Actual median income has been rising, but when inflation is considered, many lost purchasing power.
The well-coordinated rant of the Republicans these days is that the Dems are trying to micromanage the war. Well, isn't it about time someone did this?
The war has been, and continues, to be a disaster under he Reps. The current lull, if you will, in the insurgency is a classic tactic. The insurgence will soon resume stronger than ever.
From the Economic Policy Institute:
October 21, 2004 | EPI Briefing Paper #154
Less Cash in Their Pockets
Trends in Incomes, Wages, Taxes, and Health Spending of Middle-Income Families, 2000-03
by Lawrence Mishel, Michael Ettlinger, and Elise Gould
The economic well-being of middle-income families has changed significantly over the last few years, largely as a result of three important dynamics. First, the recession that started in March 2001 was despite an increase in output of goods and services. Although employment has grown since September 2003, it has not done so at a sufficient rate to diminish the substantial labor slack generated by the downturn in 2001 (Mishel et al. 2004). Consequently, pre-tax incomes fell for three years in a row, leaving the typical household with $1,535 less income in 2003 than in 2000, a drop of 3.4%. This decline in income was primarily the result of lost work opportunities from fewer family members working and fewer hours worked per worker (fewer weeks per year and fewer hours per week). A second dynamic influencing family economic well-being is the income tax reductions legislated at the federal level, primarily those of 2001 and 2003. It is important to assess the degree to which shifts in taxation have offset the recession-induced income losses. Finally, the health care costs facing families have surged as insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs have grown rapidly over the past few years (Families USA, September 2004).
From the NYTimes:
November 28, 2006
'04 Income in U.S. Was Below 2000 Level
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
Correction Appended
Despite significant gains in 2004, the total income Americans reported to the tax collector that year, adjusted for inflation, was still below its peak in 2000, new government data shows.
Reported income totaled $7.044 trillion in 2004, the latest year for which data is available, down from more than $7.143 trillion in 2000, new Internal Revenue Service data shows.
Total reported income, in 2004 dollars, fell 1.4 percent, but because the population grew during that period average real incomes declined more than twice as much, falling $1,641, or 3 percent, to $53,974.
Since 2004, the Census Bureau has found, the income of the typical American household has grown along with the rise in average incomes but at a slow pace that, until recent months, had barely kept ahead of inflation.
From the NY Times:
March 11, 2007
News Analysis
Crisis Looms in Mortgages Great economy, heh?
To be perfectly honest, most of this is over my head. All I know is that it seems we had more money when clinton was office than we do now and times were easier all the way around. I am not saying I am poor, I am just saying it seems that middle income people seem to have it more rough (after you factor in the rising cost of health care, higher gas prices and the natural growth of the price of products) than they did when clinton was office regardless of charts and graphs. When I talk to people I know they all seem to say about the same thing. That is not gloom or doom or even evidence of anything since it is ancedotal (spell?), but just me being honest, take or leave it. I really don't care.
From the Glasgow Herald:
The fall guy
By Trevor Royle, Diplomatic Editor
After taking the rap for lying about the betrayal of a CIA agent, former vice-presidential aide Scooter Libby has a new nickname in Washington DC ...
HEARD THE one about Lewis Libby's change of nickname? If the wags in Washington are right; he's no longerknown as Scooter, the moniker that's been with him since infancy (apparently his father saw him "scooting" around his crib). Instead he's now known as Patsy. Like the original, that too tells you a lot about the man and his proclivities. No sooner had vice-president Dick Cheney's former chief of staff and adviser been convicted on four counts of perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements to the FBI than Washington was agog with tittle-tattle that Libby was a patsy, a fall guy who had taken the rap for others.
Even one of the jurors, Denis Collins, was heard to ask where was Cheney and where was the influential White House political theorist and speechwriter Karl Rove? The implication was obvious: why were these big hitters not in the dock, and why was Libby being forced to take the blame for revealing that Valerie Plame, wife of US ambassador Joseph C Wilson IV, was a CIA agent and then lying about it? He could have added a similar question about Richard Armitage, the senior State Department official who is suspected of being the source of the leak, but the fact remains that Libby was found guilty of lying and then covering up. On June 5, he will know how long his sentence will be.
..........
Libby-Cheney-Rove-Bush
Unless Bush pardons Patsy before the sentencing takes place.
We all know by now that the Bush cabal are all above the laws of this country; whatever they do supersedes all past laws. A pardon is already in the books before Bush tells the public.
Interesting side info.
Schumer calls on Gonzales to step down By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer
41 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Senate's No. 3 Democrat said Sunday that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should resign because he is putting politics above the law. Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record) cited the FBI's illegal snooping into people's private lives and the Justice Department's firing of federal prosecutors.
Schumer, D-N.Y., said Gonzales repeatedly has shown more allegiance to President Bush than to citizens' legal rights since taking his job in early 2005.
He branded Gonzales, a former White House counsel, as one of the most political attorney generals in recent history.
Patsy Libby -- it has a ring to it. Of course, that could be a very appropriate name for him in the cellblock. I'm sure he will find a nice sweetheart there.
