The Big Question
Happy Friday.
Last week we learned that socially liberal and fiscally conservative supporters of the republican party obtained neither for their vote.
The GOP imposes its conservative dogma on our heretofore democratic society attacking those who refuse to compromise their identities or sacrifice their individual rights to conform to an anachronistic doctrine. It is not socially liberal.
The GOP's so-called conservative economic policies have generated a massive deficit totaling $929 billion, unprecedented debt, a 30% increase in spending, and tremendous wealth disparity. It is not fiscally conservative.
While these facts speak for themselves, there is another problem with the false construct of a socially liberal, fiscally conservative republican. It is a paradox. Economics impacts upon the social landscape, and vice-versa. The desire for a "conservative" laissez-faire economy clashes with socially "liberal" concerns like the ability to find a decent paying job, a good school, and affordable healthcare.
The GOP does not stand for a socially liberal, fiscally conservative America because it can't. A socially liberal and fiscally conservative vote is a myth.
As the below statistics from the Economic Policy Institute reveal, the average American is far worse off today than five years ago. Because social and economic issues are intertwined, Americans suffer in both arenas.
If the number one reason people voted for Dubya is national security, it's time to ask: At what cost is it worth protecting our nation from a foreign threat when the real threat to our lives, our values, and our families is at home?
______________________________________________
1. Profits are up, but the wages and the incomes of average Americans are down.
2. More and more people are deeper and deeper in debt.
3. Job creation has not kept up with population growth, and the employment rate has fallen sharply.
4. Poverty is on the rise, and so is wealth concentration.
5. Rising health care costs are eroding families' already declining income.
SOURCES
[1] Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics Survey. BLS, Labor Productivity and Costs. Productivity is non-farm business output per hour.
[2] Bureau of Economic Analysis. NIPA Table 1.14.
[3] Census Bureau. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004.
[4] Flow of Funds Accounts in the United States. Total household liabilities, Federal Reserve Flow of Fund's Balance Sheet tables. Deflated using CPI-U from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
[5] Flow of Funds Accounts in the United States. For Disposable Income, Bureau of Economic Analysis Table 2.1. Mortgage and consumer debt from the Federal Reserve Flow of Fund's Balance Sheet tables.
[6] Federal Reserve: Household Debt Service and Financial Obligations Ratios.
[7] Flow of Funds Accounts in the United States. NIPA Table 2.1, adjusted using the price index for Personal Consumption Expenditures (Table 2.3.4).
[8] Analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data. For methodology see Price, Lee (2005) The Boom That Wasn't, EPI Briefing Paper #168.
[9] Analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data. For methodology see Bernstein, Jared and Lee Price (2005) An Off-Kilter Expansion, EPI Briefing Paper #164.
[10] Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics Survey. See also Bivens, Josh (2005) "Trade deficits and manufacturing employment," Economic Snapshot, November 20, 2005.
[11] Census Bureau. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004.
[12] Census Bureau. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004.
[13] Census Bureau. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004.
[14] New York Times. The Wealthiest Benefit More from the Recent Tax Cuts: June 2005.
[15] See Mishel, Lawrence et al. (2004) Less Cash in Their Pockets, Briefing Paper #154.
[16] See Mishel, Lawrence et al. (2004) Less Cash in Their Pockets, Briefing Paper #154.
Last week we learned that socially liberal and fiscally conservative supporters of the republican party obtained neither for their vote.
The GOP imposes its conservative dogma on our heretofore democratic society attacking those who refuse to compromise their identities or sacrifice their individual rights to conform to an anachronistic doctrine. It is not socially liberal.
The GOP's so-called conservative economic policies have generated a massive deficit totaling $929 billion, unprecedented debt, a 30% increase in spending, and tremendous wealth disparity. It is not fiscally conservative.
While these facts speak for themselves, there is another problem with the false construct of a socially liberal, fiscally conservative republican. It is a paradox. Economics impacts upon the social landscape, and vice-versa. The desire for a "conservative" laissez-faire economy clashes with socially "liberal" concerns like the ability to find a decent paying job, a good school, and affordable healthcare.
The GOP does not stand for a socially liberal, fiscally conservative America because it can't. A socially liberal and fiscally conservative vote is a myth.
As the below statistics from the Economic Policy Institute reveal, the average American is far worse off today than five years ago. Because social and economic issues are intertwined, Americans suffer in both arenas.
If the number one reason people voted for Dubya is national security, it's time to ask: At what cost is it worth protecting our nation from a foreign threat when the real threat to our lives, our values, and our families is at home?
