April 14, 2004
HOLY CONVOLUTIONS, PLASTIC MAN:
Middle-Class Misery (THE NEW DEM DAILY, 13-Apr-04)
Just a month ago, Bush administration and GOP officials wanted to discuss just about anything other than the sorry job-creation record of George W. Bush. Now, after one month of good jobs numbers (which hardly puts a dent in the more than two million jobs lost during the Bush presidency to date), Republicans want to talk about little else on the domestic policy front.But the nation's economic prospects cannot be adequately captured by any one statistic. That's why we are glad to see Sen. John Kerry draw attention to the overall performance of the W. economy with a new and more comprehensive measurement that he calls the "Middle-class Misery Index."
This new yardstick, explained in a report released by the Kerry campaign yesterday, includes seven economic indicators: median family income, college tuitions, health costs, gasoline costs, bankruptcies, the homeownership rate, and private-sector job growth.
Then multiply by the speed of light and take the cube root and you'll have your age in dog years. Posted by Orrin Judd at April 14, 2004 9:45 PM
Gregg Easterbrook does a nice job taking this apart. The killer? According to the Kerry-Heinz-Misery index, things have never been better than in 1978.
Posted by: David Cohen at April 14, 2004 10:05 PM"In fact, it's less than half the miserable level reached in 1980, the last year of the Carter administration, and better than in any of Clinton's first four years:"
But wait, what if the Superbowl winner used to be in the AFL? I'm so confused...
Posted by: mike earl at April 14, 2004 10:55 PMI love that 300,000 jobs is "hardly a dent" in 2 million. By my count, it's 15%. That's "hardly a dent?"
Posted by: Timothy at April 15, 2004 12:58 AMWell, I love that this is called the "W. economy," as if a president is God and sits on a throne in the Oval Office dictating the ups and downs of capitalism.
That this notion is so widely accepted -- the idea that a president is "responsible" for "the economy" -- is depressing proof just how little the American people understand what freedom or constitutional government actually mean.
Quit blaming presidents for "the economy," and quit giving them credit for it either!
Posted by: tomcat at April 15, 2004 1:25 AMTomcat:
But government policy does affect the economy, for good or evil. Stalin, Mao, and Castro all managed to cripple their economies with their inept policies.
The problem is the impatience of the demos. What is needed is the wisdom to institute the proper economic system, and the willingness to suffer the short term ups and downs that inevitably occur. But we live in a society which expects instant response to temporary problems.
Posted by: jd watson at April 15, 2004 2:44 AMThe government does effect the economy, though it doesn't control it. I have no problem with holding the President responsible, as the policies that would tend to improve the economy over time are policies I tend to favor. The problem is that it only matters for about six months out of every four years, which is a recipe for economic disaster.
Posted by: David Cohen at April 15, 2004 9:34 AMa reasonable option would be to extend the presidency to 6 years, time enough for policies to have an effect (not to mention including an 'average' business policy), without the waste that comes with spending year 1 just setting up the cards, only to waste year 4 campaigning.
Posted by: poormedicalstudent at April 15, 2004 12:14 PMIt's rare for a President to do much after his first year, extending his term two would hardly help.
Posted by: oj at April 15, 2004 12:54 PM