What Kerry says is that Bush is presiding over a period of four years where there are fewer jobs than when he started. So Kerry can't blame Bush directly for the loss of jobs. But he tries to blame him for not putting into place economic policies that Kerry believes would stimulate job creation. Now the job decline in and of itself may not seem like very big deal - the job market fluctuates like any other economic factor. What is most troubling about these job numbers is that the number of people entering the workplace has been steadily increasing. So, the number of jobs required to break even means that there still must be more jobs than there were four years ago. It hasn't happened.
There are mitigating circumstances that we can all point to: the terrorist attacks, the trickle-down effect of corporate bankruptcies, the burst of an over-valued high-tech bubble. They all contribute to the loss of jobs.
Bush used a stop-loss strategy of tax cuts to stimulate growth. For the most part they succeeded (how could they not?). But Bush also increased spending by an enormous amount. What's really perverse is that some of Bush's policies would fit into his idea of "Compassionate Conservativism", such as a large increase in funding for Education. But he hasn't brought in the money to pay for them. Instead, he decreases the amount of liquid funding available.
Bush also decreased taxes during wartime. This is the first time that has ever been done for the duration of the war. So now we've got enormous bills, a war that needs funding, and even less money to pay for them.
The biggest problem we're all facing is that now Bush's economic stimulus (the tax cuts) have played themselves out. The economy is growing at a good rate in some sectors, loping along in others, and stalled in even some others. But the good effects haven't trickled down to those sectors that create jobs. What should Bush have done? Well, for one thing, he could have been more discriminating in the tax cuts, by cutting payroll taxes instead of dividend taxes. This would have put more money directly into middle class pockets, and the pockets of their employers. By giving the middle class and their employers more money, the local economy stays healthy. This in turn, aids interstate commerce, and a trickle-sideways effect.
Remember, it is the middle class that essentially drives the economy. There are many more arguments and examples for trickle-UP than trickle-down.
Instead, Bush chose the corporate and investor class tax cuts. We all know what happens to an investor once they've been burned by a economic downturn or a stock market deevaluation: they hold tight to their money, until they see enough indicators that the economy is turing around. Only after they're assured that the climate is suitable for investing, do they begin to pour investment back into the economy. This presents a serious lag time between the infusion of money back into business, and the creation of jobs.
The Bush tax cuts, policies and economic stimuli have all been targeted towards the investor class, and large billion dollar companies. True, the middle class did receive a tax cut and tax credits, but their effect on the local economies spikes once or twice a year and that's it. So, here in Washington, one can complain about how the state's regressive tax structure is responsible for the loss of Boeing jobs, but the trade-off is that we would need more taxation on the citizens to soften the tax structure for business. Economically speaking, that's a dead horse.
Too much taxation on the middle class results in a debtor's economy with deflation and higher interest rates. Bush's tax cuts have been very good for Boeing, but have they resulted in job creation? A little here or there, perhaps, but there have been quite a few layoffs, too.
The point is, if Bush had put the tax cuts to work in areas where they were most needed: the middle class and middle class employers, the economy might have stimulated more job growth by now.
Okay all you economists, out there. Come and tell me how full of BS I am.
P.S. One last point. I don't pretend that John Kerry has the right answer to this. So far, I'm not convinced. Where I see an advantage to Kerry is that if something ain't working, he'll change it. That doesn't seem to be the modus operandi of our current fearless leader.
People want to talk about the amount of taxes that are taken out during Democratic Administrations, but I must remind them that two of the biggest tax increases came about during the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations. I would also point out that with the exception of Jimmy Carter, most Democratic presidents have presided over very strong economies.
As Harry Truman was reported to have said, "If you want to live like a Republican, vote Democrat."
No comments:
Post a Comment