State of the Union

Making the Case for Social Insurance in the 21st Century

Daniel Marans — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 13:47:05 -0500

President Obama is to be commended for making economic competitiveness and innovation the focus of his State of the Union address. Indeed, major new investments in infrastructure, energy and education are needed to secure America’s place in the 21st century economy. The question remains, however, as to whether Democrats' 21st century vision will accord an appropriate role for the social insurance programs and protections that helped make America great in the 20th, as the President would like, or follow the oft-repeated Beltway truism that we must “invest, even as we cut,” which is code for investing in infrastructure at the expense of our modest social safety net. Rather than view the President's competitiveness framing as a threat, we progressives must seize it as an opportunity to elevate and expand our social insurance programs, as well as enforce our labor and trade laws. We have a very strong case to make that from both a substantive and a political perspective, America will achieve economic greatness because of a robust social safety net, rather than in spite of one.

Many center-left infrastructure enthusiasts are already suggesting that we should cut a compromise deal with Republicans that would involve cutting “entitlements” in exchange for an infrastructure investment bill of unspecified size. This position is exemplified by Thomas Friedman’s column in Saturday’s New York Times. Friedman singles out Singapore’s model of governance for high praise, because, he insists, it knows where to invest (infrastructure and education)—and where not to invest (the social safety net). Now, I am no expert in Singapore’s retirement security or healthcare systems, and I suspect that neither is Friedman. I do take issue with Friedman’s insistence that the United States will not succeed in emulating Singapore’s high science and math performance if it does not cut entitlements. Friedman jumps seamlessly from an interesting anecdote about a Singaporean science teacher to a clichéd condemnation of official Washington for just not “getting” the need for major "entitlement reform":

This was just an average public school, but the principal had made her own connections between ‘what world am I living in,’ 'where is my country trying to go in that world' and, therefore, 'what should I teach in fifth-grade science.'

I was struck because that kind of linkage is so often missing in U.S. politics today. Republicans favor deep cuts in government spending, while so far exempting Medicare, Social Security and the defense budget. Not only is that not realistic, but it basically says that our nation’s priorities should be to fund retirement homes for older people rather than better schools for younger people and that we should build new schools in Afghanistan before Alabama.

In falsely equating Republican intransigence on defense and would-be Democratic opposition to Social Security and Medicare cuts, Friedman plays the insidious “greedy geezer” card. The idea is that every dollar we spend on building “retirement homes for older people” is a dollar taken away from America’s future. Thus, America’s grannies, apparently the only ones left defending our wage insurance and healthcare programs, are protecting their own narrow interests at the expense of everybody else. (David Brooks, Friedman’s mushy middle counterpart on the Times op-ed page, spells out the “cut and invest” equation more explicitly, calling for a grand bipartisan compromise centered on major entitlement cuts and new infrastructure investments, though unlike Friedman he remains skeptical of the effectiveness of the latter.)

It is hard to know where to begin debunking Friedman’s fallacies. Which entitlement program pays for enrollment in retirement homes, anyway? This remark betrays Friedman’s bourgeois biases, in assuming that all elderly Americans get to retire to assisted living facilities in Boca Raton, FL, thanks to Social Security and Medicare. Sorry Tom, your largesse may pay for your parents to live in a sunny condo, but the two-thirds of seniors who rely on Social Security for a majority of their retirement income are probably not living as comfortably.

But the bottom line is that Friedman—and nearly every other Washington pundit obsessed with the idea of “cut and invest”—just does not get how basic social insurance actually makes our society stronger and wealthier. The case we progressives need to make emphatically is that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are more relevant to American competitiveness than ever. Compromising on them is compromising on innovation.

In a new world economy where flexibility is everything, fewer employers can afford to offer decent pension plans, or cover their employees’ health care costs; global financial markets have decimated the value of workers’ 401(k) accounts; and Americans are much more likely to change jobs frequently or work independently. For us to maximize our human capital we need to reinforce the basic guarantees provided by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Without these guarantees, companies whose healthcare and pension costs cause them to suffer competitively will continue to stagnate, or be forced to pass these costs on to their employees and consumers. Americans will be less likely to invest their savings in capital markets, start businesses and pursue the expensive advanced degrees needed to succeed if they cannot guarantee their basic well-being and standard of living.

