It's the Economy, Stupid

During Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign, a sign in Clinton's campaign headquarters reminded the candidate "the economy, stupid." The same sign would work for the Democrats' 2008 presidential candidate. After Iraq and healthcare, Americans see the economy as the number three problem facing the United States. In fact, they rate economic problems in the aggregate almost as highly as they do Iraq.

Over the course of the Bush administration, Americans have become increasingly pessimistic about the economy. In the latest Gallup poll 69 percent of respondents described current economic conditions as fair or poor. (In January 2001, only 33 percent were pessimistic.) In the same poll 71 percent saw economic conditions "getting worse."

The Gallup Poll lists a number of reasons why Americans are pessimistic about the economy. The top 10 are healthcare, "lack of money/low wages," housing costs, energy costs, debt, "retirement savings," "college expenses," cost of living, taxes, and unemployment. The Gallup researchers asked respondents what should be to solve these problems: "Americans say maintaining the availability of good jobs is the No. 1 thing they would recommend to improve the economy." That's an important finding because Republicans don't talk about creating good jobs, but rather the necessity to cut taxes.

Perspectives on President Bush's handling of the economy differ by political affiliation: "Among Republicans, 69 percent approve of the way Bush is handling the economy...Among Democrats, 84 percent disapprove... Among independents, 61 percent disapprove."

Whether Americans view the U.S. economy as getting better or worse depends upon where their position in the economic pecking order. If the respondent is at or near the top, things are getting better. The latest reports indicate that America's rich are getting richer. In 2006 the average CEO was paid $14.78 million. However, during this same period the minimum wage was $5.15 per hour, which meant the average CEO made more in 90 minutes than the minimum wage worker made in a year. Moreover, since 2000 the number of severely poor has grown more than any other segment of the population -- to 16 million people. For most Americans things are getter worse.

When reporters ask the average American household -- earning $48,021 per year -- about the economy, they hear comments such as: "We're working harder but not getting ahead." "There's no safety net; if one of us gets sick or laid off, we'll lose everything." "We're afraid our kids won't have as good as a life as we've had."

Nonetheless, GOP presidential hopefuls don't say much about the economy or jobs, except to lobby for more tax cuts. Rudy Giuliani "would lower taxes, make permanent President Bush's tax cuts and eliminate inheritance taxes." The former mayor of New York believes in supply-side economics and, therefore, expects tax cuts to generate jobs. Senator John McCain has a similar position: no new taxes and pray the economy will take care of jobs. Former Senator Fred Thompson and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney echo these sentiments.

In contrast, the Democratic Presidential hopefuls address the need for good jobs. Senator Hillary Clinton said, "Let's make sure the people who work hard every day can actually support their families and save for the future." Senator Barack Obama stated, "It's time to turn the page for all those Americans who want nothing more than to have a job that can pay the bills and raise a family... Let's put the jobless back to work in transitional jobs that can give them a paycheck and a sense of pride. Let's help our workers advance with job training and lifelong education." And former Senator John Edwards observed, "Some willing workers cannot find jobs without skills, experience, or references. We know that innovative programs can help these workers. And we know -- because we have seen it work -- that the government can create short-term jobs to serve as stepping-stones..."

There's an obvious difference between the Republican and Democratic approaches to job creation: the GOP presidential hopefuls trust an unencumbered economy to do it, while the Democratic contenders want some sort of jobs program. These different perspectives may be due to basic philosophy: Republicans don't believe in government programs and Democrats do. However, some observers offer a more troubling explanation.

A recent book by Jonathan Chait, The Big Con, argues the hard core of the Republican Party believes in plutocracy rather than democracy. Chait contends the driving purpose of the GOP is to service business interests and the rich. Therefore, Republicans lobby for tax cuts because those disproportionately benefit the rich and powerful. They oppose jobs programs because they're against government programs, in principle, and their wealthy constituents don't want to pay for them. Chait says the GOP leadership has a narrow, selfish view of the economy: it should benefit the Republican elite.

Like Iraq and healthcare, there are stark differences in Democratic and Republican economic philosophy. So clear that most independent voters understand these differences. That's a good omen for the Democrats so long as they remember, "It's the economy, stupid."

