Are You Better Off in 2008 Than You Were in 2000?

Washington, DC- During the final presidential debate of the 1980 election, Ronald Reagan, running against Jimmy Carter, turned to the camera and asked “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” The debate took place against a backdrop of spiraling inflation and rising unemployment. A week later, Reagan won the election by one of the largest margins in recent history. Now, with the 2008 presidential election just weeks away and the economy once again in turmoil, a new report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) updates the Reagan question by comparing economic indicators in 2008 and 2000, and finds that most indicators suggest that voters are worse off now than they were eight years ago.

CEPR – Are You Better Off in 2008 Than You Were in 2000?.

Over the last two weeks my relatives have been sending out email to the informal family email groups relating to recent financial news. I was particularly shocked by one email which claimed that the Democrats had to be held responsible, since the original bank deregulation bill was the work of President Clinton. (Here’s President Clinton’s opinion on that issue.)

It’s a half truth at best because since that bill the Republican Party has had eight years to revise and regulate wherever necessary. They didn’t because they don’t believe in regulation on principal. That cannot really be argued. McCain has voted against the minimum wage as intrusive regulation at least 19 times (he voted for it a few years ago).

I keep thinking that information, like the Center for Economic Policy Research, is the key to convincing my larger family that their faith in markets is wrong. I am not sure that this will do any good. It seems to me that the issue here is similar to rooting for your team, not making a rational choice. I am not sure how much of the What’s Wrong with Kansas thesis I buy, but something strange is going on here.

Why would they consistently vote against their own economic interests? It sounds superficial, but at some point something happened that made many of family feel some connection to the Republicans, just like they might feel some connection to the New Orleans Saints or the UT Longhorns. They stick to it, no matter what happens; in fact, not sticking to your time when times are bad is disloyalty of the worst sort.

Balance of Power

Sen. John McCain wants to cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent; Sen. Barack Obama doesn’t. Obama wants to increase the minimum wage; McCain doesn’t.

It’s hard to mix up the economic proposals of the two presidential candidates. Likewise, when it comes to workplace issues, they tend to lean in predictable ways – Obama toward the employee, McCain toward the employer.

Yet regardless of who’s elected, employment lawyers and Washington-area lobbyists say labor laws could get reshuffled in areas as varied as union organizing and gay rights.

“Some people are saying this could be the most active 'workplace Congress’ in the last 20 to 25 years,” said Mike Aitken, director of government affairs for the Society for Human Resource Management, based in Alexandria.

Where do McCain, Obama stand on labor issues? Philip Walzer, The Virginian-Pilot, September 21, 2008.

Here’s a nicely summarized view of the prospects for some basic changes, most of which, oddly enough, are not fully dependent on a Democrat becoming president. It helps to read this sort of thing, if for nothing else, in order to get some prospective on the frightening prospect of a third Republican term, and the shadow of a fourth.

The piece downplays the role that Palin– or Palin’s politics, and the right wing of the Republican party, might play in any future McCain administration. The idea is that McCain’s “libertarian” side would resurface soon after the election and that he would have little reason to spend political capital fighting, say, gay rights legislation.

I’m not sure how persuasive I find that idea. McCain could also spend his entire term fighting to keep the margins of his party happy; he could be uninterested in governing, like Bush, and leave the messy policy details to his neo-conservative precursors. I doubt Palin would be as powerful as Cheney.

What’s exciting, of course, is the prospect of a Democratic president enabling the rapid passage of all of these bills, especially the Employee Free Choice Act, pushing the U.S. just a few more steps out of the past. That might mean the birth of a unionized and green economic expansion. That could provide the tools for real change.