Thursday, July 22, 2004
In response to Stephen S. Roach's op-ed piece in the NYTimes entitled More Jobs, Worse Work...
Mr. Roach's article pinpoints the nuanced argument that John Kerry and the Democratic party must make in order to realize a gain in congress and ascendency to the Presidency this election year. Contrastly, stellar economic numbers will be necessary if the President is to gain a second term. He has been bragging about recent job creation numbers, asserting that they are a sign of the impact of his tax cuts. It is always difficult to judge if such a cause and effect relationship is as strong or weak as partisans believe, but if true in this case Roach's op-ed paints a negative portrait of the effects. While the job creation numbers look decent at first glance, Roach shows that a more thorough examination discovers very little high end gain, with lesser paying jobs having the larger bounce. Politically, it would be wise of Kerry to make hay of this fact in order to give Americans a truer picture of their choice in the upcoming election: Bush has created mostly lower-end growth; Kerry's plans call for middle class job gains. Citing the differences between job gains in the nineties and the more modest accruals of recent months would contrast well for the Democrats. Trying Times also believes that Kerry could assert that Republicans care more for high end profit values for corporations, a situation which has a high correlation with reduction in worker costs and wages. Looking around today it doesn't take long to see any number of companies still reducing costs through worker concessions. The current economic numbers bare this out: corporations have become highly productive and turning profits but there is no system in place to transfer any of these gains to the workers. Kerry could assert his belief that companies can pay workers more and still make sustainable profits.
Mr. Roach's article pinpoints the nuanced argument that John Kerry and the Democratic party must make in order to realize a gain in congress and ascendency to the Presidency this election year. Contrastly, stellar economic numbers will be necessary if the President is to gain a second term. He has been bragging about recent job creation numbers, asserting that they are a sign of the impact of his tax cuts. It is always difficult to judge if such a cause and effect relationship is as strong or weak as partisans believe, but if true in this case Roach's op-ed paints a negative portrait of the effects. While the job creation numbers look decent at first glance, Roach shows that a more thorough examination discovers very little high end gain, with lesser paying jobs having the larger bounce. Politically, it would be wise of Kerry to make hay of this fact in order to give Americans a truer picture of their choice in the upcoming election: Bush has created mostly lower-end growth; Kerry's plans call for middle class job gains. Citing the differences between job gains in the nineties and the more modest accruals of recent months would contrast well for the Democrats. Trying Times also believes that Kerry could assert that Republicans care more for high end profit values for corporations, a situation which has a high correlation with reduction in worker costs and wages. Looking around today it doesn't take long to see any number of companies still reducing costs through worker concessions. The current economic numbers bare this out: corporations have become highly productive and turning profits but there is no system in place to transfer any of these gains to the workers. Kerry could assert his belief that companies can pay workers more and still make sustainable profits.
Monday, July 12, 2004
Is it possible to fight an enemy such as Al-queda and not respond to their attacks? In response to the potential of terror attacks at or near the time of U.S. elections, our government is contengency planning to postpone said elections until a later date. What good could possibly come from this action? Why would we do such a thing? So far, there has been no explanation offered as to what purpose such measures would advance. Is it because of previous events? We are harrased by the mainstream media into believing that the terror attacks in Spain were a "success" for the enemy because they influenced the election. How could they not influence the elections one way or the other? It is a property of physics that all actions have reactions. Something will happen in response to an attack timed to disrupt our democratic process. Why not have our response be to continue on as planned, no matter the outcome desired by the terrorists? The vote of the people in the face of the reality of terrorism is a victory for democracy, not a concession. Trying Times asserts that to postpone the elections is a triumph for the terrorists, because it disrupts the ability of the people to pass judgement on their governments' current and former handling of the reality we all face. We must not conceed our right to vote on our desired schedule, not that of our enemy.
Thursday, July 08, 2004
In response to William Safire's latest rant Body Politic will reject 'Charisma Transplant'...
Just to let Safire in on the obvious facts: the rest of us know about the qualifications of Kerry/Edwards team in comparison to George Bush and company. Here's a few examples to refresh your memory so you won't have to waste anymore time or column space trying to paint Edwards as unfit to hold our second highest office:
1. Edwards has been in the U.S. Senate for 6 years, in comparison to Bush who was governor of Texas (a mostly ceremonial position;the lieutenant governor there is more powerful) for 6 years. Edwards experience is on par or above that which Bush had going in office.
2. You demand that John Kerry pick the most qualified to person to be President, based on experience. Trying Times agrees. Mr. Kerry is far more qualified to be President than Bush was under any objective consideration of this factor.
3. Bush was a failure as a business man (unless you count the ability to curry favors/subsidies from government for baseball stadiums). Edwards is considered to be one of the most ethical and certainly is one of the most talented/successful trial lawyers in the country.
The above is the short list, but will hopefully suffice to get the Republicans and especially Safire to talk about real issues. Call Edwards a liberal if you want; paint him as an oppurtunistic populist if you must; but please don't spend anymore energy pushing this experience angle. Its the height of hypocracy to have never once made the same argument against Bush. The reason you didn't then was because Bush was the most politically savvy potential candidate; just as Edwards is now.
Just to let Safire in on the obvious facts: the rest of us know about the qualifications of Kerry/Edwards team in comparison to George Bush and company. Here's a few examples to refresh your memory so you won't have to waste anymore time or column space trying to paint Edwards as unfit to hold our second highest office:
1. Edwards has been in the U.S. Senate for 6 years, in comparison to Bush who was governor of Texas (a mostly ceremonial position;the lieutenant governor there is more powerful) for 6 years. Edwards experience is on par or above that which Bush had going in office.
2. You demand that John Kerry pick the most qualified to person to be President, based on experience. Trying Times agrees. Mr. Kerry is far more qualified to be President than Bush was under any objective consideration of this factor.
3. Bush was a failure as a business man (unless you count the ability to curry favors/subsidies from government for baseball stadiums). Edwards is considered to be one of the most ethical and certainly is one of the most talented/successful trial lawyers in the country.
The above is the short list, but will hopefully suffice to get the Republicans and especially Safire to talk about real issues. Call Edwards a liberal if you want; paint him as an oppurtunistic populist if you must; but please don't spend anymore energy pushing this experience angle. Its the height of hypocracy to have never once made the same argument against Bush. The reason you didn't then was because Bush was the most politically savvy potential candidate; just as Edwards is now.
