This is the last weekend of "Ned Mania." Well, maybe not if he wins. But whatever happens this weekend, it's time for the Dems to really hit home with a message. I realize that Iraq is probably the most important issue out there. However, the economy is a close second.
According to Polling Report, the economy ranked second in priorities in polls by Harris, ABC News, CBS/NYT and Fox news. All of these polls were conducted in the last month. So, why are people so concerned about the economy? Isn't it doing great? Aren't GDP numbers awesome? Yes they are. But the central question of this recovery is "who's getting a bigger piece of the economic pie?" And the answer there is corporations and the top 20% of income earners are all disproportionately benefiting.
Let's start with tax cuts. Here's an old joke: I had a cold so I went to a Republican doctor. He told me to take two tax cuts. When listening to Republicans you'd think that tax cuts were the panacea for literally every economic ill in the country. However, Republicans favorite tax cuts have gone to the wealthy. For example, according to the
Tax Policy Center income earners over $100,000/year pay 77.7% of estate and gift taxes. According to the
Tax Policy Center, 66.5% of incomes over $100,000 are affected by qualifying capital gains and dividends taxes. However, also according to the
Tax Policy Center incomes over 100,000 comprise 12.73% of all taxpayers. In other words, the estate tax and capital gains/dividend taxes - which the Republicans' policies clearly favor - only benefit upper-income taxpayers who comprise a clear minority of all US taxpayers.
Then there are corporations. In 2004 Bush signed a temporary provision into law:
...including a one-year reduction from 35 percent to 5.25 percent on foreign profits for U.S. multinationals. The provision was strongly backed by the technology industry despite criticisms that the break rewards corporations that outsource jobs overseas.
All of these tax cuts are supposed to help everybody eventually by "trickling down" to those not directly affected by the tax cuts. So - how's the trickling down going?
Poorly. First, Bush's compound rate of establishment job growth of .71% is the lowest of any recovery in the last 40 years. So, all of these tax cuts are clearly not leading to massive new job creation.
And all that new corporate money coming in from overseas is not increasing pay after inflation. 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%.
If you don't believe the BLS, how about the Federal Reserve?
The survey shows that, over the 2001-04 period, the median value of real (inflation-adjusted) family income before taxes continued to trend up, rising 1.6%, whereas the mean value fell 2.3 percent....These results stand in contract ot the strong and broad gains seen for the period 1998 and 2001 surveys and to the smaller but similarly broad gains between the 1995 and 1998 surveys.
I know -- the Federal Reserve is Full of Liberals. Maybe the Census Bureau isn't:
The of course there's the increase in the number of people living in poverty. It seems Bush is trying to set the record for total number of people living in poverty, doesn't it?
Notice how the number of people living in poverty decreased in every other expansion of five years or longer before this one? That just screams "SOMETHING'S WRONG"
The bottom line is the Republicans have already declared a class war. And they have a head start.