Sara Robinson has already written very eloquently about the vitality of universal healthcare for America’s economic growth and progress, in her blogpost "What Would You Do if You had Guaranteed Healthcare?". The case for strengthening income insurance in general, and Social Security in particular, is no less compelling.

On Social Security, William Arnone, a former partner at Ernst & Young and retirement planning expert, puts it best. When asked at a National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI) panel in June, whether Social Security has the effect of discouraging private investment, Arnone answered that just the opposite is true. Once he explains to his clients what they are entitled to under Social Security, they have a lot more flexibility to pursue higher risk investments in the capital markets.

In other words, knowing you won’t fall into poverty in old age enables investment and productive behavior, by providing a floor beneath which your standard of living will not fall, regardless of the risks you take.

Further, unlike many means-tested programs that sadly discourage work and social mobility, Social Security actively rewards achievement. This is because of Social Security’s unique structure as a universal wage insurance program. While programs like SSI and Medicaid remove their protections the moment a person reaches a basic level of income, Social Security rewards work, by providing greater benefits, the more someone earns (while still replacing a higher proportion of earnings for poorer workers).

The result is not a social safety “hammock,” as Rep. Paul Ryan would call it or even a social safety net as we tend to describe it, but more like what Hilary Doe, National Director at the Roosevelt Institute Campus Network, calls a “social safety trampoline.” To be sure, Social Security is there to catch us if misfortune befalls us, as a net might figuratively do. But it is a trampoline, in that by neutralizing our anxieties and incentivizing productivity, it propels us into the labor market, where the sky is the limit to pursue our dreams.

Finally, many advocates of the “cut and invest” approach fail to understand the stiff ideological barriers that even their efforts face in the contemporary political environment, and as a result, spurn their natural political allies in the labor and progressive movements. The real problem is not the enormous debt we have racked and our inability to reckon with it in an “adult” way. The real problem is an entrenched neoliberal ideology and power structure that has for three decades shrunk government revenues down to miniscule levels and crippled our government’s ability to maintain basic services and regulate industry, thereby undermining public confidence in the very idea of “government.”

To get the kind of sustained investment in infrastructure alone, that Friedman and his ilk ceaselessly advocate, it will take more than a two-bit compromise with Republicans that slashes trillions in Social Security and Medicare and allots a few hundred billion for bridges and high-speed rail. It will take a major sea change in our political climate from one that focuses on cutting government to create growth, to one that focuses on investing—in all aspects of American life. If infrastructure enthusiasts embrace the talking points and narrative of neoliberal budget wonks that public spending comes only at the cost of private growth, they will have contributed to the culture of deficit and antigovernment fear. And if we continue to allow this fear to take hold, we will never see the $4 trillion investment in our infrastructure that experts believe is necessary in the coming decades if we are to bring ourselves up to speed with other developed nations.

The same argument can be made for supporting tougher enforcement of our trade laws, a major priority for the labor movement that unconditional free trade advocates like Friedman have yet to embrace. We can create as many wind energy and biotech plants as we want, but if China is free to steal our patented technologies through arcane trading provisions, manipulate its currency, put hidden tariffs on our exports, and dump its child-labor produced technologies in our markets, then it will all have been for naught.

On a practical level, if the labor movement, which has by far the largest field, lobbying and fundraising operations of any left-of-center constituency, is forced to expend resources on defending entitlements (which it already has), that much less of its power will be available to push for infrastructure investments. If labor perceives that infrastructure advocates are working against its key interests in other areas, it will likely refuse to coordinate its efforts with those groups. Whether you are an infrastructure wonk at a think tank, a climate change advocate at an environmental group, or a New Democrat supporting high-speed rail for your constituents, you will want to be on the receiving end of labor's massive organizing clout, rather than left out in the cold.

