61,000 fewer jobs were created in May and June than previously estimated, the president did his best to put all the grim news in a positive light.
"Today's employment report shows our economy is continuing to move forward," he said. "And it reminds us that we're in a changing economy and we've got more to do.
"I'm not going to be satisfied until everybody who wants to work can find a job," Bush added. "I'm running (for re-election) because I understand how to take a strong economy and make it stronger."
All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.


Pages
WARNING TO ALL USA CITIZENS:
If anything at all ever does 'trickle down' from this Bush-economy,
please do JUMP OUT OF THE WAY QUICKLY-
as it would be nothing you would like to splatter onto your clothing ...
ForeverHugs,
--Genie
"By contrast, only about 17 percent of the benefits will go to the 60 percent of the population earning $45,000 or less." I'm sorry if this confused you. It doesn't mean everyone making under $45K gets a 17% tax cut. It means that 17% of the total tax cut monies are targeted to that group.
Did you know that the median income of the top 10% of wage earners in this country is just a hair over $90K. I'll bet many of you on this board would consider that "rich." Tax 'em more! You couldn't pay a mortgage and raise two kids where I live on that income. I know, because it's exacly what my dh makes, and I still have to work pt.
Edited 8/11/2004 11:54 pm ET ET by joywriter1
The national unemployment rate declined to 5.5 percent in July — down from a peak of 6.3 percent in June 2003 and the lowest rate since October 2001. At 5.5 percent, the unemployment rate is below the average of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Economists used to call 5.5 percent “full employment” because it’s natural to have some people between jobs or looking for a first job no matter how good the economy is.
Here in Wisconsin unemployment is five percent. Manufacturing has been especially hard hit in our state, but by last June we had 5,300 more durable goods factory jobs than a year earlier.
Consumer Confidence Index jumped to 106.1 in July, compared to 102.8 in June. These are not meaningless numbers. The July confidence index was the fourth consecutive month of increases. The index is now at its highest level in more than two years, going back to June 2002. The Conference Board (private research group) pointed out that it's Expectations Index jumped from 100.8 in June to 105.8 in July. These numbers, especially when added to the University of Michigan's Consumer Sentiment Index reading, gave economists reason for hope. The University of Michigan's numbers were also better on a month-to-month basis.
The above numbers tend to confirm the observations that Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan made recently before both houses of Congress. He delivered a fairly upbeat mid-year assessment of the economy, and tried to assure the lawmakers that the economy has now moved into a solid economic recovery that would be "self-sustaining". The numbers and the experts feel we are still on the right economic track. Consumer confidence will continue to creat jobs.
This is a "news" board, therefore links are provided to back-up opinions or refute false statements made by others. Many are so entrenched in their POV that any amount of proof doesn't allow them to see another's side
"Bankruptcy has become an easy way out"
For some
"I'll bet many of you on this board would consider that "rich." "
Actually, no.
$200K yes, or at least they SB, unless they live in NY city or some other expencive area.
Some people who debate provied links as a courtesy and information to support their point in a debate, has nothing to do with not trusting own pov. The people who don't like it are more likely those find the facts get in the way and resent having to refute them.
By the way many debaters from both sides of an issue provide links and it is a courtesy that many appreciate. I find it an odd complaint considering that even Bush provides information/stats etc to officailly back up his arguments on policy decisions.
Edited 8/12/2004 9:55 am ET ET by alfreda_iv
Nope!
It is considered a courtesy to back up quotes of statistics, etc., with links to where they were obtained.
I got to jump in here! :-)
It amazes me how we can blame the whole economy on one person! Yep! He did it all himself. No one else had anything to do with it! :-)
Second, we seem to forget that it takes a few years for things to happen. See, when Clinton took office, the economy was just getting better. Therefore, Clinton had everything to do with it. When he left, the economy began to fall. So of course the second Bush walked in, he pulled the jobs out from under. No. It takes time, like a few years. Often, what the current administration is seeing is from the previous administrations efforts and work. So not only did Bush walk into a falling economy, 911 didn't help.
Third, do we forget that 911 was not that long ago? So many people seem to forget what happened. It's not going to be an easy recovery. It's still going to take time. But no one has any patience.
Fourth, we are also forgetting about those who work from home, or provide an outsource service. This area has increased.
Finally, this is really out there but I have to say, Blame it on Walmart. Walmart has come in and caused a lot of local businesses to fail. Yes, they do provide lots of jobs, but it makes me sad to see how the small businesses can't compete. Even Toys R Us is having trouble because of Walmart. And Walmart toys do not even compare (they are such crap--80% of it is). So don't forget that big companies like Walmart are yielding a lot of power.
Debbie
------------------------------------
~ ~ Follow your passion!:&n
Pages