Archive for the 'Republicans' Category

From the Bottom Up

Thursday, January 24th, 2008

By Richard E Walrath

The Democrats shouldn’t waste time on Bush. Get a bill on his desk as soon as they can without tax-cuts for business and the rich.  That’s the most inefficient means of providing stimulus.  They just pocket the money.  If Bush wants to veto the bill, let him do it.  

He and the Republicans can take the heat in November. 

Food stamps, extended unemployment benefits, and a month’s rent would be good for starters. 

On the McLaughlin Group this past Friday, Monica Crowley said that the last time they gave out refunds some of the people didn’t spend them–they saved them. 

That’s because they started passing them out from the top. 

Try doing it from the bottom this time, and all the money will get spent.

 

Technorati tags: , , , , , ,

The Big “R”

Monday, January 14th, 2008

By Richard E Walrath

The big ‘ R’  is fast closing in on us, so now we hear about plans for doing something about heading it off. 

Hillary Clinton is proposing a $70 Billion stimulus plan for those with lower incomes–that’s called trickle up.

What I don’t understand is why does it take seven years and $700 billion of trickle down to get us where we are? 

Why not just skip the trickle down idea since we know it doesn’t work?

If we can head off the big ‘R’ with only $70 Billion, just think of what we could do with $700 Billion!

People are way over their heads in debt, and have no way out except bankruptcy which the Republicans have made more difficult and more costly to protect their business interests, but bankruptcies are on the rise.

People on the bottom half just can’t make it any more on their incomes.  The median household income is below $50,000.  Food, housing, health care and energy are consuming more and more of their incomes.

Add a debt burden that has been steadily growing to this picture, and you see the
Big ‘R’ fast approaching.

What the bottom half needs is an increase in income–not just a short-time, one-time
stimulus. 

Wages have been suppressed and depressed for years.  The minimum wage stayed at $5.15 an hour for almost ten years! 

When you have to stop going out to McDonald’s, you know things are getting bad.

Starbuck’s sales are dropping.  People who used to spend $3 for a cup of coffee aren’t going to do that anymore.  Appleby’s has been having problems for some time and Wendy’s is even worse off.

Even more telling are McDonald’s sales which have fallen.  People aren’t eating out so much–even to buy a hamburger.  When you have to stop going out to McDonald’s, you know things are getting bad.

Next thing people will have to do is learn to boil water and make soup.

Meanwhile, debt in the bottom half has soared.  Add to this grim picture growing unemployment and the financial crisis due to the subprime mortgage mess, and you can understand the situation we are in. 

Richard E Walrath is a former budget analyst and co-owner of the Articles and Answers News and Information sites:  Articles and Answers  Articles and Answers 2007 and the Alternative Augumenta blog.

 

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Failed Policy of Promoting Job Growth through Tax Cuts to the Rich and Big Business

Sunday, January 13th, 2008

 

By Patricia L Johnson

Each month the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) prepares the Employment Situation Report for the prior month.  This particular report is a big deal because it’s a “market mover” meaning the results of this report have the ability to push the Dow Jones Industrial Average, DJIA, higher if the results are good, or send the stock market spiraling if the numbers are poor.

The employment report consists of a combination of data from two separate sources:

    •  Household Survey is a sampling of approximately 60,000 households and only covers a small percentage of employed persons.
    • Establishment Survey is a survey conducted on approximately 400,000 businesses of all sizes and represents about 33% of total nonfarm employment.

Between the two data sources the BLS is able to provide us with various information in their report, including the following figures for December 2007, as released on January 4, 2008. 

    • Unemployment Rate - 5% - Household Survey
    • Nonfarm payroll employment - +18,000 - Establishment Survey [138,495]
    • Number of unemployed persons  - 7.7 - Household Survey
    • Total employment - 146.2 million - Household Survey

The figures released each month are the seasonally adjusted totals and the key number is the increase/decrease in nonfarm payroll employment.  In the month of December 2007 the increase in nonfarm payroll employment is +18,000, meaning 18,000 jobs were added to payrolls during the month of December 2007.

During a President’s term of office, the number of jobs produced during his/her administration becomes a very important issue because job creation is based on economic policies put in force by the administration.

Upon release of the January 4, 2008 Employment Situation Report, the White House placed a Fact Sheet on their website claiming “Since August 2003, more than 8.3 million jobs have been created“. 

Knowing the Bush administration didn’t start in August 2003 and knowing 8.3 million jobs since August 2003 averaged out to little more than 160,000 jobs a month I decided to research the subject further.

During the eight years, Bill Clinton was in office, his economic policies produced 23.1 million jobs [average 240,000 per month] as follows:

Data extracted on: January 12, 2008 (11:19:19 AM)

Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)

Series Id:     CES0000000001
Seasonally Adjusted
Super Sector:  Total nonfarm
Industry:      Total nonfarm
NAICS Code:    N/A
Data Type:     ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS

Year
Dec

1992
109418

2000
132484

At the end December 1992 the Bureau of Labor Statistics, BLS is indicating total, seasonally adjusted nonfarm employment, of 109,418,000.  At the end of December 2000, the total has increased to 132,484,000.  The difference is 23,066,000 or 23.1 million new jobs were produced during the Clinton presidency. 