Those of us interested in building a prosperous, competitive American economy in the 21st century for all to enjoy should work with and for one another. To the extent that the “cut and invest” crowd cuts and runs from its progressive allies, conservatives committed to blocking government investment of all types will grow stronger--and we will all be more likely to fail.

Winning The Future, Brought To You By GE

Digby — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:24:02 -0500

Here's an interesting interpretation of Winning the Future:

After two years of federal spending to boost the economy, the ground has shifted decisively in Washington: On Tuesday night, the most pressing question was not whether to spend more to create jobs but whether to cut spending, deeply and now.

For the first time in his annual address to the American people, President Obama did not hail a newly passed "recovery act" or call for a "new jobs bill." Instead, he called for a five-year freeze in domestic spending, except for "investments" in education, infrastructure and research.

Republicans went much further, calling for an immediate and unprecedented reduction in non-defense programs that could take more than $100 billion out of the economy over the next few months. Both sides are casting their proposals as the best course for deepening the economic recovery and improving U.S. competitiveness abroad.

But with the unemployment rate still hovering at 9.4 percent, neither the president nor congressional Republicans are offering a clear strategy to create jobs in the short run, economists said, and that is the most critical challenge in the minds of voters heading into the 2012 presidential election. The one initiative likely to have immediate impact is the GOP's plan for sharp spending cuts, and some economists fear that could push the economy in the wrong direction.

Hours before Obama spoke Tuesday, the House approved a resolution calling for domestic spending to be cut to 2008 levels for the rest of the fiscal year, and Republicans are discussing reductions of at least $60 billion. Cuts of that size would trim domestic programs to their lowest level as a share of the economy in more than 30 years, according to an analysis by the liberal Economic Policy Institute, endangering as many as 600,000 jobs.

"Government spending restraint is vital to addressing our long-term fiscal problems. It just shouldn't start in 2011," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, who has advised both Republicans and Democrats on economic issues. Zandi said cuts of the magnitude Republicans are discussing probably would not invite a new recession. But they could push unemployment back into double digits, he said, "taking a very significant risk with this fragile economy."

So? What's wrong with double digit employment? We almost have that now and nobody seems to give a damn. It certainly wasn't a big topic last night from either the president, the Republicans or the Teabaggers. This is the new normal. We only worry about GDP now and Mark Zandi isn't worried about that, thank goodness, so carry on with the freezing and cutting. It's all good.

I'm not sure how high unemployment has to rise before people feel it's a big problem again, but at this point I'd have to guess that it would take another five percent. Which means that we are now a country that thinks it's perfectly fine to have tens of millions of people out of work—while at the same time we are busily slashing spending at the local, state and federal level. Talk about a winning future!

In this instance, the conservatives (and I include the likes of Kent Conrad in that designation) are far more honest than the "centrists" about what this all adds up to. They don't pretend to care about the unemployed or the students or the people who have lost their futures in this downturn. They are right up front about what this is about—☺confidence fairies:

Conservative economists are less inclined to predict that immediate spending cuts would harm the economy. But they don't see them as an effective economic tonic, either. At a time when the national debt has surpassed $14 trillion, business leaders and bond market investors are looking to Obama and other policymakers for certainty about tax policy, entitlement spending and the nation's long-term budget outlook, said Glenn Hubbard, dean of the Columbia Graduate School of Business.

"The right way to do a pro-jobs agenda would be to limit policy uncertainty. We need to put the country on a long-term sustainable path," said Hubbard, who served as chief economist in George W. Bush's White House. "Businesses fear investing if we can't get this stuff right. You don't have to start cutting now. But absent presidential leadership, it's really hard to see how it gets done.&quot

The view that the U.S. economy would benefit from adoption of a comprehensive deficit reduction plan is broadly shared by policymakers and budget analysts.

"Most economists say if you put in place a credible plan that only took effect once the economy had strengthened, just adopting a plan itself would have positive benefits for the economy right now," said Senate Budget Committee chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.).

I happen to have the man who can explain why this is total, complete, utter bullshit right here:

That was six and a half months ago, when unemployment was the same as it is now. (Krugman's response to the speech is here.)

