The Global View Means We Are Improving At Home... Just Ask Anyone In The Bush Gang

For all the flack that ultra-conservatives, like Justice Antonin Scalia, place on referencing international standards, international law, and foreign law, it would seem that the idea of being against a global perspective is essentially conditional... "It depends"... on whether we are discussing a court case, an economic policy, trade, business, outsourcing jobs, national security or compliance with international treaties. It seems that the only place we do not want to discuss a global perspective is when it suits the agenda of the administration, congress or the courts.

If we are discussing a court case, and if the issue of referencing foreign or international law as a guide to US law cases involves a moderate, Democrat-appointed justice, then we do not want anything to do with the idea. However, if it involves trade, economic policy, saving a small percentage on an infrustructure construction project, allowing our ports to be run by foreign corporations/nations, outsourcing manufacturing jobs, or any other convenient issue--and if there are enough ultra-conservatives benefitting from the process--then we don't seem to mind any international references.

Global View Is Backed by Fed Chief

Ben S. Bernanke, the newly installed Federal Reserve chairman, suggested yesterday that the central bank would need to pay more attention to global financial conditions in setting interest rates, moving beyond its traditional focus on domestic economic forces.

In a speech to the Economic Club of New York at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Manhattan, Mr. Bernanke said that to understand the reasons behind movements in American bond yields "an explanation less centered on the United States might be required."

In only his third speech since being sworn in as Fed chairman last month, Mr. Bernanke was also skeptical about the argument that the economy will slow in the near future, a view that many investors may take as a sign that the Fed is not quite near the end of its string of interest rate increases.

Mr. Bernanke built the prepared text of his speech around one of the most pressing puzzles in financial markets today: Why do long-term bond yields remain so low despite steadily rising short-term interest rates?

Traditionally long-term rates have fallen when investors have anticipated a slowdown in the economy or a decline in inflationary pressures. But Mr. Bernanke argued that other factors —including a worldwide imbalance between abundant savings and less robust investment — may be a more powerful explanation for the current phenomenon.

Over time, however, the challenge will come in determining whether global forces are likely to push rates lower than otherwise might be the case — or higher. The answer, Mr. Bernanke said, will be increasingly crucial to the conduct of monetary policy. If long-term yields are low primarily because investors are buying more long-term bonds — be they Chinese central bankers trying to manage the yuan's exchange rate or global investors more comfortable with long-term securities because of a decline of economic volatility — they would be adding an extra lift to consumer spending and business investment. That would tend to push the Fed to raise its key interest rate a little more than it might otherwise have considered appropriate.

Of course, the end result on our status as citizens just trying to eek out a decent living is one where the divide between the "haves" and "have nots" widens and deepens, despite what the Bush gang seems to think.

Where Did All the Children Go?
In San Francisco and Other Big Cities, Costs Drive Out Middle-Class Families

Monica Burton did not want to leave San Francisco. Born and raised in the city and a train driver for the Muni transit system for the past 16 years, she loves her home town, volunteers in its women's jail and prays weekly at her church in the Hunter's Point section along the San Francisco Bay.

But as the main breadwinner for her family, which includes a 22-year-old daughter and two granddaughters, she faced some hard choices. Stay in San Francisco and abandon the dream of owning her own home because of skyrocketing housing prices, or leave. In 2004, Burton left with her grandchildren, buying a three-bedroom house in what she calls a "Leave It to Beaver" neighborhood in Sacramento, a 158-mile round-trip commute from her job in the city of her birth.

People like Burton have been leaving U.S. cities because of high-priced housing for some time. But according to researchers and urban leaders, the trend has accelerated in recent years and is threatening to reshape many of the nation's major cities. Between 2000 and 2004, all eight metropolitan regions from Seattle to San Diego lost middle-class families.

On the East Coast, a similar trend is underway, with middle-class families fleeing the New York region and Boston for the South. The District has been in the buffer zone, losing middle-class families with children to the Sun Belt but gaining some from the Northeast, said William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution.

"There's a middle-class flight on both sides of the country," said Frey, who has analyzed county-level census data on both coasts. He has found that real estate costs more than schools are driving the migration.

The trend has city officials worried about what the loss of these middle-class families will do to the vitality of their communities, and they are trying to find ways to stem the flow.

The departure of families is being felt especially hard in San Francisco, which is losing children at a rate that outpaces the rest of the region. Researchers, including Frey, say the skyrocketing cost of housing, more than the fact that the city is a center of gay life, is the crucial factor. San Francisco risks turning into Venice, Italy -- a beautiful tourist town with few long-term residents and no families, said Gabriel Metcalf, executive director of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, which has advocated changes in zoning and the construction of not just more subsidized housing but also more market-rate housing.

