Wednesday, August 11, 2004

Tax cuts + tax cuts + more tax cuts= Job Growth ?????

The Washington Post's analysis of the latest job numbers show that President Bush's failed fiscal policy could seriously undermine his re-election hopes.

"For President Bush, tax cuts have been an all-purpose elixir, a cure for budget surpluses and a bursting stock bubble, for terrorist attacks and boardroom scandals, for the march to war and a jobless recovery in peacetime.

Now, after three successive tax cuts, and after a record budget surplus has turned to a record deficit, the president faces an unenviable choice. He can either concede that his $1.7 trillion tonic has not worked as advertised, or he can insist that the economy is strong despite the slowdown in growth and job creation.

Last week's news of stagnant job creation has revived the debate over the effectiveness of the tax cuts, the centerpiece of Bush's domestic program. Economists of all political stripes say the tax cuts did jump-start the economy, which was in recession from March to November 2001. But to many, that kick is starting to look more like a sugar high than a cure for the economy's underlying weaknesses.

On Monday, Morgan Stanley's chief economist, Stephen S. Roach, dubbed this "The Mythical Recovery," hooked on three drugs now in increasingly short supply: tax cuts, rising government spending and low interest rates.

"Lacking in the organic staying power of job creation and wage earnings, the U.S. economy has become addicted to the steroids of extraordinary monetary and fiscal support," Roach told clients. "But with policy levers pushed to the max, the lifeline of support is now dangerously thin."

Democratic White House challenger John F. Kerry pounced yesterday, releasing a report on "George Bush's failed fiscal policies" and unleashing former Treasury secretary Robert E. Rubin to decry the failure of the tax cuts and "the horrendous long-term fiscal situation" they have put the country in. The charge -- even if incomplete -- has the ring of truth, said Gregory R. Valliere, managing director of the bipartisan Schwab Research Group.

The jobs figures allow Kerry to say that the recovery is sputtering and the tax cuts didn't help much," he said. "It's a credible argument now."

With the election 83 days away, gasoline prices, the stock market, job-creation figures and economic growth are headed in the wrong direction for an incumbent who wants to run on accomplishments, prosperity and optimism.

Donald H. Straszheim, a former chief economist at Merrill Lynch, told clients of Straszheim Global Advisors Inc. yesterday that the job figures in particular are "potentially decisively bad for President Bush."

The economy has 1.1 million fewer jobs than the day Bush took office, making it more than likely he will join Herbert Hoover as the second president to see the nation suffer a net job loss on his watch. The economy is 7 million jobs short of the level the White House had predicted when trying to sell the tax cuts. And a 10-year budget outlook that in 2001 projected $5.6 trillion in surpluses now foresees $2.7 trillion in deficits, an unprecedented fiscal swing.

Even some conservatives are grumbling about Bush's economic policies. David Hogberg, a senior research associate with the conservative Capital Research Center, enumerated his gripes on the National Review's Web site Monday: tax cuts that provided too little short-term stimulus, profligate federal spending and the politicization of trade policy.

"If the Bush team loses this election because of economic concerns, they'll have few to blame besides themselves," he steamed."






Tax Cuts do not solve everything.

3 Comments:

At August 12, 2004 at 12:11 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Funny, I always thought it was a journalist's job to report the news, not analyze it.

Analysis inevitably includes the writer's opinion, which is why it is best left for the editorial page.

-Old School Reporter

 
At August 12, 2004 at 3:31 PM, Blogger ian said...

Funny, as an old school reporter you no doubt know that certain sections in news papers are entitled NEWS ANALYSIS. In these sections the reporter offers his own analysis of current events.

 
At August 12, 2004 at 4:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Funny, I always thought that "certain section" was the editorial page, not A1. Apparently, I was under the rather naive impression that a reporter's job is to REPORT the news straight- not give his or her opinion on it. And all my career, I thought that analysis was to be left for the ANALYSTS - who, by nature, are not pure journalists. I guess I'm just out of touch with the new media.

Journalism ain't what it used to be...

-Clark Kent

 

Post a Comment

<< Home