Public Doesn’t Believe Bush Economic Cheerleading

[Omaha Steve]

FULL story: http://blog.aflcio.org/2006/08/18/public-doesn%e2%80%99t-believe-bush-economic-cheerleading/

Economy, Bush & Co.

Aug 18

E-Mail This Article
Public Doesn’t Believe Bush Economic Cheerleading



If you visit the White House website, you’ll find a lot of cheerleading about how well the economy is doing. And you can be sure you’ll hear more of the same when President Bush meets with his senior economic advisers this weekend at Camp David.

But the American public isn’t buying the hype. Recent polling for the AFL-CIO shows:

* 60 percent of swing voters say they are very or fairly dissatisfied with the economy.
* The same percentage say their incomes are falling behind the cost of living.
* 30 percent pick jobs, the economy, health care and drug costs as issues that will determine whom they support for Congress—with only 21 percent selecting Iraq and 19 percent naming terrorism as issues determining how they will vote.
* Among all voters, 62 percent say they worry often about rising gas prices and soaring oil company profits. Some 54 percent worry frequently about the difficulties families face in paying for health care.
* A huge 82 percent say they are very or somewhat concerned about the economic outlook for children and the next generation.

A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center published in today’s Washington Post shows economic issues, such as the price of gasoline and anxiety over the economy, are proving more powerful in shaping voter attitudes.

Specifically, the poll shows Republicans are losing significant support among married mothers. This group now says they support Democrats for Congress by a 50 percent to 38 percent margin. This is a complete turnaround since 2002, when the same group backed Republicans by 53 percent to 36 percent.

This kind of economic angst is being felt strongly in communities across the nation where layoffs are occurring, says Louis Uchitelle, author of The Disposable American. Speaking in Washington, D.C., on Thursday evening, Uchitelle, a New York Times reporter, says layoffs are necessary in a global economy, but U.S. employers are overusing them simply to make the bottom line look better.

Policymakers, unions and corporate executives have acquiesced in accepting mass layoffs as a fact of life, when they don’t have to be, Uchitelle says. Policymakers fall back on the excuse that workers need to be retrained to fill the jobs the new global economy is producing. But the reality is there just aren’t enough good jobs now for the skilled workers we have.

The estimated 30 million workers who are laid off represent a huge loss of talent and productivity, says Uchitelle. To turn around the massive impact of these layoffs, national policies must promote full employment, such as making trade agreements that level the playing field rather than promote the loss of jobs.

Finally, he says, the nation’s leaders must face the question of whether the private sector can produce enough family-supporting jobs for everyone who wants one. And if we find they can’t, the federal government should step in and create jobs for people, such as building roads and repairing bridges.

[damntexdem]

1. What are you going to believe:

Dubya's lies, or your own pocketbooks?

Come on, Democrats, stomp all over the GOP lies about the economy -- and smash the GOP in November!

[Ezlivin]

2. The business section of my paper often talks about layoffs

The Star-Telegram seems to print a column every couple or days or so about another round of layoffs or plant closings. Yet in the same section they will have some study touting the growing economy.

How can all of these laid-off people immediately reenter the work force or learn a new craft/skill to gain employment in another field that quickly? Whenever I lost a job, it took time to land another. And I can't imagine trying to find work when you are in your fifties with 20 years of experience and your plant was just shut down. It's not as if you can simply find another position in another plant. After all, why would they be hiring when outsourcing seems to work so well for their competitors? (And that's begging the question of whether there would even be another competitor in town with a similar position.)

In my area (Dallas-Fort Worth), they are squeezing out all of the trailer parks and pushing these "undesirables" out to the far periphery. No community wants low income housing. No community wants affordable apartments. How the hell does McDonald's get its workers? None of the spoiled kids driving late model BMWs to high school want those jobs.