______________________________________________
1. Profits are up, but the wages and the incomes of average Americans are down.
- Inflation-adjusted hourly and weekly wages are still below where they were at the start of the recovery in November 2001. Yet, productivity—the growth of the economic pie—is up by 13.5%.[1]
- Wage growth has been shortchanged because 35% of the growth of total income in the corporate sector has been distributed as corporate profits, far more than the 22% in previous periods.[2]
- Consequently, median household income (inflation-adjusted) has fallen five years in a row and was 4% lower in 2004 than in 1999, falling from $46,129 to $44,389.[3]
2. More and more people are deeper and deeper in debt.
- The indebtedness of U.S. households, after adjusting for inflation, has risen 35.7% over the last four years.[4]
- The level of debt as a percent of after-tax income is the highest ever measured in our history. Mortgage and consumer debt is now 115% of after-tax income, twice the level of 30 years ago.[5]
- The debt-service ratio (the percent of after-tax income that goes to pay off debts) is at an all-time high of 13.6%.[6]
- The personal savings rate is negative for the first time since WWII.[7]
3. Job creation has not kept up with population growth, and the employment rate has fallen sharply.
- The United States has only 1.3% more jobs today (excluding the effects of Hurricane Katrina) than in March 2001 (the start of the recession). Private sector jobs are up only 0.8%. At this stage of previous business cycles, jobs had grown by an average of 8.8% and never less than 6.0%.[8]
- The unemployment rate is relatively low at 5%, but still higher than the 4% in 2000. Plus, the percent of the population that has a job has never recovered since the recession and is still 1.3% lower than in March 2001. If the employment rate had returned to pre-recession levels, 3 million more people would be employed.[9]
- More than 3 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since January 2000.[10]
4. Poverty is on the rise, and so is wealth concentration.
- The poverty rate rose from 11.3% in 2000 to 12.7% in 2004.[11]
- The number of people living in poverty has increased by 5.4 million since 2000.[12]
- More children are living in poverty: the child poverty rate increased from 16.2% in 2000 to 17.8% in 2004.[13]
- At the same time, the richest one percent's share of taxes (those earning $400,000 or more) is less than that of the 56 million Americans commonly refered to as the middle class (those earning between $45,000 and $400,000).[14]
5. Rising health care costs are eroding families' already declining income.
- Households are spending more on health care. Family health costs rose 43-45% for married couples with children, single mothers, and young singles from 2000 to 2003.[15]
- Employers are cutting back on health insurance. Last year, the percent of people with employer-provided health insurance fell for the fourth year in a row. Nearly 3.7 million fewer people had employer-provided insurance in 2004 than in 2000. Taking population growth into account, 11 million more people would have had employer-provided health insurance in 2004 if the coverage rate had remained at the 2000 level.[16]
SOURCES
[1] Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics Survey. BLS, Labor Productivity and Costs. Productivity is non-farm business output per hour.
[2] Bureau of Economic Analysis. NIPA Table 1.14.
[3] Census Bureau. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004.
[4] Flow of Funds Accounts in the United States. Total household liabilities, Federal Reserve Flow of Fund's Balance Sheet tables. Deflated using CPI-U from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
[5] Flow of Funds Accounts in the United States. For Disposable Income, Bureau of Economic Analysis Table 2.1. Mortgage and consumer debt from the Federal Reserve Flow of Fund's Balance Sheet tables.
[6] Federal Reserve: Household Debt Service and Financial Obligations Ratios.
[7] Flow of Funds Accounts in the United States. NIPA Table 2.1, adjusted using the price index for Personal Consumption Expenditures (Table 2.3.4).
[8] Analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data. For methodology see Price, Lee (2005) The Boom That Wasn't, EPI Briefing Paper #168.
[9] Analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data. For methodology see Bernstein, Jared and Lee Price (2005) An Off-Kilter Expansion, EPI Briefing Paper #164.
[10] Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics Survey. See also Bivens, Josh (2005) "Trade deficits and manufacturing employment," Economic Snapshot, November 20, 2005.
[11] Census Bureau. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004.
[12] Census Bureau. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004.
[13] Census Bureau. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004.
[14] New York Times. The Wealthiest Benefit More from the Recent Tax Cuts: June 2005.
[15] See Mishel, Lawrence et al. (2004) Less Cash in Their Pockets, Briefing Paper #154.
[16] See Mishel, Lawrence et al. (2004) Less Cash in Their Pockets, Briefing Paper #154.
posted by Happy Friday | 7:27 AM
8 Comments:
You're quite right that thinking that way is contradictory, but i think when people say they're fiscally conservative and socially liberal they usually mean 'culturally' liberal, not socially in the strictest sense of the word. Usually they believe in budget restraint and low taxes and that the private sector, powered by people's various creative energies, is a better arbiter of human good than the 'tax and spend' method - societal obligation to foot the bill for universal healthcare, more money for schools, etc.; and as cultural liberals, they are pro-choice, pro-civil rights for gays, opposed to the religious right's agenda. I don't see any contradiction in this combination of views - in fact it is in ways more consistent than the through-and-through conservative way of seeing things. It simply favors individual liberty over state-centrism, whether in the realm of the free market, marriage, or women's rights. This form of 'conservatism' - the fiscal kind - is very much in the tradition of the anglo-american, classical liberalism, and is often professed by people who call themselves Libertarians. (Though not only by Libertarians; these tend also toward isolationism regarding foreign policy, and many fiscally conservative cultural liberals don't share this tendency.)
That said, while I'm not familiar with anyone who claims to be both fiscally conservative and socially conservative - and who by the latter basically means fiscally liberal whether he wants to or not - I agree that such a stance does not make sense.