If Patsy doesn't find somebody in prison, I'm sure many of those "men" of good will will find him.
March 12, 2007
Citizens Who Lack Papers Lose Medicaid
On tax-cuts and revenues
I happened upon some quotes..
George Bush..
Quote:Bush hailed the dwindling deficit as a direct result of "pro-growth economic policies," particularly huge tax cuts enacted during his first term. "Tax relief fuels economic growth. And growth -- when the economy grows, more tax revenues come to Washington. And that's what's happened," Bush said.
..and John McCain..
Quote:McCain was recently interviewed by National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru and asked if there were any circumstances, including the guarantee of spending cuts, under which he'd consider repealing the tax cuts he denounced and voted against. He replied: "No. None. None. Tax cuts, starting with Kennedy, as we all know, increase revenues."
..versus Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the conservative American Enterprise Institute..
Quote:We all know that? In fact, economists know that this is not true. Conservative economists know this isn't true. Even conservative economists who work in the Bush administration have admitted this isn't true. As former Bush economist Alan Viard, now at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said: "Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that."
Quote:"Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that," said Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute. "It's logically possible" that a tax cut could spur sufficient economic growth to pay for itself, Viard said. "But there's no evidence that these tax cuts would come anywhere close to that."
..and the (pre-November 2006) Congressional Research Service:
Quote:Economists at the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and in the Treasury Department have reached the same conclusion. An analysis of Treasury data prepared last month by the Congressional Research Service estimates that economic growth fueled by the cuts is likely to generate revenue worth about 7 percent of the total cost of the cuts, a broad package of rate reductions and tax credits that has returned an estimated $1.1 trillion to taxpayers since 2001.
Robert Carroll, deputy assistant Treasury secretary for tax analysis, said neither the president nor anyone else in the administration is claiming that tax cuts alone produced the unexpected surge in revenue. "As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves," Carroll said.
Links:
The Washington Post (17/10/2006): Lower Deficit Sparks Debate Over Tax Cuts' Role
TNR: John McCain is like a fallen Jedi knight
The WaPo article concludes:
"Without question, the deficit is receding. [..] If growth induced by Bush's cuts doesn't explain the surge, where did all those extra tax dollars come from? The short answer is spectacularly high corporate profits and the advancing fortunes of wealthy Americans, economists said."
I didn't check out all the quotes as attributed to people. But I do wonder if Alan Viard actually did say what is attributed to him by the LA Times and on the blogs especially if we could see the quote in context. Viard is really big on the theory that higher taxes change people's behavior and while higher taxes can result in short term revenue surges, that may not hold true in the long term.
Viard recently said this.
Quote:I would like to make four points:
The federal tax system is highly progressive.
The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are not "tax cuts for the rich.
Attempting to promote progressivity by taxing saving and investment is harmful and counter-productive.
Well-designed policies can increase progressivity while strengthening the economy.
Quote: "Well-designed policies can increase progressivity while strengthening the economy."
Herein lies the problem; our productivity increased at 2 to 3 percent every year for the past five or six years, but that didn't translate into those increases being reflected in workers pay/wages. According to government statistics, most middle class and the poor lost buying power when considered after inflation and tax cuts. The fact of the matter is, consumer debt increased to maintain our economy during the same period, and more homeowners are now defaulting on their mortgage loans. The future does not look too bright.
Foxfyre wrote:I didn't check out all the quotes as attributed to people. But I do wonder if Alan Viard actually did say what is attributed to him by the LA Times and on the blogs especially if we could see the quote in context. Viard is really big on the theory that higher taxes change people's behavior and while higher taxes can result in short term revenue surges, that may not hold true in the long term.
Probably you should have checked those links.
It was actually only reprinted by the LA Times how he was quoted by the WaPo on Tuesday, October 17, 2006, page D01.
Foxfyre wrote:I didn't check out all the quotes as attributed to people. But I do wonder if Alan Viard actually did say what is attributed to him by the LA Times and on the blogs
LA Times and blogs? What are you talking about?
The first article is from the Washington Post, the second is from an article in The New Republic. I included the links.
Foxfyre wrote:especially if we could see the quote in context.
This is the quote in context in the WaPo's article:
Quote:Bush hailed the dwindling deficit as a direct result of "pro-growth economic policies," particularly huge tax cuts enacted during his first term. "Tax relief fuels economic growth. And growth -- when the economy grows, more tax revenues come to Washington. And that's what's happened," Bush said.
Economists said Bush was claiming credit where little is due. The economy has grown and tax receipts have risen at historic rates over the past two years, but the Bush tax cuts played a small role in that process, they said, and cost the Treasury more in lost taxes than it gained from the resulting economic stimulus.
"Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that," said Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute. "It's logically possible" that a tax cut could spur sufficient economic growth to pay for itself, Viard said. "But there's no evidence that these tax cuts would come anywhere close to that."
After that the article moves on to the findings of the Congressional Research Service.
In fact,
that's the take I'd pay greater attention to than to Viard's in the first place - we're talking about economists at the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and in the Treasury Department doing an analysis of Treasury data here. And finding that "economic growth fueled by the cuts is likely to generate revenue worth about 7 percent of the total cost of the cuts".
