Raw Story is claiming it has obtained a copy of the
GOP election playbook. All of the points made therein are crap -- as in pure crap. Assuming this is the true playbook, here are the basic rebuttals to the economic claims made therein. This information is free to all to use.
Job Growth:
Since August 2003, the economy has created 5.4 million jobs in 34 consecutive months of job gains, 121,000 in June. The nation's unemployment rate remains a low 4.6%
First, the expansion started in November 2001, not August 2003. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
Beginning number of jobs: 130,883,000
Ending number of jobs: 135,343,000
Total Jobs Created: 4,460,000
Compound rate of establishment job growth: .71%
This is the lowest compound rate of establishment job growth in 40 years. The second lowest compound rate of job growth occurred in the 1990s. That rate was 2.01%.
Even using the Republicans incorrect figures, the economy is only creating about 158,000 jobs/month. The economy has to create 150,000/month to keep up with population growth. In addition, the compound rate of establishment job growth for the Republican figures is 1.4% -- still the lowest in the last 40 years. In other words - using their numbers - the rate of job growth still sucks. The Republicans can't even rig this number to look good.
Update [2006-8-6 14:18:47 by bonddad]:: The following graph is from zfacts. It compares the jobs promised from the tax cuts versus jobs actually created:
Wage Growth:
Average hourly compensation has risen by 3.9% over the past year, while average weekly earnings have growth 4.6%.
The Republican Playbook does not adjust for inflation. Here are the inflation-adjusted numbers.
According to the National Bureau of Economic Analysis, this expansion started in November 2001 when according to the Bureau of Labor Statistic the average hourly pay of non-supervisory workers was $14.70. This figure was $16.62 in May of 2006 for an increase of 13.06%. Over the same period, the inflation gage according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics increased from 177.4 to 202.5, or an increase of 14.15%. Therefore, wages for non-supervisory employees have decreased a little over 1% since this expansion began.
However, the unemployment rate dropped below 5% in December 2005, signaling "full employment". Has the decrease in labor supply increased wages? No. In December 2005 the average hourly wage of non-supervisory employees was $16.35. In May that number was $16.62 for an increase of 1.65%. Over the same period, the overall inflation measure increased from 196.8 to 202.5 or an increase of 2.89%. Therefore, since the economy hit "full employment" wages have decreased 1.25%.
From the Christian Science Monitor:
The Surging Tax Revenues Argument:
Federal tax revenues are surging, aided by Republican pro-growth strategies. Tax revenues are up 12.8% to date this fiscal year, on top of last year's 14.6% increase.
All information here is from the CBO
Yes, tax revenues did increase after 2003 from 793 billion to 927 - an increase of 16%. Considering the economy was 1 1/2 years into an expansion, it's logical that tax rates would increase. However, tax revenues from individual taxpayers were $927 billion in 2005 and $994 billion in 2001. In other words, revenues from individuals are still below the levels when Bush took office, although they will probably be higher this year.
Tax revenues from individuals always increase during an expansion; that's what always happens according to history. For example, consider the 1970s - a decade that saw no Laffer curve cuts and two expansions, the first from November 1970 to November 1973 and the second from March 1975 to January 1980. The first expansion saw tax revenues increased from $90 billion to $103 billion - an increase of 14% (a few percentage points shy of Bush's total increase from the lows of 2003) and the second expansion saw an increase from $122 to $217 billion or an increase of 77.86%. And this gain in revenue is dwarfed by the 1990s expansion, which saw revenues increase from $509 billion in 1993 to $1 trillion in 2000 - an increase of 96%. Funny, I don't remember any crowing about that from the likes of Kudlow and his ilk.
The Decreasing Deficit Argument
The OMB cut its 2006 federal budget deficit projection by almost a third, to 296 billion, 2.3 of GDP and equal to the historical average, showing we are accelerating our progress toward balancing the budget.
This is Bullshit:
All of the information below is from the Bureau of Public Debt.
In 2002, the total deficit was $157 billion. Yet total debt outstanding increased from $5.807 trillion to $6.228 trillion, or $421 billion.
In 2003, the total deficit was $377 billion, yet total debt outstanding increased from $6.228 trillion to $6.783 trillion, or $555 billion.
In 2004, the total deficit was $412 billion, yet total debt outstanding increased from $6.783 trillion to $7.379 trillion, or $596 billion.
In 2005, the total deficit was $318 billion, yet total debt outstanding increased from $7.379 trillion to $7.932 trillion or $553 billion.
So far in 2006, total debt outstanding has increased from $7.932 to $8.413 trillion, or $481 billion.
Notice that in each of the last 5 years, the total amount of debt issued was larger than the reported fiscal deficit. In addition, notice that total amount of debt is between $553 billion to $596 billion for the last 3 years. There are two and a half more months in fiscal 2006, so we'll have to wait and see what happens. However, the outlook does not look promising especially considering the US Treasury has issued a near record amount of debt this year.
The fact the Treasury is issuing over 550 billion in debt per year for the last three years indicates there is a really big structural problem with US finances. And -- guess what -- the Republicans aren't dealing with it (look -- over there -- two gay people who want to get married!)
Update [2006-8-6 12:44:50 by bonddad]:: Thanks to Java4every1 for this graph, which really does say it all about the national debt:
Cutting Government Spending
The Republicans are claiming they froze non-defense, non-discretionary spending. OK - they did. What they don't mention is the massive increase in discretionary spending. According to the Congressional Budget Office discretionary spending was $649 billion in 2001 and $967 billion in 2005. That's a 48% increase. In fact, the Cato Institute - a bastion of liberal thought and action - called Bush the biggest spender since LBJ. I'm sure that's a name the Republicans would love to be compared to.
There you go - debunk away.