While I'm not usually in agreement with Happy, I do agree that you cannot be both "socially liberal and fiscally conservative". Saying that you are such a person is a cop-out. Unfortunatly, in the circles that many people, including myself, run in (i.e. liberal college, liberal law school, liberal city, liberal friends) the conservatives feel as if they need to qualify their conservatism because they have been subject to scorn for the suggestion that they might be a bit to the right. Don't be scared my friends, the liberals have a lot of bark but not much bite. Don't let politically correct nonsense stop you from proclaiming who you are. Despite what, well, whatever small liberal arts college you went to, said, it's okay to be conservative, it's okay to have (scary word coming) conservative values, and it's okay to disagree with screaming people wearing buttons.
Thanks for your comments Anonymous--although I fear you miss the point. First, the GOP is not fiscally conservative and socially/culturally liberal. So, those who voted for the current administration in support of such an obtuse ideal wasted their vote.
Second, the contradiction stems from the fact that "true" fiscal conservativism necessarily denies social/cultural liberalism. Libertarianism fails because it doesn't have a heart. I don't think that the free market alone can support the culturally liberal agenda you espouse. It requires a government that supports and defends such ideals. By example, the civil rights movement struggled for a century until the government intervened. Therein lies the paradox.
Hmmmm.
I agree with HF's argument that today's GOP is neither fiscally conservative nor socially liberal. No doubt bout that one.
But I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal (for lack of other terms I would choose), and I assure you I'm not knotted up in internal contardictions. In fact, my views are pretty straight and unconvoluted: Let individuals do what they want with their own lives and let folks fend for themselves.
re your response to my comment, HF: i didn't miss the point - my argument wasn't in response to your main argument, but to your side in the beginning about the socially liberal/fiscally conservative thing. the GOP is certainly not fiscally conservative and manage to perplex smart liberals and smart conservatives alike:big spending AND cutting taxes! I also don't count myself among those people I was describing. But I would argue that to simply say "libertarianism fails bc it doesn't have a heart" is something of a can of worms. Just bc someone thinks the market and individuals, not the gov't, are more effective means of helping society function, eg the endless charities/NPOs/grassroots organizations that exist America, doesn't make him Ebenezer Scrooge. At the bottom of the difference between American Conservatism and American Liberalism is the disagreement concerning what the most effective means of "bringing the people up" is, not whether or not people should be helped.
But again, I don't agree that these things alone, without some element of regulation, are sufficient. I consider myself something of a centrist/liberal - we need a safety net, not a wheelchair - but one who in Europe would be a conservative. The Continent has proven over the last few decades that the "European Model" - which relies far too little on the individual initiative of its citizens - is bankrupt. Most Europeans I've met who've moved here love to joke about how pointless it is to work over there when you can do so much better not working. Increasing numbers of Europeans and their leaders are beginning to understand this. (In an interview with Der Spiegel, Paul Krugman - no joke - said "If America relies perhaps too much on the free market, Germany relies on it too little. What Germany needs is a Margaret Thatcher".) My point is that while gov't intervention is perhaps necessary, it is by no means a cure-all. I'm not saying you're saying this, I'm just sayin'....
One more thing - you fail to explain why the free market can't 'support' the culturally liberal agenda i described. This was that agenda: "pro-choice, pro-civil rights for gays, opposed to the religious right's agenda". An untethered free market has not proved a hindrance to these things, but that selective pro-nanny-state-ism of some conservatives has (read: the religious right) - many modern conservatives' belief that the government can and should intervene in those areas of the culture where they happen to think something is wrong. GWB's proposed 'federal marriage amendment' is one such very anti-conservative push towards federal regulation in people's personal lives, which also would go against that bedrock of conservatism, federalism.
Aside from that egregious diversion from conservative principles (the FMA) even conservatives usually don't think the feds should stay completely out of our hair - they just disagree with us as to how and where meddling is appropriate.
That said, there are very few conservatives today who deny that the government should have intervened with regards to segregation and voting rights. On this matter, they and liberals alike agree that certain universal principles, as stated in that first line of our Declaration of Independence, trump the notion of states' rights. Their problem is taxpayers footing the bill for the things they believe the market can do a better job of alleviating. And that line between what the market can and can't do is, again, the essential intellectual fault line between left and right.
Anonymous-
How foolish you are, to challenge HF when he says it is a "fact that 'true' fiscal conservativism necessarily denies social/cultural liberalism. Libertarianism fails because it doesn't have a heart."
How, Anonymous, do we *know* this "fact" to be unassailably true? Why is this not a blatant *non sequitur*? Beats me.
But you need to accept it because HF says "I don't think that the free market alone can support the culturally liberal agenda you espouse."
He doesn't think it can be done!
He says the desire to solve all our societal woes (as opposed to allowing individuals to solve them) "requires a government that supports and defends such ideals."
You see, even though the Constitution outlines a bevy of limits on the federal government's control over individuals' lives, if HF says that America needs more government, it must be so.
It's good that congress could discuss all conservative dogma about society attacking, because it's quite significant theme in our life. I should say, that all this facts made an incredible impress on write my paper. I hope, reason about total security can be proven.
Post a Comment
<< Home