From what I can tell this is working for the president. I would guess that the country is sick of bad news and just wants more than anything to believe that the president can end all this and that we can get back to the way things were. But psychologically we are starting to adjust to this new normal and that new normal is not good for the middle and working class of this country. (The poor are so screwed they don't even merit discussion.) In fact, it's devastating and it's all happening to benefit the ever more powerful top two percent.

Of course, it's the top two percent who have the money to fund elections, so there is a logic to all of this. This is Oligarchy and for those who say that it can't work in a democracy, I think we are seeing just how wrong that is.

Update: It occurs to me that deficit reduction has now joined Tax Cuts for the cure-all for what ails the economy. After all, Kent Conrad has been agitated about deficits when they are small, when they are large, when the economy is booming and when it's in recession. No matter what the situation, the proper response is always to cut government spending, preferably "entitlements." (Being a Democrat he'll sometimes give a vague wave toward raising taxes, but it's never a deal breaker.)

Good Obama Middle Class Help. But What About Jobs?

Eric Lotke — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:29:20 -0500

The White House announced its economic initiatives for middle class families, described as a preview of the State of the Union Address. They’re all good ideas and I hope every one of them passes. But something is missing.

Mostly, the new initiatives don’t create jobs. Doubling the child tax credit, limiting student loan payments to ten percent of income, expanding tax credits to match retirement savings – they’re just relief. They are designed to help underpaid or unemployed people to cope when they don’t have enough money. They don’t create jobs or generate wealth.

Many people are hoping for more. Both middle class people looking for work, and activists looking for something to fight for.

The House of Representatives started the ball rolling with a $154 billion jobs bill in December, with half the money coming from TARP. At a minimum, Obama could help push this bill through the Senate.

More robust economic packages are out there, on the shelf, ready to be used. The AFL-CIO jobs plan puts people to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, and laying new track for high speed rail. It covers the basics like aid to the states so they don’t have to lay off teachers and fire fighters

The Economic Policy Institute offers a similar plan with greater detail. Rebuilding our infrastructure and offering public service jobs when the private sector fails, EPI estimates the plan will create over 4.6 million jobs in the first year, at a gross cost of roughly $400. The entire cost would be recouped within ten years by a financial transactions tax, which would take effect three years after enactment.

We need our president to take the lead and show us the way. Times are tough. It’s no time to compromise and settle for less. Obama needs to recapture the fighting spirit of the 2008 campaign.

The hole we’re in was many years getting dug. Unfunded wars and supply side tax cuts created trillion dollar deficits. Conservative deregulation turned our banks into gambling houses and crashed the whole economy. Many years will be needed to dig our way out. The Recovery Act was one small step in the right direction.

Put people to work building those wind turbines, fixing our leaky old schools and laying new railroad tracks with steel made in America. Solve our deficit the American way, by investing in a dynamic, growing economy of the future. Not with small, Clintonian mini-initiatives.

The White House shared those proposals in advance as a preview. In case it matters, that’s what I saw.

Smirk of the Union: The Show's Over; Shelve the Sequel

Robert Borosage — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:09:36 -0500

The old routines don’t work anymore. The presidential smirk seems sheepish. The threats seem like bluster. No one really listens anymore. Even George W. Bush seemed almost giddy that he wouldn’t have to go through this again. The president appears as tired of us as we are of him.

Monday’s State of the Union speech had an inescapable problem. It couldn’t possibly address the question at hand — the actual state of the union. Costly and unending occupations. Economic recession. Unprecedented foreign indebtedness. Unsustainable trade deficits. A declining middle class. Millions about to lose their homes. Leading banks on the auction block. Gilded Age inequality. A foolish starvation of vital public investments in everything from bridges to broadband. Basic challenges — global warming, a broken health care system — simply ignored. America weaker, more isolated, and less secure.

Bush is history; his name spurned even by Republicans seeking to succeed him. But hold off on the interment rites. While Bush is being discarded, the catastrophic conservative policies that he championed live on.

The leading Republican candidates pledge to continue the costly occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. The Democratic majority in Congress failed to end them. The leading Democratic presidential candidates pledge more forces for Afghanistan and wouldn’t promise to have troops out of Iraq by the end of their first term. That would be 10 years, $2 trillion and 50,000 U.S. casualties later.

