Not a Bush-bash (but will prob become one), just intended as a theoretical discussion. I believe that the Executive branch can impact the timing and depth/height of recessions and recoveries, but not the occurence of them (i.e. Recessions are going to occur, and they improve the efficiency of the economy). Same w/ Jobs. Limited impact. Specific example, what would you do if you were President about all of the tech jobs lost overseas? Say a software firm can reduce costs by 30% by using programmers in India. Do you punish them for striving to lower costs? Isn't that a basic principle of Capitalism? What if they don't take the obvious move, then go bankrupt because a foreign firm competing with them did. Now all of their employees are out of work. If they make the move, they become more cost effective and lower the costs for other industries and consumers. One must distinguish between what can and cannot be controlled. Fighting the inevitable only worsens the outcome. Politicians should be more concerned with spurring innovation and start-ups, or other opportunities to employ these displaced workers. But to fight a basic principle of capitalism is foolish, and to expect a President to do so is unreasonable. (That said, we should not make it artificially easy for companies to displace workers. If any tax policies reward these firms in any fashion, they should be discontinued.)
Do Presidents Really Affect the Economy? Samuelson and others argue that it's the business cycle, stupid. When the economy is expanding and consumers, investors, and employers are flush with Keynesian "animal spirits," things tend to work out pretty well as long as the government stays out of the way. Like the rooster who claims his crowing caused the sunrise, presidents may try to take credit for such periods, but both roosters and presidents are pretty irrelevant to the outcome. Yet history is full of examples of presidents making a big difference, even in a relatively unregulated market economy like ours. During recessions, there is a well-established role for the government to step in and try to restart the virtuous cycle described above. If ever a president should have been able to accomplish this goal, it's this one. His tax cuts carry a 10-year price tag of more than $3 trillion, and, as you'd expect, expenditures of this magnitude have made some difference. They've helped to lift the gross domestic product, but they haven't produced job growth. That's not because presidents can't create jobs but because this president's spending packages have consistently been poorly structured to do so. Cuts in dividend or capital-gains taxation, or accelerated business expenses, aren't a good way to create jobs in general, and certainly not in a demand slump. This doesn't mean that Samuelson is right, however. It just means that this administration was using the recession as an opportunity to do what it wanted to do all along: shrink government by reducing revenues and shift the tax burden from wealth holders to wage earners. If the administration had spent the money on state fiscal relief, direct funding for social needs, benefits for the unemployed, school renovations, and tax cuts for the least well-off, history suggests that jobs would have followed. Yes, Virginia, presidents can make a difference, but they've got to make the right choices. link As an aside, the $3 trillion in tax breaks is pretty close to the gap in social security needed to fund it for the next 75 years as we saw in another thread.
glynch, The article states 'yet history is full of examples of presidents making a big difference', yet does nothing to support this claim. Where's the proof? And how would any past programs apply to a service-oriented and hi-tech labor force?
Classical economics believes in the "animal spirits" let govt stay out of the way. Keynesian theory promotes government's use of debt by lowering taxes and increasing spending to fuel the economy during recessions. I truly think that the executive branch has little to do with the turn of the economy but it can lessen recessions and help to jumpstart economies with fiscal and monetary policy. The real problem is that administrations are too short-sighted and are usually just focused on their next election and will focus on short-term attainable goals without concern to long-term repurcussions. I am a strange thinker in that I believe in fiscal conservatism and it doesn't matter what my 'values' are because I have no right to impress that upon others. Freedom and Limited government is what I value.
Specific example, what would you do if you were President about all of the tech jobs lost overseas? Say a software firm can reduce costs by 30% by using programmers in India. Do you punish them for striving to lower costs? There are things you can do. For example, if you're thinking about cutting taxes, you can create directed tax cuts. We do this all the time in the private sector. For example, home interest deductions. In this case for example, you can provide a tax break for every U.S.-based employee on your payroll. That way, you make U.S. companies more competitive with those that move employees to other regions by reducing their costs. That also provides the inherent benefits of a stronger consumer economy, etc. There are ways for the President to have a real short-term impact on the economy - it just requires some creativity.
