Presidential campaign 2004 is the first campaign in over 30 years that has been dominated by national security. The state of our union barely made it to center stage last Wednesday night, less than three weeks before the nation picks the next president.
Unfortunately, this presidential campaign season is almost ended and we have just barely begun to address the uncertain future for our American work force – a future clouded by a shrinking standard of living, increasing personal and government debt, and an overwhelming fear that our best days may be behind us.
America’s standard of living is becoming ever more threatened by a global economy. We are forced to compete against the workers in China, Mexico and India who enjoy a better standard of living today than yesterday, but have little to no health care, benefits or retirement. They work for wages well below the poverty line in this country.
After last week’s debate, it is clear that this president has no real plan for helping the American worker transition into this new economy. The president spoke about education when asked about job losses. I appreciate the idea that a more educated work force should be more employable, but the reality is that educated workers are being handed just as many pink slips as the uneducated.
BusinessWeek reported that “workers with a bachelor’s degree or some college education now make up almost 50 percent of unemployed workers 25 years and older.” Surprisingly, education has not yielded greater employment opportunity in George W. Bush’s so-called economic “recovery.” As the Economic Policy Institute reported in August, the current recovery has been marred by the persistent lack of job creation for workers of all educational levels. The present economic woes are not due to failures regarding the supply side of labor (such as too few college graduates), but rather they are the result of a persistently low demand for all labor.”
After the debate, one of my reporters asked a Bush economist what the role of government should be in helping the American workforce transition into a new world of intense competition, rising health-care costs and no pensions. He said, “Well, it’s not the president’s job,” and then launched into a discussion about the Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. He said President Bush should be re-elected because the next president will likely appoint a new Federal Reserve chairman.
The Bush adviser, on his way to Salt Lake City, then Las Vegas (to “undo the damage Kerry will do there”), and then fly all night flight to Atlanta, said the key to the economy is keeping consumer consumption high. Low interest rates do that. He said that the Bush tax cuts had also raised consumer consumption and mentioned that 1 percent of the country pays 65 percent of the taxes in America. I’m not sure what that factoid had to do with the transition of the American worker into a new economy, but I suppose he was so used to spewing out that information that it rolled off his tongue automatically.
Am I the only person who just realized that George Bush’s plan for America is basically a national “kiting scheme?” We float money and maintain our standard of living on credit until there is no more equity in our homes to leverage or until MasterCard and Visa finally just say no. This explains a lot about why this president isn’t worried about government spending or a balanced budget. He is actually comfortable sleeping with massive amounts of debt over the American public’s heads.
So what happens when it comes time to pay the creditors and we don’t have a job? This brings us back to the original question: How do we ensure American workers are employed and able to maintain their standard of living? The adviser said that, while the president would never say this, the fact of the matter is that the president knows that American workers cannot compete with workers in Mexico, China and India. This Team Bush member said that our economy will have to make the transition, just as we did in the past when we went from agrarian to industrial to technological and now we need to transition to a service-based economy.
The sum of the conversation is that there is no Bush economic plan except make the tax cuts for that 1 percent permanent, because after all, it’s “their due,” to quote Vice President Dick Cheney. And to keep that supply of credit open and cheap so that Americans borrow as much as they possibly can to finance their standard of living.
John Kerry, on the other hand, actually has a plan for putting more money in the pockets of Americans that doesn’t involve increasing their personal debt burden or that of the federal government. He will start by putting Americans back to work by giving companies an incentive to hire and train American workers within our borders. He will make health care and fuel prices cheaper. He will invest in the infrastructure of America, and reward work over wealth by closing overseas tax loopholes.
John Kerry believes that this government cannot “sit on the sidelines” when it comes to the American worker. Someone, somewhere must invest in the American worker. American workers will have a choice on Nov. 2. They can choose John Kerry, a leader, or a George W. Bush, a cheerleader, determined to stand on the sidelines and let Alan Greenspan’s replacement coax Americans further and further into debt.