No leading candidate in either party questions the U.S. empire of bases, nor its role as globocop that leads us to spend as much on our military as the rest of the world combined, and insures that we will be enmeshed in strife across the globe. In fact, candidates in both parties pledge to increase the size of the U.S. military and expand its ability to go places and do things.

Our global economic strategy — developed by, for and of the multinational corporations and banks — has disemboweled our manufacturing sector while racking up unsustainable foreign deficits and debts. Financial deregulation has created a global speculative casino economy marked by increasingly rapid and destructive booms and busts. Every leading Republican candidate for president pledges to pursue more of the same. Leading Democrats promise no more NAFTAs, and pledge to add labor rights, environmental and consumer protections to trade accords. But none have laid out a national strategy for the global economy that can get us out of this hole. And needless to say, none have challenged Wall Street’s deregulation. The Democratic Congress couldn’t even gird itself to require hedge-fund billionaires to pay the same rate of taxes as their secretaries, much less implant regulations that would limit destabilizing speculation.

Bush’s distorted tax and budget priorities have contributed to Gilded Age inequality, racked up trillions in national debt, even as we have simply starved vital investments in our future — from schools, to affordable college, to advanced broadband, to basic sewage systems, levies and bridges. Yet every leading Republican candidate pledges to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, increase spending on the military and cut more from domestic investment. Leading Democrats vow to rollback the top end of the Bush tax cuts to pay for national health care, but they also pledge to increase military spending and move towards balanced budgets — virtually insuring the continued starvation of vital domestic investment.

Bush will not be on the ticket in 2008, but it seems clear that the Republican nominee will make this election a referendum on his policies — promising only more of the same, sustaining the ruinous Bush wars, tax cuts and global economic policies. The Democratic nominees look to offer a choice, promising to bring the occupation of Iraq to an end, roll back tax cuts to pay for affordable health care and launch a bold plan for energy independence. That’s a big agenda, but we’re still a long way from putting a stake in the heart of the policies that have created this wreckage.

Smirk of the Union

Isaiah J. Poole — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:39:08 -0500

Behind President Bush's facial expressions during his final State of the Union speech was a series of dangerous ideas and misleading statements.

Robert Borosage surveys the wreckage of a presidency in its death throes, and what's missing in the Democrats' response.
Rick Perlstein delves into the substance of the speech and points out one of its most Orwellian moments.
David Sirota hits Bush on trade and Bill Scher picks apart Bush' insincerity on global warming.

By the Numbers

We've counted up the cost of the last seven years of conservative misrule. See the facts in our comprehensive Real State of the Union chart. Plus, watch our video reality check of Bush's past State of the Union fantasies.

Smirk of the Union: The Global Warming Debate Shifts Some More

Bill Scher — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:59:03 -0500

As we've said before, nothing that President Bush says in a State of the Union address can been taken at face value. But sometimes, there's import beneath the insincerity.

And there is import in this line: "And let us complete an international agreement that has the potential to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of greenhouse gases."

This is unquestionably insincere. The Oilman-In-Chief has pledged support for clean energy in every one of his past State of the Union addresses, and has never followed through.

Further, his support for an "international agreement" -- not a new position but new for a State of the Union address -- provides easy excuses for anti-environmental conservatives, who use hesitancy from China and India as an excuse to prevent America from leading.

And let's not forget not all global warming agreements are created equal. A "compromise" package can fall short of what's necessary to avert a climate crisis, letting corporations continue to pollute the atmosphere without penalty, giving conservatives political cover, and dampening the urgency for sufficient action.

Yet, it is quite notable that Bush feels compelled to claim, however insincere, in front of a national audience that he supports an international agreement, as it was that wannabe elder statesman Newt Gingrich was compelled to back his own disingenuous global warming package.

We (with a bit of help from Nobel Peace Prize laureate Al Gore) have not only resolved that global warming is happening, forced prominent conservatives to relegate deniers to the fringe, and moved the debate towards what needs to be done.