You can also tell China and the rest of the world that you are going to invoke the Even trade clause (not sure of its real name), and that any tarrifs that US products get in their countries, we will do the same to theirs in the USA. Of course the US consumer would have to pay a little higher price for stuff, but it would level the playing field. DD
Originally posted by Major There are things you can do. For example, if you're thinking about cutting taxes, you can create directed tax cuts. We do this all the time in the private sector. For example, home interest deductions. In this case for example, you can provide a tax break for every U.S.-based employee on your payroll. That way, you make U.S. companies more competitive with those that move employees to other regions by reducing their costs. ... How substantial will the tax breaks need to be to overcome the powerful market forces that are occuring? Would those tax cuts be better applied to support start-ups, rather than fight the inevitable? Which is the most efficient use of funds? There are ways for the President to have a real short-term impact on the economy - it just requires some creativity. Care to share?
How substantial will the tax breaks need to be to overcome the powerful market forces that are occuring? Would those tax cuts be better applied to support start-ups, rather than fight the inevitable? Which is the most efficient use of funds? Depends on the margins and the particular industry, etc. I would suggest that in times like these, you would want to increase these types of tax credits not to eliminate companies moving offshore, but to delay it. Then during periods like the mid 1990s, you cut those tax breaks and let the offshoring occur during the times when there are plenty of other jobs. It just serves to smooth out the booms and busts. Care to share? Besides the example above, one of Bush's best moves in tax policy was to allow the Sec179 deduction to be substantially higher this year. It costs the government only a tiny amount and gives businesses huge tax benefits to investing this year. The small businesses will save tons of taxes this year, but then pay more in future years. With virtually no cost (except present-value issues of paying less now and more in a few years), you can provide businesses with substantial incentive to invest today.
As you acknowledged, it delays the inevitable. Are we better off using the tax system to continue to encourage people to become trained in industries that we cannot be cost-competitive at (by artificially creating a job market)? I assume (maybe incorrectly) you believe in free trade. If you do, you would agree that in the long-run allowing people and countries to specialize is best for all involved, right? so is this proposal just preventing us from realizing the long-term benefits of the proper allocation of resources? Separate from that, in the real world (where politicians work for their own legacy rather than the long-run good of the nation), what president will ever take away a tax benefit that will encourage unemployment? Once you put that type of tax incentive into place, it will become nearly impossible to remove. If it's not removed, you can look at what unions did to the steel and are doing to the auto industry to see the impact of artificially preventing a proper allocation of resources. It's an interesting theory. Not one I agree with, necessarily, but thought provoking none the less.
Here's a heart-warming story. From http://www.campaignmoney.org/spotlight/sis03_10_04.htm ________________ Tax Breaks for the Wealthy, Layoffs for Workers On April 24, 2003, President Bush traveled to Timken Company’s Canton plant to promote his tax plan. In a speech to workers, he promised that the tax cut plan “means more money for investments, more money for growth and more money for jobs.” Numerous studies have refuted that claim, showing that while the President's tax cuts rewarded wealthy Americans with tens of thousands of dollars in tax windfalls, the rest of America actually received relatively little. The average Bush tax cut for the wealthiest one percent of Americans is $938,000, reports Citizens for Tax Justice. According to Reuters, the Chairman of Timken Company, W.R. Timken, made $2.62 million in 2003, clearly placing him in the wealthiest one percent of Americans. Two months later, W.R. Timken co-hosted a fundraiser for Bush’s campaign in Akron which raised $600,000, and earned Timken ‘Ranger’ status (for those who raise more than $200,000 for the campaign). Then, in September last year, Timken Company announced it was laying off 700 workers, adding more pain to one of the jobless recovery's most hardest-hit states. So much for “more money for jobs.”
