There have been many people recently trying to convince America
that we have something to fear in the state of our economy. John
Kerry would have us believe we must save our money, be wary of our
employers and get ready for a cold winter standing in line at the
Well, I didn’t see all of these terrible signs of woe that
Democrats have been harping about so I decided to take a closer
look into the state of our economy.
Sen. Kerry has claimed he will give hope back to the working
classes by raising the minimum wage. This is an interesting point
considering that only 2 percent of Americans over 20 years of age
earn minimum wage.
In fact, the average hourly income of a non-supervisory worker
in a non-farm private payroll is almost $16 an hour, according to
the United States Department of Labor. Further, the unemployment
rate as of last month was 5.4 percent. This is an incredibly low
number and well below the world average.
Now I know what you’re thinking, those numbers were even better
under the Clinton administration.
According to British economist John Maynard Keynes there is a
good explanation for that.
Very simply put, Keynes advocates that in times of recession the
government should use its fiscal policies to cut taxes and
stimulate growth by increasing government spending, even if it
means running a deficit.
This economic strategy has worked wonders for the past 70 or so
years, and is exactly what George W. Bush has done over the past
four years. Apparently 70 years of success is not good enough proof
for Sen. Kerry, or maybe he’s just bashing the President’s fiscal
policies so he can get elected. Recessions like the one we saw
begin in mid 2000 are part of a cycle of economic correction that
happens about every eight to 10 years. In the late ’70s there was
an economic slump while a democrat sat in office. In the ’80s we
saw a booming economy while a republican was in office, and then it
was reversed in the ’90s.
The party with which the president is affiliated has little to
do with the economic situation during his presidency. In fact the
president has limited control over the economy at all. The
president must go through Congress to make fiscal policy. His most
effective way of stimulating the economy is by looking confident
and instilling good feeling in the public. The Federal Reserve, a
private organization, is the real puppeteer of the American
economic situation. The Fed manipulates interest rates to entice
purchases of homes and large manufactured goods in hard times, and
also jockeys around the cash supply in order to control inflation.
If you listen to Democrats on the campaign trail though, you would
think that G.W. is personally putting people out of work for the
fun of it.
So what is all this talk of the president losing jobs in the
past four years? There is a debate inside the Department of Labor
about how they count the number of employed people in the US. The
people in this debate are turning out numbers that would indicate
that the job counts of the past year could be low by as many as a
million jobs. However, even without the additions of maybes to this
argument there are solid statistics that show why total job numbers
are a few hundred thousand below the projections. First off, DOL
stats show that the number of women over the age of 20 who are
actively participating in the workforce has not risen since 1997.
For whatever reason this is it is unlikely that government fiscal
policy had anything to do with how many women are looking for or
working in a job. Next, the percentage of teens age 16-19 that are
participating in the workforce has dropped from 52 percent in 2000
to 43 percent in 2004. This could explain a large portion of these
“lost” jobs over the past four years.
All together the state of the American economy is good. We are
producing at a far greater rate than other nations and we are in a
state of “full employment,” according to the Department of Labor. I
ask of you to think about the facts before listening to the
partisan rhetoric when making your decisions at the polls