In saying that an "international agreement" is required, Bush has implicitly conceded that averting the climate crisis requires a major response by our government, and cannot be resolved through voluntary efforts by corporations.

The parameters of the debate have positively shifted again.

Sure, conservatives are trying to turn into the skid and regain their balance in a debate they are losing badly.

But it's another reminder that the forces of obstruction are on their heels.

It is not the time to settle for something that doesn't get the job done. It is time to establish the mandate for what needs to be done.

State of the Union 2008

Toby Chaudhuri — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:22:00 -0500

WASHINGTON -- President Bush is expected to address problems in the nation’s economy while hailing the state of the union as strong tonight, but for Americans worrying about how to make ends meet, the country is headed in the wrong direction, according to numbers compiled today by the Campaign for America’s Future.

ON INCOMES:

-- Median household income in 2000 (inflation-adjusted): $49,158
-- Median household income in 2006: $48,201
-- 8-year increase in median household income in 2001: $6,000
-- 6-year decrease in median household income in 2007: $1,100
[U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 - 2007]

-- Salary of a full-time minimum wage employee without vacation: $12,168
-- Average salary of a CEO of one of America’s top 500 companies: $15.2 million
[Forbes Magazine, May 3, 2007]

-- Number of Americans living in poverty in 2001: 31.6 million
-- Number of Americans living in poverty in 2008: 36.5 million
[U.S. Census Bureau, Aug. 2007]

-- Amount more Americans earned than spent in 2001: +2.3 percent
-- Amount less Americans are earning than spending in 2008: -0.5 percent
[Bureau of Economic Analysis]

-- Total consumer credit debt in 2001: $7.65 trillion
-- Total consumer credit debt in 2008: $12.8 trillion
[Insurance Information Institute]

-- Decrease in median income from 2000-2006 in White American households: $745
-- Decrease in median income from 2000-2006 in African American households: $2,766
-- Decrease in median income from 2000-2006 in Hispanic American households: $1,043
-- Decrease in median income from 2000-2006 in Asian American households: $1,381
[U.S. Census Bureau. Aug. 2007]

-- Median income of African American households in 2006: $31,969
-- Median income of Hispanic American households in 2006: $37,781
-- Median income of White American households in 2006: $50,673
-- Median income of Asian American households in 2006: $63,900
[U.S. Census Bureau. Aug. 2007]

-- African Americans living in poverty in 2006: 24.3 percent
-- Hispanic Americans living in poverty in 2006: 20.6 percent
-- Asian Americans living in poverty in 2006: 10.1 percent
-- White Americans living in poverty in 2006: 8.2 percent
[U.S. Census Bureau. Aug. 2007]

ON HOUSING:

-- Percentage increase in home foreclosures in the last year: 68
[RealtyTrac. Dec. 19, 2007]

ON JOBS:

-- Total number of American manufacturing jobs in 2000: 17,263,000
-- Total number of American manufacturing jobs in 2006: 14,197,000
-- Number of American manufacturing jobs lost between 2000 and 2006: 3,066,000
[Bureau of Labor Statistics]

-- Yearly average number of new private sector jobs created from 1992-2000: 1.76 million
-- Yearly average number of new private sector jobs created from 2001-2008: 369,000
[Bureau of Labor Statistics]

-- Jobless African American workers in Dec. 2007: 9.0 percent
-- Jobless Hispanic American workers in Dec. 2007: 6.3 percent
-- Jobless White American workers in Dec. 2007: 4.4 percent
-- Jobless Asian American workers in Dec. 2007: 3.7 percent
[U.S. Department of Labor Employment Situation Summary, Jan. 4, 2008]

ON ENERGY:

-- Average price of a gallon of home heating oil in Jan. 2000: $1.40
-- Average price of a gallon of home heating oil in Jan. 2008: $3.39
[U.S. Energy Information Administration]

-- Average price of a gallon of gas in Jan. 2000: $1.59
-- Average price of a gallon of gas in Jan. 2008: $3.14
[U.S. Energy Information Administration]

-- Increase in the average price of home heating oil since Jan. 2000: +142 percent
-- Increase in the average price of gas since Jan. 2000: +98 percent