Ooops. From Salon's War Room... ___________________ The White House apparently hasn't learned any lessons from its disastrous economic report, from which administration officials have had to backtrack more than once. The problems with the report started when a section that praised outsourcing was publicized. Now, the White House is in another stew for choosing as head of a new office to help the nation's struggling manufacturers an American businessman who, it turns out -- whoops -- opened a factory in China. After the John Kerry campaign started spreading word of the nominee's overseas business credentials, the White House postponed a ceremony scheduled for this morning, where Bush was to name the manufacturing czar, because of "scheduling conflicts."
As you acknowledged, it delays the inevitable. Are we better off using the tax system to continue to encourage people to become trained in industries that we cannot be cost-competitive at (by artificially creating a job market)? I assume (maybe incorrectly) you believe in free trade. If you do, you would agree that in the long-run allowing people and countries to specialize is best for all involved, right? so is this proposal just preventing us from realizing the long-term benefits of the proper allocation of resources?[/ You can be cost-competitive in any number of ways. For example, we require safety standards that other countries don't, raising costs for US firms to maintain US employees. So there, we are artificially weakening the US job market. If we have no problem putting cost-increasing standards on, then why not have similar cost-decreasing functions as well? We already give any number of tax breaks for certain types of behavior - why not for job creation? Job creation benefits the US as a whole, so why shouldn't the government reasonably be involved in rewarding individuals or organizations that contribute in this area. Similar to how donations to charity do the same. But I agree - the primary goal is only to delay the inevitable. Because all parts of the economy affect one another, I think there are significant benefits to taking actions to encourage businesses to hire during bad times and vice-versa during good times. The effects of that create both more stable and higher overall growth in the long-run, in my opinion. Separate from that, in the real world (where politicians work for their own legacy rather than the long-run good of the nation), what president will ever take away a tax benefit that will encourage unemployment? Once you put that type of tax incentive into place, it will become nearly impossible to remove. I disagree - if its structured properly, you could do it. For example, the Sec179 change will certainly be temporary. You could make it a graduated thing that automatically drops slightly in each of 3 or 4 years until it falls to 0, meaning no action needs to be taken to remove it. Or you could specifically make it related to # of jobs active/created/whatever in 2004, so it would clearly be a one-time stimulus. Again, it's not 'standard gov't policy', but there are ways to do it. It's an interesting theory. Not one I agree with, necessarily, but thought provoking none the less. I'm not sure how effective this would be either; my main point is that there are a number of ways for a President to impact short-term economy.
Jobless recovery: still jobless E.J. Dionne, Jr. - Washington Post Writers Group 03.09.04 - WASHINGTON -- Imagine if I told you that all the job growth in the country was explained by a rise in the number of people on government payrolls -- and that there had been no net increase in employment in the private sector. You might assume that those socialist Democrats were back in power and at it again, emptying the public till and expanding their patronage mills. But that would be wrong. The above is a description of the employment figures released last week after 38 months of a Republican administration insisting that large tax cuts for the wealthy would make the private sector hum and put everybody back to work. It hasn't happened. Last month, according the Bureau of Labor Statistics, payrolls expanded by only 21,000 -- far less than most of the experts expected. If it hadn't been for public employment, there would have been no net job creation at all. Washington didn't add those jobs. Federal employment was down by 3,000, according to BLS. Most of the government job growth came from state government, said Jared Bernstein, senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute. The states alone added 20,000 jobs, largely in education. The unemployment rate of 5.6 percent sounds modest