NYT: "The View From Crawford" (rosier than from where most Americans sit)

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

The most surprising thing about the public's dissatisfaction with President Bush's handling of the economy, as expressed in recent polls, is the administration's apparent astonishment at Mr. Bush's low marks. His advisers have offered various explanations. Treasury Secretary John Snow says that strong consumer spending indicates that people don't feel as bad about the economy as they tell pollsters. He also suggests that part of the problem is that "less educated people have seen their incomes and wages grow more slowly." Before a meeting with top economic advisers in Crawford this week, the president cited the high cost of energy and health care as weighing on "the future of economic growth."

The economy's shortcomings are nowhere more obvious than in the job market. Nearly four years into an economic expansion, job growth is still substantially slower than in previous recoveries. Wages for 80 percent of the work force are barely keeping pace with inflation, and aid for the workers hurt by global trade is paltry. Because Mr. Bush fails to acknowledge the lackluster job and wage growth, he fails to respond appropriately. The administration's insistence that the economy is getting better all the time - a stance that is based on statistical aggregates that are often divorced from individuals' actual experience - only intensifies the anxiety that people feel.

After the meeting in Crawford, participants said health care costs had been a major topic of discussion, though they wouldn't say what, if any, policies the president might pursue. Instead, they crowed about the administration's postvacation plans: to redouble efforts to privatize Social Security and to embark on "tax reform," which is premised, in part, on permanent tax cuts for the wealthy and would therefore mean bigger deficits, drastic cuts in government services or higher taxes for everyone else.

At his vacation home, Mr. Bush told reporters that "the economy of the United States is strong and the foundation for sustained growth is in place." The view from Crawford is clearly rosier than from where most Americans sit.



http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/opinion/12fri3.html

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Look at the coke-jaw freak show. How can he be running the free world?

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

2. I hope the media keeps the spotlight on "tax reform"...

My biggest concern is that most people have STOPPED calling John Linder's "National Sales Tax" by its name and have switched to marketing it as the "Fair Tax."

SEPTEMBER 30th...THAT is the date that we ALL need to mark on our calendars. That's when Bush's "Tax Advisory Panel" turns in its "recommendations" for a "fair and simple tax code," and you can BET that the National Sales Tax, "Fair Tax," or "Ream What's Left Of The Middle Class Tax" WILL be on the list.

It's pretty clear that this will result in (as the article states)...

1. permanent tax cuts for the wealthy
2. bigger deficits
3. drastic cuts in government services
4. higher taxes for everyone else.

And the National Retail Federation states:

http://www.nrf.com/content/default.asp?folder=press/release2005&file=NRST-comments.htm&bhfv=2&bhqs=1

Retailers File Comments Urging Rejection of Consumption Tax ("National Sales Tax," "Fair Tax")

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 13, 2005 - The National Retail Federation today announced that it has filed comments with the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform urging the panel to reject economically risky proposals to replace the nation's income tax system with a consumption tax or to add a new consumption tax on top of existing taxes.

"The United States should not experiment with a brand new tax system that will put our economic future at risk," NRF said. "It is better to engage in substantial reforms of the income tax that are designed to eliminate some of the major complications in the current Internal Revenue Code and stimulate economic growth without causing major economic dislocation."

NRF's remarks came in response to proposals for tax reform that were presented to the Advisory Panel during a series of hearings this spring. The panel asked for public comments on the proposals last month.

NRF on Friday submitted a detailed statement outlining the dangers of various consumption tax proposals. The statement addressed the National Retail Sales Tax proposed by Representative John Linder, R-Va., plans for a Value Added Tax similar to those used in Europe, and other consumption tax proposals.

The NRF statement cited a study commissioned by NRF in 2000 that found that a national sales tax would bring a three-year decline in the economy, a four-year decline in employment and an eight-year decline in consumer spending. The study showed that similar results could be expected if other types of consumption taxes were enacted to replace the current system.

NRF argued that consumption taxes are inherently regressive because low-income families spend virtually their entire incomes while wealthier families have larger percentages of unspent income that would go untaxed.

NRF particularly urged the Advisory Panel to reject proposals to maintain the current tax system while adding a VAT or other new tax that would be used to pay for programs such as Social Security or health care. Doing so would amount to a tax increase rather than tax reform and would provide lawmakers with "a money machine" to finance increases in government spending, NRF said.

[Dudley_DUright]

5. What is it with Repukes and there Orwellian sounding slogans?

I guess they work in this age of "sound bite" politics, but they would not if the MSM was doing its job. Fat chance of that however.

[Moderator]

7. Bush_Eats_Beef

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
copyrighted news source.


Thank you.

DU Moderator

[Eurobabe]

3. Yeah I go to Canada next week 8/22

and can't wait to blow this clam shack.

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. Where are you headed? :^) I've never been further west than Quebec

or Ohio for that matter.

[yorkiemommie1]

6. '... less educated people have seen their ...wages grow more slowly "

... uh. no. highly educated and wages have been cut. NO benefits any more!