-- Price of a gallon of home heating oil in the winter of 2001-2002 (inflation adjusted): $1.36
-- Projected price of a gallon of home heating oil in the winter of 2007-2008: $3.32
[Energy Administration, Jan. 2008]

-- Amount of U.S. liquid fuel consumption that was imported in 2001: 52.75 percent
-- Amount of U.S. liquid fuel consumption that is imported in 2008: 60.38 percent
[U.S. Energy Information Administration]

-- Exxon Mobil profits in 2000: $7.9 billion
-- Exxon Mobil profits in 2006: $36.1 billion
-- Exxon Mobil’s profit per second during the second quarter of 2006: $1,318
[CNNMoney.com, July 27, 2006; Fortune500 2006]

ON HEALTHCARE:

-- Americans without health insurance in 2000: 38.4 million
-- Americans without health insurance in 2006: 46.9 million
[U.S. Census Bureau, Aug. 2007]

-- Decrease over 2 years in the number of uninsured Americans in 2001: 4.5 million
-- Increase over 6 years in the number of uninsured Americans in 2008: 8.5 million
[U.S. Census Bureau, Aug. 2007]

-- Number of children without health insurance: 8.7 million
-- Number of times President Bush vetoed additional health insurance for children: 2
[U.S. Census Bureau, Aug. 2007]

-- Americans receiving employment-based health insurance in 2000: 64.2 percent
-- Americans receiving employment-based health insurance in 2006: 59.7 percent
[U.S. Census Bureau, Aug. 2007]

-- Annual cost of family health insurance premiums in 2000 (inflation adjusted): $7,643
-- Annual cost of family health insurance premiums in 2006: $11,480
[Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust]

-- Uninsured White Americans in 2006: 10.8 percent
-- Uninsured African Americans in 2006: 20.5 percent
-- Uninsured Asians Americans in 2006: 15.5 percent
-- Uninsured Hispanic Americans in 2006: 34.1 percent
[U.S. Census Bureau, Aug. 2007]

ON COLLEGE COSTS:

-- Average cost per year at a public four-year college in 2000: $10,153
-- Average cost per year at a public four-year college in 2006: $13,089
[CollegeBoard, 2007]

-- Average yearly change in tuition costs for public four-year college since 2000: +29 percent
-- Average percent change in median household income during same period: -2 percent
-- Average debt shouldered by 2006 college graduates: $21,000
[The Project on Student Debt, Sept. 2007]

ON IRAQ AND THE MILITARY:

-- Number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq before the “Mission Accomplished” speech in 2003: 139
-- Number of US troops killed in Iraq as of Jan. 2008: 3,907
-- Number of Iraqi deaths after U.S. invasion: 1,139,602
[iCasualties.org., Jan. 3, 2008]

-- Number of US troops wounded in Iraq before the “Mission Accomplished” speech: 542
-- Number of U.S. troops wounded in Iraq as of Jan. 2008: 28,661
[iCasualties.org, Jan. 3, 2008]

-- Amount of total world military spending spent by U.S.: 47 percent
[Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation]

-- Total U.S. military expenditures requested for 2008: $644 billion
-- Total military expenditures of the 10 next top spending countries combined: $446.1 billion
[Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. Includes China, Russia, U.K., France, Japan, Germany, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, India and Brazil, Feb. 5, 2007]

-- U.S. military base budget in 2001: $297.1 billion
-- US pending military base budget 2008, not including Iraq and Afghanistan: $481.4 billion
[White House Office of Management and Budget, Feb. 5, 2007]

-- U.S. budget spent on military not including Iraq in 2007: 50 percent
-- U.S. budget spent on education in 2007: 6.2 percent
[White House Office of Management and Budget, Feb. 6, 2006.]