by the standards of the 1980s. But the number disguises the distress. Sen. Paul Sarbanes, a Maryland Democrat, points out that the long-term unemployed -- those seeking jobs for six months or more -- have made up more than a fifth of the total unemployed for the past 17 months. That's the lengthiest stretch of long-term unemployment in 20 years. And the unemployment rate is artificially low because many potential job seekers become so discouraged that they stop looking for work. They're not even counted toward the unemployment figure. Last month, 392,000 people dropped out. The labor force has contracted in six of the last eight months. "That's unprecedented this far into a recovery," says Bernstein. Such measures of unrelenting weakness in the job market, he adds, would normally be associated with unemployment rates of 8 percent to 9 percent -- i.e., the numbers associated with the recession of the early 1980s. That's why jobs are such a big issue in the presidential campaign. In explaining all this, it's currently trendy to argue about outsourcing. It's a useful debate. But we shouldn't wait for it to be resolved before acting to relieve the injury we know is out there? For example, doesn't it make sense to acknowledge the problem of the long-term unemployed right now? According to Isaac Shapiro, senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, an estimated 760,000 workers had exhausted their unemployment benefits between the end of December and the end of February. Why? Nearly all who have exhausted their regular state benefits have been out of luck for additional help because Congress allowed the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Program to expire on Dec. 20. The program was passed in March 2002 and then extended twice. Recent votes suggest a majority in the House and Senate -- including nearly all Democrats and a significant number of Republicans -- favor extending it again. But the Senate Budget Committee last week voted down a Sarbanes proposal that would have pushed for a benefit extension. This week, Sen. Maria Cantwell, a Democrat from Washington, is expected to propose an amendment on the Senate floor to make a benefit extension possible through the end of June. The political question: Will Republican congressional leaders and President Bush let the extension go though? "We can debate all we want as to what the best approach is to generate job growth," Shapiro says, "but until the jobs come back, we should agree to provide assistance to those being left behind in the labor market. We have been collecting numbers on this since 1971, and we have never had so many people exhaust their benefits and have to go without further aid. It's unprecedented." That word, again. Extending unemployment benefits is the very least that should be done to deal with a strange job market. Sluggish job growth demands new efforts to guarantee health insurance to workers who find themselves in difficult transitions. Wage insurance, to provide a year or two of safety net for the incomes of those who have to move to lower-paid jobs, might help. So could tax changes specially aimed at helping displaced workers. Above all, Washington needs to admit that an economy producing healthy profits but minimal new employment is not the middle class jobs machine it used to be. Helping the unemployed now is just a modest down payment on a larger project to broaden the reach of growth and prosperity.
This tells me all I need to know about where you stand. So the tax cuts are a "price-tag" item? They are an "expenditure?" So this was Washington's money and they're giving it to us? Not hardly. Washington is merely reducing the tax bill. When gas prices come down, are you then going to say that the oil companies are making an "expenditure?" I doubt it. But the mechanics are rougly the same. This stance is repugnant. It also comes at a time when we, as a people, are taxed to the gills by all levels of government. Spend a few weeks working with people who are losing their homes to foreclosure simply because their taxes have risen to a level where they cannot afford the escrow payments anymore. See these people's lives falling apart in front of your eyes because of it and THEN tell me that we aren't overtaxed and that this is an unwise "expenditure." I realize that I am talking about a different type of tax, but if Federal taxes are less then it goes to follow that there will be more disposable income available to pay the state and local taxes.
Very telling about the focus of this administration. Maybe they would be more empathetic if they were to experience some unemployment themselves.
