|
The Reagan Question:
Are You Better Off Than Four Years Ago?
March 10, 2004
During the 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan quickly
deflated Jimmy Carter’s reelection bid with a simple question,
asking the American people, “are you better off today than four
years ago?” The answer, at a time of high unemployment,
staggering inflation, spiraling energy prices, and hostages in
Tehran, was an obvious - and devastating - no.
Now it’s George Bush’s turn to face the Reagan question. And
as with Jimmy Carter, the verdict from the American people won’t
be kind: the numbers speak for themselves.
Gloomy Unemployment Picture.
For this administration,
the employment numbers are grim and inescapable. 8.2 million
Americans are out of work and the unemployment rate is mired at
5.6%, 30% higher than its level of 4.3% of March 2001. 2.35
million jobs have disappeared during Bush’s presidency.
Even
with strong GDP growth topping 4%, the economy produced
virtually no new jobs in February, with the meager gains of
21,000 jobs completely due to government hiring. In February,
workers’ wage growth was the slowest in 18 years; the average
duration of unemployment at its greatest in 20. Worse still,
392,000 people essentially gave up on hopes of employment and
left the workforce in February, plunging labor force
participation to a 15 year low of 65.9%. "It's hard to imagine a
more negative reading of the
labor market,"
said Larry Mishel, president of the liberal
Economic Policy Institute.
Unfortunately for President Bush, the
consensus prognosis from market analysts is equally dark.
“The economic recovery is almost three years old, and the
economy should be producing 200,000 to 300,000 jobs a month,”
noted Wells Fargo chief economist Sung Won Sohn, adding that,
“unless the labor market gains some steam and momentum, both
real income and
confidence of consumers would be hurt.” Stephen Stanley,
chief economist for RBS Greenwich Capital,
reached the same conclusion, stating, “It's very
disappointing…we keep waiting to see growth translate into job
gains and its just not happening.” Perhaps the bluntest
assessment comes from Carl Tannenbaum, chief economist at
Chicago's LeSalle Bank/ABN Amro, “Conditions aren't getting any
better and may be getting worse.”
Exploding Federal Budget Deficit.
In just three short years, George W. Bush has vaporized a U.S.
budget surplus projected when he assumed office to reach $5
trillion by 2010. Even accounting for the war and an economic
recession, it was his irresponsible, inequitable, and
unjustified tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 which have played a key
role in eviscerating the
$237 billion surplus he inherited from Bill Clinton.
President Bush’s FY 2005 budget, one greeted with “shock and
awe” on both sides of the aisle, features
a
record federal budget deficit of $521. With Bush’s goal of
making those tax cuts permanent, his State of the Union promise
to halve the deficit by 2009 is
sheer fantasy, as the nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office projects.
The President’s mismanagement of the budget presents real
dangers to Americans in the years ahead. The Government’s
raiding of the Social Security Trust Fund will grow at precisely
the time that the Baby Boomers begin the retire. (Even
Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, who carried the President’s
water on the 2001 tax cut, made this clear in his congressional
testimony.) It comes
as
the states grapple with their own budget deficits, deficits
that threaten critical programs including Medicare and Bush’s
own “No Child Left Behind” education program. Worse still,
out-of-control government borrowing,
largely from foreign lenders, threatens to raise interest
rates, choke off private sector investment, and jeopardize the
housing market, one of the few bright spots in the Bush economy.
George Bush has turned his back on
the sound fiscal practices of his Democratic predecessor, to
all of our detriment.
Mushrooming Trade Deficit.
Under his watch,
the U.S. trade deficit has ballooned to record levels,
reaching $43.1 billion in January 2004. Imports topped $132
billion, the second highest level on record. China’s trade
surplus with the U.S. reached $11 billion, with Japan at $5.3
billion, Canada at $5.2 billion, and Mexico at $3 billion.
In Bush’s defense, these numbers in part do reflect the
strength of the U.S. economy relative its trading partners, as
well as the impact of the Mad Cow panic on American food and
agriculture exports. But with
the dollar’s precipitous drop, the trade picture should
already be improving
as U.S. exports gain from lower prices abroad. And with
prices for imported oil and natural gas rising, the dollar’s
weakness is hurting Americans at the fuel pump
as gasoline prices near all-time highs. As a result, for the
first time in 20 years, the specter of inflation looms in the
distance.
Building Health Care Crisis.
As the Democratic primaries showed, the availability and
cost of health care is one the most important issues to voters
in 2004. As it should be; the number of Americans without health
insurance jumped by 2,000,000 to
over 43 million during George Bush’s term. The president’s
proposed medical savings accounts (MSAs) and association health
plans (AHPs) would do little to expand access or curb rising
costs, as insurers merely cherry-pick businesses and individuals
who are healthier, younger and in need of less care. Meanwhile,
Bush’s Medicare reform
jumped in cost by $120 billion within two months of its passage.
Designed in essence to privatize the Medicare program starting
in 2010, it doesn’t not even begin delivery of its limited
prescription drug benefit to seniors until 2006.
In 2004, candidate George Bush is cynically painting a false
picture of economic recovery, even running ads casting blame on
Bill Clinton for an “inherited” recession. Beyond citing the
economy’s few bright spots (GDP gains, strong housing sales, and
low interest rates), the Bush team in its
Economic Report of the President brazenly forecast that
2.6 million new jobs would be created in 2004, numbers it that
it
once again knew were false and without foundation. Bush’s
own cabinet balked at the fraud, as Commerce Secretary Donald
Evans and Treasury Secretary John Snow
refused to endorse the job estimates coming from the White
House. (By the Sarbanes-Oxley standards of CEO accountability,
rather than those of Karl Rove, President Bush would be looking
at some time in a different “big house.”)
For most Americans in 2004, the simple answer to Ronald
Reagan's simple question is “No.” For George W. Bush, it’s not
just the numbers that tell the tale; millions of Americans live
the harsh reality those numbers describe every day. And like his
father and Jimmy Carter before him, George W. Bush will pay the
price and find that he, too, is out of a job. |