-- Number of active duty army divisions rated at the highest readiness levels in 2001: All
-- Number of active duty or reserve brigade in the U.S. considered fully combat ready: 0
[Speaker of the House, Nov. 29, 2007]

ON DEBTS AND DEFICITS:

-- The national debt in 2001: $5.7 trillion
-- The national debt in Jan. 2008: $9.2 trillion
[U.S. Dept. of the Treasury]

-- Monthly U.S. trade deficit in Oct. 2000: $33.8 billion
-- Monthly U.S. trade deficit in Oct. 2007: $57.8 billion
-- U.S. trade deficit in 2000: $380 billion
-- U.S. trade deficit in 2007: $759 billion
[U.S. Census Bureau, Dec. 12, 2007]

-- Value of one Euro in Jan. 2000: $1.01
-- Value of one Euro in Jan. 2008: $1.45
-- Loss of value of the Dollar relative to the Euro from Jan. 2000 to Jan. 2008: 45 percent
[Federal Reserve Statistical Release]

-- Value of an ounce of gold in 2000 (inflation adjusted): $319
-- Value of an ounce of gold in 2008: $892
[GoldPrice.org, Jan. 22 2008]

-- U.S. budget surplus in 2000: +$236 billion
-- U.S. budget deficit in 2007: -$354 billion
[House Office of Management and Budget]

ON PRODUCT AND FOOD SAFETY:

-- Increase in consumer product safety spending from 2000 to 2006: 9 percent
-- Increase in number of U.S. imports from 2000 to 2006: 30 percent
[Consumer Federation of America]

-- Increase in the number of federal food inspections from 2000 to 2006: 8 percent
-- Percentage increase in number of agricultural imports from 2000 to 2006: 39 percent
-- Number of cases of food borne disease outbreaks in 2006: 25,659
[U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Food & Drug Administration, Center for Disease Control]

ON WORLD OPINION:

-- Number of people abroad who viewed America favorably in 2001: 58.3 percent
-- Number of people abroad who viewed America favorably in 2007: 39.2 percent
[Pew Research Center]

-- Number of people in Great Britain who viewed America favorably in 2001: 83 percent
-- Number of people in Great Britain who viewed America favorably in 2007: 56 percent
[Pew Research Center]

-- Number of people in Indonesia who viewed America favorably in 2001: 75 percent
-- Number of people in Indonesia who viewed America favorably in 2007: 30 percent
[Pew Research Center]

-- Number of people in Germany who viewed America favorably in 2001: 78 percent
-- Number of people in Germany who viewed America favorably in 2007: 37 percent
[Pew Research Center]

State of Bush's Union: Whining For Credit

Bill Scher — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:15:33 -0500

The Washington Post previews tonight's State of the Union address with this:

For years, President Bush and his advisers expressed frustration that the White House received little credit for the nation's strong economic performance because of public discontent about the Iraq war. Today, the president is getting little credit for improved security in Iraq, as the public increasingly focuses on a struggling U.S. economy.

Of course, that seeming paradox quickly resolves itself.

Before, Bush received little credit for the economy because the economy wasn't actually working well for everyone, a reality that's now impossible to spin.

Now, Bush receives little credit for Iraq because it's clear that moving Iraq from "the eighth circle of hell to the fifth" in terms of sectarian violence, while nothing happens to resolve the underlying political strike, is no argument to continue a destabilizing occupation.

For several years, conservatives have pounded on the table, yelling at working familes, "The economy is strong! Quit yer bitching!" Families actually struggling chose to disagree.

Today, Bush will tell Americans to close their eyes, pretend that violence doesn't continue to rage in Iraq and pretend that fundamental political divisions don't persist.

Good luck with that.

State of the Union Rated Poorly by 4 out of 5 Americans

Brian Dockstader — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:58:09 -0500

As President George W. Bush is fine tuning his last State of the Union address, American adults do not think much of the current state of the country. Four out of five Americans (81%) think that the current state of the country is fair or poor while just 19 percent think it is excellent or good (2% and 17% respectively).

Fighting "State of the Union" Deception

Brian Dockstader — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 09:28:48 -0500

A new study tries to quantify the stream of lies coming from the Bush administration. In just two years of trying to mislead the country into backing the invasion of Iraq, the study found that Bush and his senior administration officials dropped nearly 1000 such terminological inexactitudes on Americans, Congress, the UN and most world leaders.