The results are in and its time that they are released to the public. Over the past 58 years, “The politics of Democratic presidents have produced more employment and output growth, benefiting poor and middle-class families” while “Republican presidents have tended to focus more on containing inflation, which has negligible effects on real income growth near the bottom of the income distribution but substantial effects at the top.” In addition, the average unemployment rate has averaged almost 2 percentage points less and GNP growth has increased over 1 percentage point more over the same 58 years under Democratic presidents compared to Republican ones. These findings are according to Princeton Economist Larry Bartels (a self proclaimed politically neutral observer who last voted for Regan) from his most recent analysis on the political economy which can be found in his new book Unequal Democracy.
More research by Bartels’s colleague Paul Krugman (a self proclaimed “progressive” whose ideals align with the current Democratic party but more so with the socioeconomic policies of FDR) indicates that since 1973 the top .01% of American’s have seen their incomes increase five times while the median inflation adjusted income of “working class” American’s has not statistically changed by any observable amount despite the fact that the average worker’s productivity has increased by 50%. This means that there has been absolutely no money trickling down from the rich to the poor over the past 40 plus years which proves beyond any reasonable doubt that supply side economics is a myth that was sold to wealthy businessmen who read slanted op-eds in the Wall Street Journal that appealed to their own biases and funded campaigns who in turn implemented policies benefiting their backers.
These facts are important today because it is likely - if not inevitable - that the economy will continue to slide for at least the entirety of President Obama’s first year in office, however it must be kept in mind that these failings are not due to his policies but the failed republican economic policies during the Bush Administration. So it is crucial that the majority of the American people continue to push for current democratic efforts to reinstate a stable welfare state and eliminate the tax breaks for the top 1% of Americans.
by Stephen J. Kostyo
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Robust Debate
There is good reason why the words “We the People” begin the Constitution of the United States. These words evidence the legitimacy of our government in a consent of and from the people governed. It is in this eloquence that we witness the democratic vision of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson in our constitutional democratic republic.
In the words “We the People” there is a critical and constant reminder that the responsibility of government begins with us. As a result, robust debate is not dependent on the media, present administration in Washington or Congress. The debate of critical issues that confront our community, our state and country begin with and depend on - us.
With the responsibility of citizenship, there is a duty vested in each and every citizen to seek, engage and pursue information necessary for robust debate. If we are to seek and find solutions to our present economic challenges; develop renewable alternatives to limited fossil fuel resources; reform our health care system to care for health and achieve the highest level of education possible for each person, then we must force ourselves to step beyond the dog-whistle political punditry of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and others who offer unsubstantiated conclusions rather than solutions.
Reference to dog-whistle punditry is not a compliment. It is a frequently used device that seeks acceptance of assumed facts. The term also describes a litany of appeals to assumptions that fail any scrutiny under critical review. At the same time, all too many never question.
If probative thought is sought rather a Pavlovian response, then reference must be demanded for reports from the Congressional Research Service, Council of Economic Advisers; or primary source material. The singular challenging fact is the sources do not exist for the conclusions made by dog-whistle politicos.
For “We the People,” Thomas Jefferson envisioned a university plan so broad, liberal and modern to merit public support and tempt even those from great distances. Jefferson’s proposed university was a place of study at the highest level with the greatest of world renowned scholars. In this “We the People” finds renewed vitality. The success of dog-whistle pundits like Limbaugh and Hannity evidence a failure of “We the People” to live up to the vision of our founders.
Even for “dog-whistle” followers we must hope that the level of inquiry and comprehension may exceed marginal high school acumen and failed college profundity. At the very least, it must rise above success through bombastic self-promotion, situational disregard for truth, gender and sex based bias, homophobia and bigotry. Perhaps we may instill in our children a level of intellectual curiosity or basic ability to think so they may survive one or two college semesters before undertaking leadership of the Republican Party.
In the words “We the People” there is a critical and constant reminder that the responsibility of government begins with us. As a result, robust debate is not dependent on the media, present administration in Washington or Congress. The debate of critical issues that confront our community, our state and country begin with and depend on - us.
With the responsibility of citizenship, there is a duty vested in each and every citizen to seek, engage and pursue information necessary for robust debate. If we are to seek and find solutions to our present economic challenges; develop renewable alternatives to limited fossil fuel resources; reform our health care system to care for health and achieve the highest level of education possible for each person, then we must force ourselves to step beyond the dog-whistle political punditry of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and others who offer unsubstantiated conclusions rather than solutions.
Reference to dog-whistle punditry is not a compliment. It is a frequently used device that seeks acceptance of assumed facts. The term also describes a litany of appeals to assumptions that fail any scrutiny under critical review. At the same time, all too many never question.
If probative thought is sought rather a Pavlovian response, then reference must be demanded for reports from the Congressional Research Service, Council of Economic Advisers; or primary source material. The singular challenging fact is the sources do not exist for the conclusions made by dog-whistle politicos.
For “We the People,” Thomas Jefferson envisioned a university plan so broad, liberal and modern to merit public support and tempt even those from great distances. Jefferson’s proposed university was a place of study at the highest level with the greatest of world renowned scholars. In this “We the People” finds renewed vitality. The success of dog-whistle pundits like Limbaugh and Hannity evidence a failure of “We the People” to live up to the vision of our founders.
Even for “dog-whistle” followers we must hope that the level of inquiry and comprehension may exceed marginal high school acumen and failed college profundity. At the very least, it must rise above success through bombastic self-promotion, situational disregard for truth, gender and sex based bias, homophobia and bigotry. Perhaps we may instill in our children a level of intellectual curiosity or basic ability to think so they may survive one or two college semesters before undertaking leadership of the Republican Party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
