Tuesday :: Jun 22, 2004

Quality and Quantity of Bush Job Creation In Doubt

by Steve

Bush and Cheney have taken a lot of credit lately for the economy, saying the recent job growth has proven that their economic policy of leaving no tax cut behind has worked and is now paying dividends. John Kerry has responded (as we have here) that there is a wage recession in the country, where workers’ wage increases (if any) are falling behind the increased costs of energy, food, health care, and college. Kerry has also argued (as we have here) that the quality of the jobs that Bush and Cheney are bragging about is worse than the jobs that have been lost under this administration. Many of these jobs that have been added, according to Kerry (and us) are temp help and lower paying jobs than the manufacturing and higher-end jobs that have vanished since Bush took office. This growing wage gap is occurring while corporate profits are skyrocketing, and the only policy this Administration has is to make the tax cuts permanent and let companies do what they want and the economy to produce whatever jobs it can with no help from the government.

The next time one of our freeper friends tells you that Bush’s policies have led to a strong recovery, remember these two pieces that confirm the growing gap between wages and costs, and the quality of jobs being created. The Bloomberg piece is quite good, and the Toronto Globe and Mail story also confirms that the quality of jobs created during the Bush Administration is below that of the jobs lost, with growth of part-time jobs outpacing that of full time ones. And these recent analyses by the Economic Policy Institute make it quite clear that most states have yet to recover the jobs they have lost under Bush, and that recent claims by the Wall Street Journal about the strength and quality of the “jobs” recovery are false.

Bush’s defenders denigrate Clinton’s performance by saying that a president isn’t in control of the economy to the degree that warrants giving them credit when things go well. Yet those same defenders say that Bush can’t be blamed for the slowdown he inherited but somehow deserves credit for the recent job growth because it shows that his tax cuts are working. So if Clinton isn’t to claim significant credit for the economic growth, 22 million jobs, and balanced budgets during his eight-year watch, then why is Bush able to claim credit for the recent job growth over only the last six months? You can’t have it both ways.

And if you really want it both ways, then Bush is accountable for the quality and quantity of jobs created under his watch. In other words, he is failing, and blaming Clinton won't work anymore.

Steve :: 12:15 PM :: Comments (7) :: Digg It!