In 1994, Congress passed the King Holiday and Service Act honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. with a national day of service, in order to ';bring together people who might not ordinarily meet'; and ';break down barriers that have divided us in the past.'; Unfortunately, over recent years, some of those barriers have increased, and the divide between African-Americans and whites on economic and health issues has widened. Under Bush's tenure, economic gains have been tilted significantly towards the wealthy at the expense of lower-income minorities. ';How have African Americans fared since conservatives have been in charge of the economy? Not very well. Their increases across key economic indicators have been slower under Bush as compared to the 1990s.'; Today, in the shadow of MLK Day, President Bush is unveiling an economic stimulus package that takes some steps in the right direction but fails to do enough for the economy or help those most in need.
African Americans’ median income declined by an average of 1.6 percent per year under the current administration. In 2006, African Americans’ median income was $32,132, which is actually $2,603 lower than their median income of $34,735 (in 2006 dollars) in 2000. This is an annualized average growth rate of -1.6 percent. In contrast, this number increased at an annual average growth rate of 3.2 percent from 1992 to 2000. And African Americans’ median income is still substantially lower than Whites: In 2006, their median income was $32,132, as compared to $52,432 for Whites.
African Americans’ usual median weekly earnings have stagnated under Bush. In 2006, the usual median earnings of African Americans employed full-time was $554.00 per week—$136.00 dollars less than that of white Americans. In 2000, the usual median earnings of African Americans employed full-time was $553.14—in 2006 dollars—meaning that their usual median weekly earnings grew by just $0.86 under the current administration.
Under Bush, the percent of African Americans without health insurance has increased from 18.5 percent to 20.5 percent. In 2006, 7.9 million African Americans were not covered by health insurance. The rate of African Americans not covered by health insurance increased by an annual average percent point change of 0.30 between 2000 and 2006. This is a much different picture compared to the 1990s. From 1992 to 2000, the number of uninsured African Americans decreased from 20.1 percent to 18.5 percent, an average annual percent point change of -0.20.
The growth rate of the number of employed African Americans has been 4.2 times slower under the current administration than it was during the 1990s. Between 2000 and 2006, the number of employed African Americans grew on average by just 0.7 percent each year, which is markedly lower than the 2.8 percent annual growth rate experienced between 1992 and 2000. Additionally, this growth rate was noticeably faster than the 1.5 percent that Whites saw between 1992 and 2000, whereas under the Bush administration their growth rates have a difference of just 0.1 percent.
As today’s 300-plus point drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average suggests, the economy is moving into uncertain times. With growing signs of a recession on the horizon, it seems clear that some sort of fiscal stimulus will be needed.
Even though most Democrats and Republicans now agree on the need for a fiscal boost to the economy, there is no agreement even within the Democratic Party over what kind of stimulus package is best.
A couple of studies, from the Congressional Budget Office and the Brookings Institution sort through the different options and identify those that will provide the most economic bang from every budgetary buck spent on the effort.
Both agree that the key is to get money into the hands of those who need it most and would spend it most quickly.
Unemployed workers are a good place to start. A study in 2002 by Mark Zandi of Moody’s Economy.com following the 2001 recession concluded that a dollar spent in extending emergency unemployment insurance benefits would add $1.70 to the economy over a year, as unemployed workers increased their spending and the money ricocheted across the economy. This packed a bigger punch even than an income tax cut targeted at those with the lowest earnings.
There are other options, however. Increasing food stamp benefits would be effective because the money would be spent very quickly, as recipients tend to spend virtually all of their benefits to meet basic needs. A payroll tax holiday and a sales tax holiday would also provide big economic stimulus, as they would quickly result in more spending.
The centerpiece of the President’s new stimulus plan — a rebate provided by temporarily eliminating the 10 percent income tax bracket — fails crucial tests for providing the most effective stimulus, because it is not targeted on the tens of millions of families most likely to spend that rebate. In so doing, the plan flouts the advice offered yesterday by Federal Reserve chair Ben Bernanke. The plan also includes a business tax component that, at best, would provide modest stimulus.
This plan would bypass altogether, or provide only partial help to, the more than 40 percent of tax filers — over 50 million filers — with the most modest incomes. Families of four below $40,950 would get partial help or nothing at all.
The plan is being described as featuring a rebate of $800 to individuals and $1,600 to couples. That, however, is misleading. Only the 60 percent of tax filers with incomes high enough to be in the 15 percent tax bracket or a higher bracket could get those amounts.
Households that earn too little to be in the 10 percent bracket would get nothing. The fact that many of these workers pay large amounts of payroll tax would be ignored. Families of four making less than $24,900 would be shut out entirely.
All households in the 10 percent bracket — families of four with incomes between $24,900 and $40,950, and many families somewhat above that range as well — would get only a partial rebate.
As the Congressional Budget Office explained this week and as virtually all reputable economists agree, low- and moderate-income households will spend a larger share of any tax rebate dollars they get (and save as smaller share) than higher income households. As CBO has also explained, this means that tax rebates focused on lower- and moderate-income households inject more money into the economy quickly and are more effective as stimulus.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke made this point in testimony before the House Budget Committee yesterday. “Putting money into the hands of households and firms that would spend it in the near term” is a priority, Bernanke said.