Krugman No More Excuses on Jobs By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: March 12, 2004 ARTICLE TOOLS E-Mail This Article Printer-Friendly Format Most E-Mailed Articles Columnist Page: Paul Krugman Forum: Discuss This Column E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com READERS' OPINIONS Forum: Join a Discussion on Op-Ed Contributors TIMES NEWS TRACKER Topics Alerts Economic Conditions and Trends Unemployment Recession and Depression s job growth continues to elude the U.S. economy, we're hearing two main excuses from the Bush administration and its supporters: that the real situation is much better than you're hearing, and that to the extent employment is lagging, it's the result of factors outside the administration's control. But after three years of extravagant promises and dismal results, the time for excuses has passed. Let's start with the real job situation. A number of readers have asked me about what Marc Racicot, who heads the Bush re-election effort, told Don Imus the other day. He claimed that those miserable job numbers are misleading, and that another survey presents both a more accurate and a much happier story. You can find the same claim all over the right-wing media. But it just isn't so. It's true that there are two employment surveys, which have been diverging lately. The establishment survey, which asks businesses how many workers they employ, says that 2.4 million jobs have vanished in the last three years. The household survey, which asks individuals whether they have jobs, says that employment has actually risen by 450,000. The administration's supporters, understandably, prefer the second number. But the experts disagree. According to Alan Greenspan: "I wish I could say the household survey were the more accurate. Everything we've looked at suggests that it's the payroll data which are the series which you have to follow." You may have heard that the establishment survey doesn't count jobs created by new businesses; not so. The bureau knows what it's doing — conservative commentators are raising objections only because they don't like the facts. And even the less reliable household survey paints a bleak picture of an economy in which jobs have lagged far behind population growth. The fraction of adults who say they are employed fell steeply between early 2001 and the summer of 2003, and has stagnated since then. But wait — hasn't the unemployment rate fallen since last summer? Yes, but that's entirely the result of people dropping out of the labor force. Even if you're out of work, you're not counted as unemployed unless you're actively looking for a job. We don't know why so many people have stopped looking for jobs, but it probably has something to do with the fact that jobs are so hard to find: 40 percent of the unemployed have been out of work more than 15 weeks, a 20-year record. In any case, the administration should feel grateful that so many people have dropped out. As the Economic Policy Institute points out, if they hadn't dropped out, the official unemployment rate would be an eye-popping 7.4 percent, not a politically spinnable 5.6 percent. In short, things aren't as bad as they seem; they're worse. But should we blame the Bush administration? Yes — because it refuses to learn from experience. Franklin Roosevelt, in his efforts to combat economic woes, was famously willing to try anything until he found something that worked. George Bush, by contrast, seems determined to try the same thing, over and over again. In 2001 the administration rammed through long-term tax cuts, heavily tilted toward the affluent. But employment didn't turn around, and by late 2002 many economists — including supporters of the original tax cut — were urging it to try something different. My own piece, "My Economic Plan," was fairly typical: I called for extended unemployment benefits, temporary aid to state and local governments, and rebates for low- and middle-income workers. Maybe this more or less textbook response to a depressed economy wouldn't have worked. But we'll never know, because the administration rejected all such proposals. Instead, it went for a clone of the 2001 tax cut — another big break mainly for those at the top. And once again this failed to deliver the promised jobs. Meanwhile, Mr. Bush has mortgaged the nation's future. If all of his tax cuts are made permanent, they'll reduce revenue by at least three times the amount that would be needed to secure Social Security benefits at current levels for the next 75 years. No sensible person blames Mr. Bush for the onset of the recession in 2001. But he does deserve blame for the fact that all he has to show for three years of supposed job-creation policies is a mountain of debt link
Bush's Choice for New Post Withdraws By Mike Allen and Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, March 12, 2004; Page A04 A Nebraska executive withdrew under pressure from consideration for a new job leading administration efforts to restore manufacturing jobs, an aide to President Bush said yesterday. The six-month-old search began anew. The prospective nominee, Anthony F. Raimondo, recently opened a factory in China, and Bush's opponent, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), called the businessman "a poster person" for policies "that have affected millions of Americans negatively." Raimondo arrived in Washington late Wednesday to prepare for festivities scheduled for yesterday related to his nomination to a new position Bush announced on Labor Day, assistant secretary of commerce for manufacturing and services. By the time Raimondo landed, the administration was walking away from him after objections from a home-state senator and charges by Democrats that Raimondo's business -- Behlen Manufacturing Co. of Columbus, Neb., which makes prefabricated buildings -- symbolized the job losses dogging Bush's campaign. Behlen shed 1,180 workers from its five U.S. plants in the past three years and opened a plant in Beijing last year. "It's going gangbusters," Raimondo boasted to the Asian Wall Street Journal in May. Moreover, Raimondo backed the election of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) in 2000, when the state's Republican senator, Chuck Hagel, was working hard for Nelson's opponent. When Hagel learned from the White House on Wednesday that Raimondo would be named the next day, he was "astounded," said Mike Brutty, a Hagel spokesman. Another Senate aide said Hagel was "furious." Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans said yesterday on CNBC: "We're continuing to look at candidates. We're continuing to consider candidates. It's not so important when we make the announcement. It's who it is." A Kerry statement said Bush had shown "how difficult it is for his administration to create even one new manufacturing job." Evans told "McLaughlin's One on One" that the post will be filled "in the not-too-distant future."