In contrast, George Bush has been in office seven years and his economic policies have produced a total of 6.0 million jobs as follows:

Data extracted on: January 12, 2008 (11:31:47 AM)

Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)

Series Id:     CES0000000001
Seasonally Adjusted
Super Sector:  Total nonfarm
Industry:      Total nonfarm
NAICS Code:    N/A
Data Type:     ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS

Year
Dec

2000
132484

2007
138495(p)

p : preliminary

At the end December 2000 the Bureau of Labor Statistics, BLS is indicating total, seasonally adjusted nonfarm employment, of 132,484,000.  At the end of December 2007, the total has increased to a preliminary figure of 138,495,000.  The difference is 6,011,000 or 6.0 million new jobs have been produced during the seven year period from January 2001 through December 2007, the length of time President Bush has been in office.  

If the White House is stating 8.3 million jobs were created and I’m saying 6.0 million jobs have been created, who is correct? Both figures are correct - they just represent different periods of time.  The White House is simply ignoring the job losses incurred during the first 32 months of the Bush presidency.

There have been 8.3 million jobs created since August 2003, but there were 2.3 million jobs lost during the period from January 2001 through July 2003, bringing the job creation total down to 6.0 million from January 2001 through December 2007.

This is a very important subject and you really shouldn’t believe either what the White House is stating, or what I’m indicating regarding these numbers.  To confirm the validity of the numbers, you should extract the data yourself from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

What these numbers prove is the economic policies put forth by the Bush administration, mainly The Jobs & Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 have backfired. 

The tax cuts in this plan were intended to “encourage consumer spending that will continue to boost the economic recovery and create jobs” and ”promote investment by individuals and businesses that will lead to economic growth and job creation.”

Our country cannot move forward with policies that create little more than 71,000 jobs per month.

Most Americans are worried about the economy and think this country needs change.  The major change needed is to go back to the policies that were in effect under the Clinton administration, where all of us prospered, not just the rich and big business.

Patricia L Johnson is a former special assignment writer/photographer and co-owner of the Articles and Answers News and Information sites. You may read more by this author at http://www.articlesandanswers.com or http://articles2007.spaces.live.com

 

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Addenda to Trickle Up Economics

Saturday, January 12th, 2008

By Richard E Walrath

People are way over their heads in debt, and have no way out except bankruptcy which the Republicans have made more difficult and more costly to protect their business interests, but bankruptcies are on the rise.

People on the bottom half just can’t make it any more on their incomes.  The median household income is below $50,000.  Food, housing, health care and energy are consuming more and more of their incomes.

Add a debt burden that has been steadily growing to this picture, and you see the Big ‘R’ fast approaching.

What the bottom half needs is an increase in income–not just a short-time, one-time stimulus. 

Wages have been suppressed and depressed for years.  The minimum wage stayed at $5.15 an hour for almost ten years! 

Meanwhile, debt in the bottom half has soared.  Add to this grim picture growing unemployment and the financial crisis due to the subprime mortgage mess, and you can understand the situation we are in. 

 

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Do You Really Give a Hoot What 710 Voters Think?

Friday, December 14th, 2007
122,295,345 votes were cast in the 2004 election for presidential candidates, yet Americans seem content to sit listening to the news and actually care what a few Iowa voters think.  I couldn’t count the number of times I’ve heard, or read, that the Democrats now have a three way tie in Iowa, with Obama leading the pack with 28% of the vote based on the latest poll.

That may mean something to someone, but I really couldn’t care less if 140 people in Iowa prefer Obama over Clinton or Edwards or Barney Fife, for that matter.

What 710 people sitting around cornfields in Iowa think about the candidates means virtually nothing to me, yet American voters seem to put so much stock in the Iowa caucuses.

Let’s take a real look at the latest poll on presidential candidates in Iowa.  The poll consisted of 500 likely Democratic caucus participants and 500 likely Republican caucus participants.  The poll was taken November 25 through November 29 and the participants were asked to identify their pick for president.

While the top three in the Republican Party received 66% of votes with only 4% of participants undecided, the top three in the Democratic Party received 76% of the votes with 7% undecided.

The difference in votes between Obama’s 140 and Edwards 115 is only 25 while uncommitted votes represent a total of 35 votes.

What I find interesting about the latest poll is the number of actual participants polled.  The October 1-3 2007 poll consisted of 804 participants – 399 from the Democratic Party and 405 from the Republican Party, while the prior poll completed on May 12-16, 2007 consisted of 801 participants – 400 from the Democratic Party and 401 from the Republican Party.

