Politics

The Economy and Jobs

Bush Administration Breaks Record

Administration Borrows more from Foreign Nations than Previous 42 Presidents Combined



Washington, D.C. - President George W. Bush and the current
Administration have now borrowed more money from foreign governments
and banks than the previous 42 U.S. presidents combined.



Throughout the first 224 years (1776-2000) of our nation's history, 42
U.S. presidents borrowed a combined $1.01 trillion from foreign
governments and financial institutions according to the U.S. Treasury
Department. In the past four years alone (2001-2005), the Bush
Administration has borrowed a staggering $1.05 trillion.



"The seriousness of this rapid and increasing financial vulnerability
of our country can hardly be overstated," said Rep. John Tanner (D-TN),
a leader of the Blue Dog Coalition and member of the House Ways and
Means Committee. "The financial mismanagement of our country by the
Bush Administration should be of concern to all Americans, regardless
of political persuasion."



The Blue Dogs have long expressed tremendous concern over mounting U.S.
debt and are particularly troubled by our growing dependence on foreign
governments to finance our debt. Earlier this year, the Coalition
offered a 12 Step Plan to cure our nation's addiction to deficit
spending. The Blue Dog plan required, among other things, that all
federal agencies pass clean audits, a balanced budget, and the
establishment of a rainy day fund to be used in the event of a natural
disaster.



"No American political leadership has ever willfully and deliberately
mortgaged our country to foreign interests in the manner we have
witnessed over the past four years," continued Rep. Tanner. "If this
recklessness is not stopped, I truly believe our economic freedom as
American citizens is in great jeopardy."

4.11.05 14:24, comment

BUSH MISLEADS ON FLU VACCINE

President Bush has tried to avoid any responsibility for the flu 
vaccine shortage by making misleading statements. During the presidential 
debate last Wednesday, President Bush said the problem was that "we relied 
upon a company out of England."[1] That isn't true. Chiron Corp., the 
company whose vaccine plant was contaminated, is a California company - 
subject to regulation by the U.S. government - that operates a factory 
in England.[2] 

During the debate, President Bush also said, "we took the right action 
and didn't allow contaminated medicine into our country."[3] That isn't 
true either. It was the British authorities who, after inspecting the 
plant, revoked the factory's license on October 5th.[4] 

In June 2003, the United States Food and Drug Administration inspected 
the Chiron plant.[5] Initially, the FDA found that the plant was 
contaminated with bacteria but later announced, "the problems were corrected 
to their satisfaction," and allowed the plant to continue to 
operate.[6] 

Sources: 

1. "Transcript of Debate Between Bush and Kerry, With Domestic Policy 
the Topic," New York Times, 10/13/04, 
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3453460&l=63315. 
2. "Both candidates stretched facts on key issues," Philadelphia 
Inquirer, 10/14/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3453460&l=63316. 
3. "Transcript of Debate Between Bush and Kerry, With Domestic Policy 
the Topic," New York Times, 10/13/04, 
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3453460&l=63315. 
4. "With Few Suppliers of Flu Shots, Shortage Was Long in Making," New 
York Times, 10/17/04, 
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3453460&l=63317. 
5. Ibid., http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3453460&l=63317 . 
6. Ibid., http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3453460&l=63317 . 

22.10.04 16:53, comment

Economic Troubles: from Elevated to High

By Gov. Howard Dean, M.D.

This is one in a series of weekly syndicated columns written by Governor Howard Dean.

The two critical issues for every President are national security
and economic security. While much media attention has been focused on
Iraq and Al Qaeda, most Americans have been quietly focusing on their
economic plight. What they are seeing is not pretty.

President Bush asserts that the economy has "turned the corner" and
that his tax cuts are working to stimulate the economy and create jobs.
A critical look at the gross domestic product tells the honest story
about the economy. GDP is the sum of consumer spending, government
spending, investments and net exports.

During the Clinton administration, consumer spending drove the
economy, increasing at an average of 1.77 percent per quarter. More
consumer spending on food, electronics, automobiles, durable goods and
houses, means more jobs and a more robust economy. More spending meant
more jobs.

Despite the President's claim that his tax cuts increased consumer
spending, we now know that a big chunk of the money went to people who
make over $1 million per year. That does not help consumer spending,
because it has no effect on consumers who already had enough money to
buy what they wanted anyway. During the Bush administration, consumer
spending has sputtered, and in order to cut cost, companies have moved
jobs to countries where wages are between 50 cents and $2.50/hour.
That's why we are seeing job losses, especially in America's
manufacturing states like Michigan and Ohio.

President Bush's tax cuts of three years ago hurt the economy in the
long run. Politicians in this country have often promised tax cuts
without telling Americans what that means for local property taxes,
local school quality, and health care costs. Even our soldiers felt the
negative consequences of this tax cut. They were under-equipped when
they went to Iraq, and the administration sent 50,000 fewer troops than
the Pentagon recommended.