The Administration plan ignores these basic economic realities and excludes the very families it is most important to include if the stimulus is to be as effective as possible. The plan thus would save fewer jobs and do less to shore up a weak economy than it should.What went wrong with the Bush economy %26amp; if a Prez has no control over it, why the stimulus package?
Too much borrowing and spending finally damaged the economy, and now Bush wants to fix the problem with more of the same. Is it any wonder so many of us say he's an idiot?What went wrong with the Bush economy %26amp; if a Prez has no control over it, why the stimulus package?
Okay--as to your first question: Bush (and the GOP Congress for 6 years) did four things that were clearly bad for the economy over the long hual:
a) running very high deficits. This will stimulate the economy in the short term--but if you keep it up (as they have) it will lead to significant inflation and hurt economic growth.
b) Reduced the ability of federal agencies to exercise oversight (as distinct from regulation in general)--in tthis case leading to abuses and unsound speculation/practices in the mortgage markets
c) faileed to exercise any discretion in trade agreements. Free trade is all well and good--but the Bush administration failed to enforce a quid-pro quo. For example, China has virtuallly total free access to US markets--but we do not have comparable access to Chinese markets. Also, while some job losses are inevitable, the policies in effect have not only allowed, they have encouraged and even subsidized outsourcing of US jobs.
d) continued to follow energy policies that keep us dependant on foriegn oil. This, with the sharp rises in oil prices, has done two things: increased our trade deficit and weakened the dollar and also drained away hundreds of billions of dollars that could have een spent by consumers on other goods and services, thus drastically weakening revenues and growth in all other sectors of the US economy.
Your second question: Bush himself can only exercise leadership (I'll refrain from comment!) in putting forward his stimulus package--but it is up to Congress to take hisideas and work them into a legislative package. The notion that ';the government can't do anything'; (bush or others) is utter nonsense. Thee's overwhelming historical proof of the effects--good and bad--that government policy has on the economy It would be correct to say, however, that it is almost certainly too late to prevent a recession. PROPER action by the government can, however, shorten the recession and minimize its severity. In my opinion Bush's plan--while it would help--is not the best approach. But that's another issue.
The slowdown coincides with the election of a Democrat congress who has promised to kill the Bush Tax cuts. The stimulus package is a bi partisan effort on the Dems part to throw out rebates to the masses. Morons.
It is in the governments best interest to foster a healthy economy, and bring a sagging one back to life. More money = more taxes.
Our economy is having trouble because of short-term planning on the part of large corporations, financial institutions like banks, and enormous borrowing by the government. Government spending, of course, is something the president can do something about. He could also propose better regulation for financial institutions, or enforce current regulations better. (The housing bubble was an example of the need for better regulation! Just like the S%26amp;L crisis that started during Reagan's administration and continued through Bush's dad's years was a result of deregulation.)
The way Bush works is that he uses any crisis that comes along as a justification to do what he wanted to do in the first place.
So, for instance, when he first came into office we were looking at the possibility of a balanced budget. Bush declared that there was a 'surplus' and decided to give them away in tax breaks. But the surplus was only projected, never real. And the tax breaks, of course, like all Republican tax breaks, were steeply skewed towards rich people and corporations.
Later, when debt was out of control, Bush decided we needed MORE tax breaks (again skewed to the rich) to stimulate the economy. In other words, tax breaks are justified by surpluses -or- deficits, it doesn't matter.
Presidents always like to take credit for economic booms while they are in office, but when things go bad they claim there was nothing they could do about them.
Well obviously as you have pointed out so cleverly, the president has enormous control over the economy so don't listen to all of those arm chair wanna be economist telling you the president has o control over the economy, of course when the economy is going great they are the same people giving all the credit to the president.
Simple he is spending all our tax money on a war in Iraq. Very little is left to soend here at home. He even closed half the DOD capacity to produce Ammunition back in 2002. Now he buys the bullets from Halliburton who imports them from China!!!!
We have an unstable dollar
We have a loan disaster reminiscent of the Savings and Loan fiasco-The other Bush was president then as I recall
We have a substantial trade deficit
We have an unstable stock market
We have an increasing unemployment rate
We have substantial gas price increase which affects everything from food to clothing to housing, labor etc.
And WE HAVE a HUGE GOVERNMENT DEFICIT
To name a few things.. .........
We have troubled times because of the ';Dear Leader's'; faulty policies. Its time for a real leader to do something but we have a Republican President and too many Republicans in Congress. So all the bosses (the corporate lobbyists %26amp; corporate funded think tanks) come out of the woodwork with editorials and TV appearances, to push more of the same faulty policies that got us into trouble, like lowering taxes for the rich yet again and lowering corporate tax some more.
So the trouble they put us in will be used as just another excuse to double his faulty policies. The Republican policies are like Kamikazi Pilots!! Its just like the Iraq occupation is a failure so what to do? Double it!!
The silly lazy media just eats up ';the surge is working'; without actually finding out if its actually working.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment