Crunching the Numbers
I'm not a trained economist, nor do I play one on TV, but even I know that the economy can't get started without decent job growth and that job growth just isn't there.
The Star Tribune noticed the same thing.
During last year's presidential campaign Democrats pummeled President Bush for his handling of the economy, noting that his job-creation record was the worst since Herbert Hoover. But voters seemed to shrug off the issue, Bush won the election, and the topic pretty well dropped off the national radar.
...At about 180,000 new jobs per month, the economy is creating barely enough employment to absorb a growing population, let alone provide hope for workers seeking new or better jobs. While it's true that the nation's unemployment rate fell to a low 5 percent in June, that was chiefly because thousands of workers simply dropped out of the labor force and are no longer counted in the government survey.
Given the billions being drained out of the economy to pay for the war in Iraq, with no end in sight, I certainly don't see any improvement in employment numbers any time soon, because this administration is just not that concerned about building the economy from the bottom up. I guess it smacks too much of a liberal concern for the least of us.
The closing of the STrib editorial is a powerful indictment:
It's not fair to hold any one president responsible for large shifts in a very large economy. But this president has shown no interest in the tools that are available to help vulnerable workers -- an increase in the minimum wage, an increase in worker-training funds, an expansion of subsidized health insurance -- and instead has offered tax cuts overwhelmingly tilted toward the most affluent Americans. That strategy didn't help typical workers in Bush's first term, and it shows no sign of working any better in his second.
Exactly.
The Star Tribune noticed the same thing.
During last year's presidential campaign Democrats pummeled President Bush for his handling of the economy, noting that his job-creation record was the worst since Herbert Hoover. But voters seemed to shrug off the issue, Bush won the election, and the topic pretty well dropped off the national radar.
...At about 180,000 new jobs per month, the economy is creating barely enough employment to absorb a growing population, let alone provide hope for workers seeking new or better jobs. While it's true that the nation's unemployment rate fell to a low 5 percent in June, that was chiefly because thousands of workers simply dropped out of the labor force and are no longer counted in the government survey.
Given the billions being drained out of the economy to pay for the war in Iraq, with no end in sight, I certainly don't see any improvement in employment numbers any time soon, because this administration is just not that concerned about building the economy from the bottom up. I guess it smacks too much of a liberal concern for the least of us.
The closing of the STrib editorial is a powerful indictment:
It's not fair to hold any one president responsible for large shifts in a very large economy. But this president has shown no interest in the tools that are available to help vulnerable workers -- an increase in the minimum wage, an increase in worker-training funds, an expansion of subsidized health insurance -- and instead has offered tax cuts overwhelmingly tilted toward the most affluent Americans. That strategy didn't help typical workers in Bush's first term, and it shows no sign of working any better in his second.
Exactly.
posted by Diane at 8:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home