Just in time for Labor Day comes a bevy of good news about our economy and the usual groans and moans from the left. For example, this report by The Democratic Strategist that states the problem with Democrats is that they are too pessimistic:
$23,700. That is the household income level at which a white person became more likely to vote for a Republican over a Democrat in congressional races in 2004. That’s $5,000 above the poverty line for a family of four, less than half the median income of the typical voting household of all races, and an emphatic repudiation of all things Democratic among the white middle class. Obtaining a sustainable Democratic majority in either house will be impossible unless there is a significant change in this economic tipping point.
To solve this problem, Democrats must first realize that they have a problem – no, actually a crisis – with the middle class. Democrats – the self-described party of the middle class – have not won the middle class vote in at least a decade. Among all voters with $30,000 to $75,000 in household income, Bush bested Kerry by six-points and congressional Republicans won by four-points. Democrats continued to win nine of ten black voters of all income levels, but Hispanic margins have decreased as their economic situation has improved. And as noted above, we got slaughtered among the white middle class.[…]In a report we co-authored called The Politics of Opportunity, we isolated five areas of disconnect between how Democrats talk about the middle class and view the economy and how the middle class view their own economic situation and that of America.
Disconnect one is optimism versus pessimism. Whether it’s the “people versus the powerful” Al Gore’s convention speech or John Kerry’s “Benedict Arnold companies” where American workers see their factories “unbolted, crated up, and shipped thousands of miles away,” the Democratic economic message is pervasively pessimistic. Democrats see the American Dream fading, the middle class being squeezed, jobs disappearing, schools crumbling, and wages stagnating.
Which I found quite amusing since in the same article that write:
America is falling behind China and India in innovation. Our kids are falling behind in math and science. Our middle class is shrinking. And by the year 2062 our GDP will be half the size of Burma’s.[…]It is true that our national prosperity is threatened by the Bush policies of high debt, tax giveaways to the most affluent, a theocratic faith that corporate America will solve our health care and energy crises, and the growing income inequality found in our country.
No pessisism there huh? The writers then proceed to come up with a plan:
We offer a series of signature Democratic initiatives designed to help middle-class Americans live a better and more prosperous life. They include a generous middle-class college tuition tax break, a new first-time homebuyer tax credit, tax cuts to help sandwich-generation families pay for the care of elderly parents, and a more generous tax break for families with preschool children. They are all designed to help the middle class attain their goals – like purchasing a home, paying for college, and maintaining economic freedom as parents age.
How do we pay for them? Well that gets to our critique: conservatives believe the wealthy are the engine of the economy; we believe the middle class is the engine of the economy. So we would roll back some of the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy to finance a generous set of middle-class tax breaks designed to create a new era of middle-class economic opportunity.
And there you have it. Raise taxes on the wealthy. The answer to every argument you have ever had with a Democrat always begins and ends with this simple, ignorant answer.
And that answer is Socialism. Tax more so that no one is a loser. If your better at business then the crackhead with 5 kids then screw you! We need to take your money to pay for the crackhead and his/her kids.
This is the same answer they have always had and they continue to lose the middle class. They just don’t have a clue. The middle class wants fair taxes. They want to know that if they work hard they will be rewarded but this group of writers believes the middle class will be ok with increased taxes. And that is why they will continue to lose the middle class.
The good economic news is abundent tho:
Hiring perked up in August as employers added 128,000 jobs, pulling down the unemployment rate to 4.7 percent, sending a Labor Day message that the economic expansion still has staying power.
The latest snapshot, released by the Labor Department Friday, was a bit brighter than expected and should ease any fears that the expansion that began in late 2001 is not in danger of fizzling out.
The tally of new jobs last month was slightly stronger than the 125,000 that economists were forecasting. The nation’s unemployment rate dropped down a notch from a five-month high of 4.8 percent in July. Job gains for June and July also turned out to be better than previously estimated. In June, employers boosted payrolls by 134,000 positions and in July they added another 121,000.
So unemployment is lower then the average over the last decade, inflation is low, 5.7 million new jobs have been created over the last 3 years, and the deficit is 140 billion lower then expected. All this good news is obviously making many lefties uncomfortable.
Some even spin it in a negative light, only to have to eat their words later:
What a difference three days make. 72 little hours.
In that time, a New York Times reporter went from tolling the death knell of real wage growth to reporting a 7-percent wage jump over last year after inflation.
“[T]he current expansion has a chance to become the first sustained period of economic growth since World War II that fails to offer a prolonged increase in real wages,” The New York Times’ David Leonhardt and Steven Greenhouse somberly noted in their page A6 article in the August 28 edition.
Greenhouse and Leonhardt added a political spin to data showing the “median hourly wage” dipping “2 percent since 2003, after factoring in inflation.”
“That situation is adding to fears among Republicans that the economy will hurt vulnerable incumbents in this year’s midterm elections,” the correspondents argued before remarking that “wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation’s gross domestic product.”
But new data released on August 30 pushed Leonhardt to admit the death of wage growth he wrote about earlier might be greatly exaggerated.
In an August 31 Business Day section story about new government data on the gross domestic product (GDP), Leonhardt found economists arguing the new report “was a welcome sign at a time of significant uncertainty about the economy’s direction.”
“Perhaps the biggest surprise,” Leonhardt noted, “was new evidence of a surge in wage-and-salary income in the first half of this year,” with pay up “at an annual pace around 7 percent after adjusting for inflation,” according to “an economic consulting firm, MFR.”
What’s more, Leonhardt conceded, “As a result, wages and salaries no longer make up their smallest share of the gross domestic product since World War II.” Instead, they now account for “46.1 percent of economic output in the second quarter,” and increase “from 45.4 percent last year.”
The MSM will continue to do what they always do, talk down the economy when their hated one is in office. They are finding it increasingly difficult to do this but somehow they always find a way:
Still, there are obvious weak spots. Construction spending plunged in July by the largest margin in nearly five years, the Commerce Department reported, another sign of the cooldown in the once sizzling housing market.
And this one made me grin. For every paragraph they write where they are forced to write something positive they give you 6 paragraphs of negatives:
But many other aspects of the data were soft.
Average hourly earnings rose a scant 0.1 percent, or 2 cents, last month. Over the past 12 months, earnings have risen 3.9 percent – matching the revised July gain as the highest since June 2001.
Many economists, however, had braced for a sharper 0.3 percent monthly rise that could have fostered concerns over potential interest-rate hikes.
In addition, the length of the average work week dipped by 0.1 hours to 33.8 hours, pulling down an index of overall hours worked in a potential sign of soft growth.
Wall Street economists had expected nonfarm payrolls to expand by 120,000 workers last month, not far from the department’s actual count, and had expected the jobless rate to slip slightly.
The department revised the payroll employment count for the prior two months marginally higher – adding a net 18,000 jobs – but the data still show that employment gains have eased since the start of the year.
No matter, the MSM is finding it tougher to hide the good news for a reason. There is just too much of it. I mean we have a great economy with the price of oil over 70 bucks a barrel! Unheard of…..
But to the liberals Bush has ruined the economy.
Check out Ed Morrisseys post here about the Democrat canvassers who went door to door begging for votes were not paid even close to the minimum wage, so they quit.
- Joust The Facts
- Wizbang Politics
- Blue Crab Boulevard
- Pardon My English
- Suitably Flip
- The Anchoress
- California Conservative
- Cheat Seeking Missiles