A recent survey by the Public Research Institute at San Francisco State University found that respondents with family incomes higher than $50,000 were almost twice as likely to say they planned on leaving San Francisco as people from lower income brackets.

But if we listen to President Bush, and all of his spin doctors and PR troops (which has become quite the industry under the Bush Doctrine), there is a growing economy and the nation we live in still has streets lined with gold bricks, silver curbs and flows of milk and honey... as long as you have an income over $200,000 per year and at least $100,000 tied to a diversified investment plan.

Lou Dobbs March 23, 2006

DOBBS: It's hard to say whether the Bush administration is unconcerned about the war on our middle class or determined to contribute to it. While an entire generation of American manufacturing workers in this country faces extinction, the White House is promoting foreign investment as a way to create American jobs.

It is interesting that we now have a "war on drugs" (starting during the Reagan administration) "a war against terrorism" (starting during this administration) and a "war on the middle class" (which seems to exist only when the ultra-conservatives put big business ahead of our citizens, our national security, our Constitution and common sense). Despite the claims President Bush (c.f. press conference on Tuesday, March 21, 2006) that more Americans have retained earnings since the tax cuts have been initiated by his administration, government statistics demonstrate wages are not keeping up with inflation, job security is significantly absent from the equation, and more Americans are working 2-3 lower paying jobs (or at least 55-70 hours per week to keep a job).

This administration actually insists that things are improving for American workers.

The real question is "For whom is it improving?" If we compare the statistics to the realities faced by most Americans, the rise in the number of bankruptcies, the number of Americans forced to juggle payment on their bills, the rise in energy costs that force American families to cut back on even the essentials, and the number of Americans losing money on retirement investments and pension plans, the number of contractual concessions forced upon labor unions by corporations that are in, or are near, bankruptcy... and the number of upper echelon executives and board members walking away from unsuccessful businesses with their golden parachutes fully intact and full opened... we do not see things improving for anyone making less than $100,000 per year.

So, how many families make more than $100,000 per year? According to INFO PLEASE (2004), the MEDIAN INCOME--the exact mid point for all families--is $55,327. The median income for all US households is $44,389. The median income for a couple is $63,813. A single-parent family headed by a woman has a median income of $29,826, while a similar family situation headed by a man has a median income of $44,923. Single women living in an independent household have a median income of $21,797, while single men living in an independent household have a median income of $31,967. The breakdown for racial/ethnic is also listed by INFO PLEASE, and Asian households have the highest median income, while Blacks have the lowest median income.

Interestingly, according to the US Census Bureau for 2004, the poverty line for a family of four (mother, father and 2 children) is set at $19,157. There has been a steady increase in the number of families under the poverty line every year of the Bush administration, with increases of .02 to .04 percent per year. While those numbers may seem small, we are talking about somwhere between 58,000 and 116,000 people, most of whom are children.

Furthermore, I dare anyone to live--even as an independent single person--on an income of less than $20,000. Average rents for my location is $544 per month. My electrical bill is budgeted by NIPSCO at $132 per month, and my neighbors tell me that is lower than their bill because I do not have children. That's $8,112 per year, and we haven't even discussed groceries and household essentials. Even if we use the military's COMRATS figure of $11 per day, groceries would add $4,015 for a single person (which is extremely below what most people spend on groceries). Even if we take public transportation, as my wife does, getting to and from work will cost $2,532 (and that is conservatively low). If we add medical insurance/care costs to the mix, we can estimate that at about $3,000 per year for a single person. This leaves about $195 per month for incidentals... However, these figures represent only the basics of living, not the actual amounts people spend to make their real lives work. I don't know anyone that eats a healthy diet on $11 bucks per day... no one. My own rent is about $55 per month higher than the average rent for my county area, and I live in the least expensive apartment complex in my town. Getting my wife to work requires a ride to and from the train station, as well as additional transportation costs for grocery shopping, doctor visits, running to the post office, etc. All-in-all, I don't believe a single person could really live a completely independent life on $20,000 or less per annum.

However, let us examine what our congress critters and the president make per year:

The base pay for a congress critter is $165, 200, without including housing allowances, travel budget, expenses, franking privileges, and staffing budgets. The President's base pay is $400,000 per year, and the VP's base pay is $198,600. (How many weeks of vacation did Mr. Bush take last year?) Neither the president or the vice president pay for rent, utilities, transportation or health care. Both have expense accounts for travel and incidentals... although they both have to pay for their groceries.

But we are getting a fair shake... BOVINE EXCREMENT IN EXTREMIS