Untitled Document
The disclaimer appears ahead of most movies formatted for television:
"This film has been edited for content and modified from its original version
to fit your TV." A similar disclaimer should apply to the Bush administration
infomercials drugging up newscasts about the economy. In black and
white, the recent surge of statistical exuberance looks good indeed. Four million
jobs created in the past two years. Unemployment below 5 percent. Inflation
relatively in check. Still cheap interest rates. Economic growth between 3 percent
and 4 percent, better than every Western economy but Denmark's. "It's getting
pretty hard for the critics to make the case that the tax cuts weren't good
for the economy," Vice President Dick Cheney told workers at a Harley-Davidson
plant in Kansas City last week. Actually, it's never been easier to show why
the tax cuts were closer to the worst thing for the economy, if it's ordinary
Americans' well-being you're worried about (as opposed to shareholder comforts).
Let's begin with those job figures. When you go from dismal to mediocre, of
course things look great. Four million jobs in the past two years is good. But
5 million new jobs in the past five years is pathetic by any standard, especially
when the administration sold its massive tax cuts for the rich as a job-creating
engine. Between 1995 and 2000, remember, the nation created 13.3 million jobs,
an average of 2.66 million jobs per year. That's after the tax increase on the
rich that the Clinton administration got through Congress in 1993 -- the increase
Republicans at the time said would ruin the economy. (The 1990s are the wealthiest
decade on record.) The jobs being created this time around are, aside from construction,
in low-paying sectors like temporary work, health care, restaurants and big-box
stores. High-paying jobs in manufacturing, telecommunications and air transportation
are on the losing end. If anything, the tax cuts are subsidizing a devolution
in quality jobs.
President Bush's tax cuts, overwhelmingly favoring the rich, demolished the
balance and fairness that was beginning to creep back into the tax code. I say
creep back, because despite progress under Clinton, the restoration of fairness
was timid and still generously tipped toward those who need it least. Clinton
slowed down the growing disparities between the rich and the rest. He didn't
reverse them, as Franklin Roosevelt and his successors did until Ronald Reagan's
election in 1980.
From 1947 to 1979, family income for the poorest 20 percent of the population
grew by 120 percent, and by comparable rates for the next two-fifths of the
nation's households. Income for the top fifth grew by 94 percent. Since 1979,
household income for the poorest 20 percent has risen 0.7 percent. Total. It
has risen between 7 percent and 8 percent, total, for the next two-fifths of
the country's households, or about 0.3 percent per year. For the richest 10
percent, household income grew 61.2 percent during the same 25 years. And for
the richest 1 percent, it grew a staggering 111 percent. Wealth had been becoming
a more equal opportunity. It's now a privilege again.
Productivity increases have historically been the best barometer of rising
living standards. And in the past few years productivity has risen at bewildering
rates, helping corporate profits clock in at or near records in 2002, 2003 and
2004. Yet unlike productivity's windfalls in the 1950s and 1960s, and to some
extent in the 1990s, median wages have stagnated. Why? Because corporate profits
no longer translate into workers' benefits once shareholders and executives
claim their tithe. (Median CEO compensation in 2004 was $4.4 million, or 160
times as much as production workers' average wages). As with the income figures,
corporate profits bring true meaning to a rising tide lifting all yachts. Cheney,
that old habitue of the 1 percent club, could afford to joke around in Kansas
City about taking a Harley "for a ride back out to Air Force Two."
His administration's trickery is taking us all for a ride.
You expect distortions from an administration that depends on fabrication for
survival. You expect it less from news organizations. But what passes for coverage
of business and the economy since the early 1980s has been indistinguishable
from celebrity journalism. "Many business journalists, I fear, have left
home and joined a cult," the personal finance columnist Jane Bryant Quinn
wrote in a 1998 Columbia Journalism Review piece appropriately titled, "When
Business writing becomes soft porn." The same can be said today about coverage
of the economy. "Many reporters have bought the business point of view
-- bought into business values and beliefs -- without giving enough weight to
other, social interests," Quinn wrote. "The world of right and wrong
is much larger than the world of profit and loss. . . . Reporters are supposed
to be tribunes of the people -- not the rich people, who don't need tribunes,
but the rest of the people, who need someone to speak for them. That's what
we need to remember, every single day." That's what the Bush administration
makes sure we forget every single day. And the press corps, sharecropper to
corporations, obliges.
Tristam is a News-Journal editorial writer. Email to
ptristam@att.net.
Go to Original Article >>>
The views expressed herein are the writers' own and do not necessarily reflect those of Looking Glass News. Click the disclaimer link below for more information.
Email: editor@lookingglassnews.org.
|