These polls may influence some voters in our country, but all they do is leave me with unanswered questions.  Why did the first two polls have a different number of participants from each party?  Where did they come up with the additional 200 participants for the latest poll?  What is the criterion for participating in an Iowa caucus poll?  How would the poll results from the first two polls differ if the additional 200 participants had voted?

When are the voters in this country going to wake up and ignore the polls that only represent a minuscule number of voters, ignore the media hype, ignore the personalities and concentrate on what is important to Americans and that is the candidates position on the issues?

 

The Silence is Deafening

Sunday, November 18th, 2007

By Richard E Walrath

When the Cheney Gang and the Bush Bunch are finally gone on January 20, 2009, we hope, the books will start coming out on how bad things have been for the last eight years–the worst president and vice president in the history of the United States. 

If I were going to write one of these books,  I’d make the title, “Absence of Agitation”. 

What has been missing throughout the whole time has been people’s protests, mass demonstrations, public outcries, cries of enough is enough. 

As bad as things are today, the silence from people is overwhelming and deafening.

 

THE LADDER OF LIES, DAMN LIES AND STATISTICS–LET ME COUNT THE WAYS

Friday, November 16th, 2007

by Patricia L Johnson and Richard E Walrath

“On paper, it appears the Treasury Department has managed to analyze income mobility inside out and backwards to come to the conclusion the poor are jumping up the income quintile ladder by leaps and bounds, while the rich are losing ground.

Click the following link to read complete article

http://www.articlesandanswers.com/IncomeMobility.htm

 

A Resounding Win for the People

Thursday, November 8th, 2007

By Patricia L Johnson

The Score is in -

-0-  President George W. Bush

-1-  People of the United States of America

After seven years in office Congress finally said “NO” to President Bush and they said it loud and clear; with the House overriding the veto of H.R. 1495, Water Resources Development Act of 2007, with a vote of  361-54 and the Senate following with a 79-14 vote.

Following are the names of the 34 Senate Republicans that stood up for what was right and and voted against the Presidents veto.

Lamar Alexander, John Barrasso, Robert Bennett, Kit Bond, Saxby Chambliss, Thad Cochran, Norm Coleman, Susan Collins, Bob Corker, Larry Craig, Michael Crapo, Elizabeth Dole, Pete Domenici, Lindsey Graham, Charles Grassley, Chuck Hagel, Orrin Hatch, Kay Bailey Hutchison, James Inhofe, Johnny Isakson, Trent Lott, Richard Lugar, Mel Martinez, Lisa Murkowski, Pat Roberts, Richard Shelby, Gordon Smith, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, Ted Stevens, John Thune, David Vitter, George Voinovich, John Warner

Sometimes it’s difficult to do what’s right when you’re under a tremendous amount of political pressure, but these Senators stood up to the pressure and voted to override President Bush’s veto.

Job Well Done - THANK YOU!

The following 12 Senate Republicans stood fast with President Bush and voted “NO” to the veto override.

Wayne Allard, Sam Brownback, Richard Burr, Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, John Ensign, Michael Enzi, Judd Gregg, Jon Kyl, Mitch McConnell, Jeff Sessions, John Sununu

We can only cross our fingers and hope that the next time around they see the light and realize there is safety in numbers.

What Happens to Rudy?

Sunday, November 4th, 2007

 

By Richard E Walrath

Right now on the Republican side, Mitt Romney is way ahead in the Iowa polls while Rudy Giuliani is way out in front in national polls. 

What the media and the political pundits ought to be talking and writing about is the discrepancy between the two polls.  Right after Iowa comes the NH primary.  The winner in Iowa is going to get a boost going into the NH primary.

What’s going to happen to Rudy if he loses in both Iowa  and NH?

Are We Better or Worse Off?

Monday, October 29th, 2007

By Richard E Walrath

There’s a lot of talk about regulation, but I don’t see a lot of evidence of it.  More of it in the food industry, especially imports, would please me.  People who buy toys think there should be more regulation, too.

Republicans want  to deregulate and Democrats want to regulate.  Airlines used to be regulated, now they’re not.  But that was Jimmy Carter’s doing. 

Are they, are we, better or worse off?

Deregulation led to Enron, at one time the largest corporation in America.  We know what happened to it.

At one time, of course, there was, basically, only one telephone company–AT&T.  There were others, but altogether they had a very small share of the total. 

Power lines and telephone lines are very expensive to install, and you want only one company in each area.  In return for having a monopoly, the utilities are supposed to hold down rates and were regulated by the government. 

That was then. 

The next idea was that utilities could offer better service and prices if there were more competition.  It’s cheaper now to have a phone than it used to be.  But that’s because we have entirely new systems. 

It’s the same old electricity, however, coming in on the same old power  lines, and the price keeps going up, up, and away.  

Electricity, which is extremely energy intensive, isn’t going to get cheaper until it’s produced in a different way–using an energy source other than coal.