The underlying assumption that a tax cut means more money for
individuals to spend on consumer products is valid. However, The United
States as a country, and Americans as individuals have high debt and a
negative savings rates. The monies from the tax cut are used mostly to
pay off debt rather than for new spending. Our next President must
encourage savings.

Earlier this year, the Labor Department reported that 32,000 net new
jobs were created in July. Little did people notice that during that
month, 32,000 new government jobs were created. If it weren't for new
government jobs being created, the job numbers would have been worse.

Government spending has dramatically increased during President
Bush's term, at a rate twice as fast as spending in the Clinton
administration. A rapid increase in government spending and tax cuts
that mostly go to people that make $1 million a year have created huge
long term deficits.

Chronic deficits are bad for families, bad for businesses, bad for
states and bad for America. Not one Republican president has balanced
the budget in the last 34 years; only Bill Clinton did so. If it takes
a liberal to balance the budget then we need one in the White House.

15.10.04 19:47, comment

Bush and the U.S. economy

Oct. 7, 2004. 01:00 AM

His failure to alter course has been disastrous says Joseph Stiglitz Many around the world are surprised at how little attention the economy is receiving in President Bush's re-election campaign.  But I am not surprised: if I were Bush, the last thing I would want to talk about is the economy. Yet many people look at America's economy, even over these past 3 1/2 years, with some envy. Annual economic growth — at an average rate of 2.5 per cent — may have been markedly slower than during the Clinton years, but it still looks strong compared with Europe's anemic 1 per cent.But these statistics mask a glaring fact: the average American family is worse off than it was 3 1/2 years ago. Median income has fallen by more than $1,500 in real terms, with families being squeezed as wages lag behind inflation. In short, all that growth benefited only those at the top of the income distribution, the same group that had done so well over the previous 30 years and benefited most from Bush's tax cut. For example, some 45 million Americans have no health insurance, up by 5.2 million from 2000. Families lucky enough to have health insurance face annual premiums that have nearly doubled, to $7,500. Families also face increasing job insecurity. This is the first time since the early 1930s that there has been a net loss of jobs over the span of a presidential administration. Bush supporters ask: is Bush really to blame for this? Wasn't the recession already beginning when he took office? The resounding answer is that Bush is to blame.Every president inherits a legacy. The economy was entering a downturn when Bush took office, but Clinton also left a huge budget surplus — 2 per cent of GDP — a pot of money with which to finance a robust recovery. But Bush squandered that surplus, converting it into a deficit of 5 per cent of GDP through tax cuts for the rich. The productivity growth that was sustained through the downturn presented an opportunity and a challenge. The opportunity: if the economy was well managed, the incomes of Americans could continue to rise as they had done in the 1990s. The challenge: to manage the economy so that growth would be robust enough to create the new jobs required by new entrants to the labour force. Bush failed the challenge, and America lost the opportunity. True, the economy was stimulated a little by the tax cuts. But there were other policies that would have provided far more stimulus at far less cost. Bush's objective was to push forward a tax agenda that shifted the burden away from those who could best afford to bear it. Bush's failed policies have cost the economy dearly, and have left it in a far weaker position going forward. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office agrees that the deficit will not be eliminated in the foreseeable future — or even cut in half, as Bush has promised. Expenditures on which America's future economic health depends — infrastructure, education, health and technology — will be crowded out. Because fiscal policy did not stimulate the economy, a greater burden was placed on monetary policy. Lower interest rates worked (a little), but for the most part by encouraging households to refinance their mortgages, not by stimulating investment. The increased indebtedness of households is already leading to higher bankruptcy rates, and will likely dampen the recovery. National debt, too, has risen sharply. The huge trade deficit provides the spectacle of the world's richest country borrowing almost $2 billion a day from abroad, contributing to the weak dollar and representing a major source of global uncertainty. There might be some hope for the future if Bush owned up to his mistakes and changed course. But no: he refuses to take responsibility for the economy, just as his administration fails to take responsibility for its failures in Iraq. In 2003, having seen that its tax cuts for the rich had failed to stimulate the economy, the administration refused to revise its strategies. In August, I joined nine other American Nobel prize winners in economics in signing an open letter to the public. We wrote: "President Bush and his administration have embarked on a reckless and extreme course that endangers the long-term economic health of our nation ... The differences between President Bush and John Kerry with respect to leadership on the economy are wider than in any other presidential election in our experience. President Bush believes that tax cuts benefiting the most wealthy Americans are the answer to almost every economic problem." Here, as elsewhere, Bush is dead wrong, and too dogmatic to admit it. Joseph Stiglitz is professor of economics and finance at Columbia University and a Nobel laureate in 2001.

7.10.04 15:33, comment