Comments

[castlerider]

How can average Americans NOT see the economy pinching their asses off, after paying over $2.60-3.00 for a gallon of gas for the last 3 years, and watching to see that Exxon Mobil reports a record profit of 60 billion last year? Along with all other fellow oil companies following suit?

That issue alone tells us point blank that had Gore won in 2000, with the way we all know he would've been frugal with the economy and spending, and with the cafe standards (MPG) muscled to increase, not to mention finding alternative energies, there's actuallly very little prospect at all that Gas prices would be much if any different now...
I know that any thinking American would damn sure like to have been able to keep that dollar for every damn gallon of gas they bought for the last 3 years... just for me and my family, that's over 5000 dollars. Knowing how bad we could use that cash, it makes me sure as hell feel robbed... I believe a better word for it is Cheney-ed.

[seawolf77]

The metabolism of the economy is about to collide with the metabolism of the planet. Can anyone say trainwreck?

[knowhelpnow]

The GOP has never been for the working poor. They call the Democrats tax and spend, but here they are just the spend and debt party.
If anyone thinks that going back to where we were with taxing the rich more is a tax increase it is not, we will just be shutting off the spigot to the rich which we never should of done when we had wars that we have to pay for some how, you know they say there is no free lunch but the rich have been having free lunches on us for a very long time now, it is time to pay the price.
As far as health care and the belief that it is a socialist idea to cover everyone that is bull. I believe that health care especially preventive health care for everyone works and in the long run it will be cheaper. You take out the for profit HMO's, PPO's, and replace them with a one payer system, who can really keep prices down, now that makes to much sense to me.

[Kansas Evans]

you know they say there is no free lunch but the rich have been having free lunches on us for a very long time now, it is time to pay the price.
_______________________________________________

I agree. Supply-siders believe that when the rich pay taxes, it's like they're giving a gift to the poor (I actually read that quote in an article). The fact that they make money off the poor seems to be forgotten. Let the argument that slaves really weren't working for free because the slaveowner had to pay for food, clothes, and shelter. It's one of those arguments where you hesitate to respond, sure there's a punchline coming or something, only to find out, they're serious! And they think the fact you didn't respond isn't because you were stunned at the sheer ignorance, but because you agree.

Sad.

[toomuchtolose]

They don't like the middle class either.

They see themselves as the elite
and the rest of us are the barbarians at the gates. Without jobs, education, and home
ownership, there's no more middle class.
They are building as many barriers against
the middle class as they can in order to
keep the barbarians (us) out.
They are continuing Reagan's legacy.

[Desiderata]

It's good to be speaking to my true constituents: the Haves and the Havemores__George W. Bush.

[Kansas Evans]

Have and havemores as opposed to had.

[sparkandy]

or never had and never gonna have

[oldpotsmuggler]

There is a Tsunami wave of foreclosure homes headed for pretty much every neighborhood in this country. With this Tsunami we have an effective early warning system but government either can't figure out what that load noise is in the background, or it's frozen like a deer in the headlights.

In 1993 I went straight from federal prison into the mortgage industry (marketing, training, etc.). One thing that caught my attention immediately was the fact that nearly every borrower we came across who was in construction had filed bankruptcy in the prior two to five years. This was the period when we had the last general housing down turn, and it was puny compared to what is still barreling down on us.

By my estimation, the economy will be so far in the tank that Democrats are not going to have to do anything to win big in 2008 except show up. Which is really good, because they sure can't be accused of doing much up to now.

[sonofloud]

another bush, another deficit and recession

[Henry]

Universal health care would essentially be a win win proposition for the country. All business' that now pay health care premiums for employees would see that expense gone. All business' that cannot now afford to pay premiums for employees would see a happier and healthier group of employees. And the proportion of gdp allocated to health care could drop from 15% to 10%.
And the terror felt by the uninsured, where ever they are, would be gone.
It sounds like a winning economic platform plank as well as being the christian thing to do.

[Lt]

Another good point to make might be.

What would this Faux economy look like if the
administration were forced to fire the hundreds
of thousands of new government employees it has hired in the form of government contractors?

[BillZBubb]

"Chait says the GOP leadership has a narrow, selfish view of the economy: it should benefit the Republican elite."

This is true, but they also have built a pseudo-philosophy that twists reality to justify their position. They convince themselves and the gullible that benefitting the wealthy elite is actually beneficial to the whole society. Social Darwinism along with free market and open competition myths are their self-serving buttresses.