In sum, the reason we have a "joyless" economy for most Americans is that it's a Republican economy. This is not a fluke, but an integral part of what it means to be "conservative." To boil it down to its essence, in conservative economics the richest and most powerful get the most rewards (by far), while all other Americans get the "trickle down" table droppings. That's a DIRECT RESULT of conservative economic and tax policies which favor investment income over wage income, corporations over individuals. As Krugman writes:
Behind the disconnect between economic growth and family incomes lies the extremely lopsided nature of the economic recovery that officially began in late 2001. The growth in corporate profits has, as I said, been spectacular. Even after adjusting for inflation, profits have risen more than 50 percent since the last quarter of 2001. But real wage and salary income is up less than 7 percent.There are some wealthy Americans who derive a large share of their income from dividends and capital gains on stocks, and therefore benefit more or less directly from soaring profits. But these people constitute a small minority. For everyone else the sluggish growth in wages is the real story. And much of the wage and salary growth that did take place happened at the high end, in the form of rising payments to executives and other elite employees. Average hourly earnings of nonsupervisory workers, adjusted for inflation, are lower now than when the recovery began.
So there you have it. Americans don't feel good about the economy because it hasn't been good for them. Never mind the G.D.P. numbers: most people are falling behind.
What is causing this? Krugman says it's a "mystery," but in my view it's no mystery at all. I would point to three factors as key. First, health care coverage is a disaster in this country, and a source of great anxiety to millions of American families. It's tough to feel great about your economic situation when you're one of nearly 46 million Americans - 1 in 6 - without health insurance at all, let alone the tens of millions more with inadequate or precarious health coverage.
And let's not forget who's responsible for the fact that we don't have universal health care - a fundamental human right, by the way - in this country. Remember the "Harry and Louise" ads back in 1993? The ones that helped kill any chance for universal health care in this country? Those were sponsored by industry groups and masterminded by their PR guru, Blair G. Childs, who has given large sums of money to Republican PACs and candidates. Universal health care was also killed by a Republican-orchestrated media campaign, including daily rants by Rush Limbaugh to his tens of millions of listeners. In the end, this coalition of Republicans and the health care industry killed any chance for passage of universal health care coverage in America for over a decade now. That's reason #1 why Americans don't feel great about the economy.
Second, although GDP is rising and unemployment is low, median income is falling. As Krugman points out, "Real median household income - the income of households in the middle of the income distribution, adjusted for inflation - fell for the fifth year in a row" in 2004, and "it's pretty clear that the results will be similar" for 2005. This is Republican economics at work as well - the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Third, most Americans know that their jobs are insecure. The recently announced layoffs of 30,000 auto workers by GM were a case in point. ABC News ran the headline, "GM Layoffs Resonate Across U.S." Exactly. People aren't blind. They feel it in their bones that their jobs are in danger of being outsourced or downsized at any time, so why should they be confident about their economic futures? Quick answer: they shouldn't be. Oh, and not coincidentally, a big part of U.S. automakers' problems have to do with rising health care costs they must pay to their employees and retirees. This adds an estimated $1,500 to the cost of building a car in America, putting U.S. auto manufacturers at "a significant disadvantage versus our foreign-based competitor," according to GM's CEO, Rick Waggoner.
The bottom line is that most Americans today are "joyless" about the economy because for most of them, things aren't going particularly well under Republican economics. Seriously, what's to be joyful about when you're forced to run faster on the treadmill all the time just to keep up, while worrying that you'll hurt yourself or even fall off the treadmill completely? What I'd really love to see is a poll which looks at how the top 1% - the "one America" that John Edwards speaks of so eloquently - are feeling these days, compared to the other 99% - "everybody else" - who are struggling to get by. My guess is that the top 1% would be quite content, thank you. The other 99%? Well, they should be getting ready to express their displeasure and anxiety at the voting booths about 11 months from now. Election Day 2006 could be another "joyless" day in America -- but for Republicans, for a change!
It's a point apart from my main response (that consumer costs have risen under the Bush administration), but actually, if you want to go with gas prices, there is very little correlation with Katrina. Bush came to power January 20, 2001. According to DOE, the average gallon of gas cost $1.456 on 1/22/05. Katrina occured 8/29/05, when cost had already risen to $2.581/gal. Prices did make a temporary rise after Katrina (the temporary impact probably indicatory of mismanagement issues), but then fell. Last national average was $2.124. Overall, that's a 70% net gain, with Katrina having little effect.
Regardless of this economic minutae, ordinary taxpayers are suffering even when in gross terms the economy is growing. If, as you say you are not rich, but you are a Republican, then I would really respectfully like to know what the appeal this has for you. Why do voters like you would prefer having the quick apeal of a tax cut while watching its consequenses--higher costs and delayed financial obligations--cut away at your net worth?
December 5, 2005
Ms. ....
Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns with the budget reconciliation process. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.
It remains to be seen what tax cut extensions might ultimately be included in the budget reconciliation process. However, we must remember that the fact that entitlement spending and programs to help low income families are made possible by economic growth. Thus, it is important that we review all proposed tax extenders, bearing in mind not only the amount of money that they might “cost,†but also their stimulative effects and how much revenue they might actually bring in due to resultant positive economic growth.
Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me, and I hope you will continue to keep me informed of issues of importance to you in the future.
Sincerely,
Tom Davis
Member of Congress
Let me give you an example. If you have a $40,000 a year salary and a $10,000 credit card limit. On year one you spend your whole salary and max out your credit. Basically you've spent $50,000. Now the next year you get a raise to $42,000, but your credit card is maxed out. The second year you can only spend $42,000 and it *looks* like you actually made less money.
Check out the GDP minus Deficit growth for the last 50 years
The hardest part is that voters just do not seem to vote for their economic interests. We've come a long ways down from the prosperity of the Clinton years, but populistic sentiment fails to appreciate that. It just leaves me wondering...
Do you suppose one reason we're being drummed up about illegal immigrants is, once again, to distract us with an emotional issue so the economic issues can be ignored? Of course, Bush always has the Big Scare of terrorist attack he can trot out, oddly enough simultaneously with rants about "victory" in Iraq (never mind the growing civil war we've created in Mesopotamia--- more Iraqis have been trained overnight).