Job No. 1 for Bush By E. J. Dionne Jr. Friday, March 12, 2004; Page A23 "Ohio's unemployment rate is higher than the national average; manufacturing communities like Youngstown and Cleveland have been hit especially hard. . . . I know there are workers here concerned about their jobs going overseas. I share that concern. . . . There are those with good jobs who worry about their health care and their retirement benefits. There are a lot of moms and dads who wonder whether or not their child will be able to find a job in the community in which they were raised." Those words aren't an excerpt from an old John Edwards speech about the "Two Americas," or a new John Kerry speech lashing the Bush economy. That's President Bush himself, speaking on Wednesday in Cleveland. They are the admissions of a man who knows he's in a desperate race to redefine how Americans see this election-year economy. The first two months of 2004 will be remembered as the moment Americans shifted their view of Bush's economic stewardship. The politicians' private polls and the public polls tell the same story: Americans who began to have faith in the economic recovery a few months ago are now losing it. This puts Bush in the tricky position of having to do many things at once. He needs to make clear he understands that people are hurting. He needs to offload blame. He needs to convince voters that things can only get better -- and that his opponents will only make things worse. The Cleveland speech was important because it provided the template for the political strategy that Bush will have to pursue as long as Americans feel blue about jobs and money. Bush needs to insist that sluggish job creation does not prove that his tax policies failed. So he argued, first, that he inherited a recession, noting that manufacturing jobs started to decline in August 2000, i.e., during the previous administration. Second, Sept. 11 was "a serious blow to our economy" and "the enemy hurt us." Third, the financial scandals "hurt the economy as well." Besides, Bush added, "this is a time of transition, it's a time of change. And if you're one going through transition, it's not an easy experience." In other words, don't blame Bush for your problems. Blame Bill Clinton, Osama bin Laden, Enron and, yes, "transition." And whatever you do, don't vote for his opponent, who will return the country to the "old policy of tax-and-spend" and "economic isolationism." This is not the argument Bush hoped to be making now. "Morning in America" is an easier sell. "See, my policies worked!" is an easier sound bite. The public, however, wouldn't buy that. The startling thing is that an election that seemed on track for the Bush team just a few months ago has, thanks to new economic perceptions, gone haywire. According to Pew Research Center polls, economic confidence grew steadily between autumn and the beginning of the year. The proportion of Americans rating economic conditions as "excellent" or "good" rose from 21 percent in September to 43 percent in the first days of 2004. That was good news for Bush. But the Pew surveys found that the proportion of Americans giving the economy positive ratings dropped steadily during the heat of the Democratic primaries through January and February. It was down to 31 percent at the end of last month. Anna Greenberg, a Democratic pollster, said the findings were consistent with private polls and suggested several factors that came together to dent the public's confidence. Sluggish job growth "takes its toll after a while" and the "continuing bad news about jobs undercuts the other economic indicators." In political terms, the unemployment rate is playing second fiddle to the job-creation numbers. In addition, "the collective effect of the press covering outsourcing" has made it a powerful issue that now comes up regularly in focus groups. Rising health care, transportation and education costs, she said, have further undermined Americans' sense of well-being. "Nobody feels like their incomes are going up," she said. That is why the Bush campaign will be spending so much of its vast treasury in the coming weeks on advertising to change what has become, from its point of view, a dismal dynamic. No wonder Bush went on the air yesterday with a new ad attacking Kerry on taxes and the Patriot Act. In one of his positive ads, Bush declares: "I know exactly where I want to lead this country." Perhaps. But even more than ads, Bush needs a sustained period of job growth, and soon, if he expects voters to go with him.
