Posted on 10/23/2002 5:08:07 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Edited on 04/13/2004 1:40:02 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
We need immediate and real solutions to the economic challenges we face. But President Bush and House Republicans are, instead, planning more corporate and special-interest tax breaks for 2003 without even addressing the nation's needs.
In the 1990s, Democrats proved that sensible, bipartisan action could help unleash the potential of the American people. Today, in the face of rising economic challenges, we need to take a page from what has worked, act on a bipartisan basis and restore economic growth while promoting fiscal responsibility over the long term.
(Excerpt) Read more at usatoday.com ...
Big boasts aside, neither party has economic cure
From the campaign talk across the country, voters might believe that an ailing economy is in need of some fast-acting medicine that only Washington can prescribe.
House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., warns of "a clear and present danger to the economic life of working families." Saying more spending and tax refunds are needed, he castigated President Bush last week for acting "as if everything is fine." Bush has fired back, blaming Democrats for bottling up legislation, such as federal terrorism insurance, that he claims will kick-start the economy. "They need to get moving," Bush said at a recent campaign rally.
This game of finger pointing between Democrats and Republicans makes sense politically as they vie for control of the House and Senate in the Nov. 5 elections. Tapping public anxiety about a soggy economy could tilt several critical races.
But what neither party will admit is that, even though signs of recovery are faint, Washington can do little to affect it in the near term. And the irresponsible budget proposals that both are peddling risk dampening the economy's long-term prospects by widening the federal deficit and pushing up interest rates.
To jolt the economy back to health, Gephardt proposes $200 billion in new spending and tax breaks. Bush wants Congress to make his 10-year, $1.35 trillion tax cut permanent. He also is pushing for a federal terrorism-insurance fund to spur construction projects on hold because of a lack of private insurance, and an increase in energy production to create jobs.
But if stimulus is the goal, Washington has already pumped more than enough money into the economy. After passing Bush's hefty tax cut last year, Congress approved a $51 billion anti-recession package in March. And for the new budget year that began Oct. 1, spending on federal programs aside from Social Security and other individual benefits is expected to rise $130 billion from two years ago, a 20% hike. Together, that's the equivalent of giving more than $600 to each man, woman and child in the country.
Yet, the economic benefit of this largesse is dubious because the treatments typically kick in long after the patient is up and about. A 1994 study by University of California-Berkeley economists found that past stimulus plans nearly always stoked the economy when it was already running full steam. The better prescription for ending the eight recessions since 1950, the study found, were interest-rate cuts by the Federal Reserve Board, which can act faster and more effectively than Congress. Indeed, the Fed has cut rates sharply since 2001, spurring consumer demand for low-interest cars and houses.
Now, lawmakers and the White House risk widening the federal deficit long term, the last thing an expanding economy needs. If Congress had stuck to spending limits it imposed on itself in the late 1990s, the government would have a $45 billion surplus next year, not the $145 billion deficit now projected in Congressional Budget Office reports. Some of that increased spending is needed to fight the war on terrorism, but Congress has failed to offset these hikes with savings in lower-priority programs.
Recent history clearly shows that Washington's free-spending ways ultimately harm the economy more than heal it, regardless of lawmakers' election-year claims. Today's debate: Growing budget deficit Runaway spending in 'stimulus' proposals would do more damage.
. . . to make up for the fact that in 2000 the Democratic Party was too busy bragging about the economy to recognize that it was flagging.A new living wage for working Americans of $6.65 per hour by January 2004
. . . and paid for by Dick Gebhardt personally.
</sarcasm>
...not a game of blame...
Shameless...
Oh, yes it will.
Raising the minimum wage could cause companies that are barely breaking even in the weak economy to shut down. Result: more lost jobs.
and an extension of unemployment insurance for those who have lost jobs.
When will this guy learn that the American people want jobs, not handouts?
When Janet Reno marries a man.
Any Republican who doesn't admit that, is trying to protect himself from demagogery by a Democratic opponent. And any commentator who doesn't know that is self-righteous.The difference between the two parties is patent. The Democrats are the party of the rich and famous, as reflected in the small number and large average size of its donations. It does of course position its opponent as "the party of the rich", and it attracts most of the votes of the poor--but the reality is that Democrats' actual base is the tony inner suburbs.
The Republican Party is the party of those who make the country work--the middle class in general and white men in particular. Its primary mission is to protect the middle class from the envy of the poor abetted by the snobbery of the rich--from the "entitled" class.
That is the lesson of the red/blue election 2000 map.
We're going to have to seriously expand the size of our military to achieve this goal...
Oh my G-d, no. Don't you even think of taking over the pension funds in this country! Look at what you did to SS for crying out loud.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.