This would be funny if it weren't so sad... on several levels... __________________ At $6 an hour, who needs a tax cut? Paul Vitello March 12, 2004 It was upbeat, precise, as organized as a meeting of the board of directors, framed at beginning and end with rousing music -- a near-perfect campaign stop: President George W. Bush arrived on schedule. He gave his speech. He moderated a panel of five people on a makeshift stage in front of a sign that said "Strengthening America's Economy." He wove their stories seamlessly into the fabric of his re-election campaign. He engaged in self-deprecating humor that even a detractor might find charming. And then he left -- to a standing ovation -- shaking hands all the way to the exit door of U.S.A. Industries in Bay Shore, where his campaign made this first of three stops on Long Island yesterday. Security people kept reporters from interviewing the workers at U.S.A. until the president was on the way to his next stop. But when workers were finally interviewed -- these people who made up the bulk of the president's cheering audience in New York -- Bush's performance turned out to be, if anything, even more impressive. "No speak English," said the first worker, smiling apologetically. "No speak English," said the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth workers way-laid in the crowd. But you think the tax cuts should be made permanent, as he says? "Sorry, no English," said another. It is possible that President Bush could have drawn a crowd of several hundred at lunchtime on the streets of Bay Shore to cheer his economic policies, which can be summed up in two words: tax cuts. But if that crowd is ready-made -- the work force of a small auto parts factory whose owner has received tax breaks from the Republican-run state and town governments, and who employs large numbers of non-English speaking immigrants happy to work for $6 to $9 an hour with few benefits -- why bother? "I understand him a little bit English," said Nubia Guzman, a packer who said she earns $7.50 an hour after four years on a job that Bush had described in his speech as evidence of the success of his tax cutting economic policies. She has no health coverage. What did you like about him? she was asked. "He nice," she said. This may be all that matters in the long run. The candidate who wins is usually the one people like the look and sound of, not the one they have listened closely to. In this particular crowd, anyway, there were probably few voters. Of those who spoke English, few said they were registered. It is the not-so-secret secret of every presidential campaign that most crowds at most campaign stops are so much stage prop. They are there to make a certain amount of noise, to look like a constituency the candidate hopes to win the votes of -- in the Bay Shore factory, Hispanic voters -- and to be as unsurprising and well-behaved as security arrangements can make them. The campaigner is the only one with a speaking part in these entertainments. And in yesterday's performance, Bush was a star. It almost didn't matter that most of his audience didn't understand a word he said. He gave off an aura of optimism that was magnetic. In fact, he used the word optimism at least eight times during his presentation. "I hope you get a feeling of the optimism ... " he said. "It's gotta make you optimistic ... " he said. "I am very optimistic about the future ... " He was as upbeat as those people who do hour-long info-mercials. Optimism poured out of him. Optimism apparently will be one of the themes of his campaign. You don't have to like Bush to see the brilliance of it. It is apparently the counter-punch to the relentless attack of his presumed democratic opponent, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who criticizes Bush for what he terms Bush's many failures: failures of economic policy, of foreign policy, of environmental and domestic policies, of political vision. Optimism is a deep vein in the psyche of all people, Americans especially; and if Bush succeeds at bottling it for his campaign, he will win. What would you like to do with your life?, a shipping clerk at U.S.A. Industries named Wil Romero was asked. He is 26 years old. He thought for a moment. "I would like to be an American citizen," he said. Copyright © 2004, Newsday, Inc.
Refman, I understand where you're coming from, but I just wanted to make a comment. One of the reasons local taxes have gotten so extravagant, certainly here in Texas, is that Federal funding keeps dropping, the state government, at least in Texas, refuses to raise revenue... even an increase in the cigarette tax, and the unfunded "mandates" of the federal government, the unfunded programs or underfunded programs that got state funding have their budgets cut (and we're talking about essential services here... not your "welfare rich", which is a folktale except for the rare exception), so the burden of finding funds falls on ... you guessed it... the county, city and other local governments. They are forced to raise property taxes. My property taxes are rediculous here in Austin. I'm sure yours are as well. I wish it were a simple matter of Federal taxes being too much of a burden. It's not.
