Tactics Ammunition Drudge This! Articles Archive Policy Archive Weblog Archive Cons With Cons Search This Site
An Evolution has begun. Politicalstrategy.org has officially closed down. Look for DailyNewsOnline.com to rise from the ashes, a powerful new site you won't want to miss. Click here to find out more! Click here to join the mailing list and be notified when the DailyNewsOnline is launched!
[However, Kennedy adjusted the numbers to account for undecided black voters, who overwhelmingly vote for Democrats, and said the runoff election currently stands in Blanco's favor. With that adjustment, Blanco would get 53 percent of the vote, compared to Jindal's 47 percent]
Republican Primary Trial Heat (among Republican voters): Cecil Underwood 30% Robin Capehart 8% Sarah Minear 8% Dan Moore 3% Monty Warner 3% Doug McKinney 2% Other 3% Undecided 43%
Democratic Primary Trial Heat (among Democratic voters): Joe Manchin 46% Darrell McGraw 11% John Perdue 5% Jim Humphreys 4% Lloyd Jackson 3% Jim Lees 3% Spike Maynard 2% Robin Davis 2% Other 1% Undecided 25%
Sure, lower prices sound good when you're buying a pound of turkey or paying the phone bill. However, for the overall economy, the story isn't quite as clear-cut.
In fact, an ideal situation for economic growth is not falling prices (deflation), but rather moderately rising prices (moderate inflation). Indeed, rising prices are a natural part of a growing economy.
You see, for the last couple of years, rates have been lowered by Fed actions and various injections of liquidity all in the name of stimulating capital investment which would hopefully boost consumer spending and eventually result in an uplifted economy in general. The idea is that lower rates will provide an environment where businesses will be in a position to hire new employees. These employees will have newly found disposable income. Money will be invested and spent and the economy will recover.
Instead, we're seeing the possibility of an economic environment with very low interest rates, a stagnant economy and either decreasing inflation (also called "disinflation" - where prices are rising at a slower and slower rate) or negative inflation (also called "deflation" - where prices are actually going down).
What does it all mean?
It means that a miserable economy that is unstimulated by monetary drivers (such as interest rates and money supply) is also one that will not be able to raise prices (causing inflation) due to lack of demand for their products and services. It is also one that cannot invest in new machinery, equipment, or other capital ventures and most importantly...cannot hire new employees.
The result is a sluggish or stagnant economy with high unemployment and little room for further monetary stimulus. (i.e. There is no more room to lower interest rates.)
Fortunately, interest rates aren't the only way to stimulate an economy. Fiscal policy (taxation and spending) is the other major tool in the fight for a stronger economy. The idea here is that, more government spending (and/or less taxation) equals greater demand for goods and services. This greater demand stimulates increased production and investment that stimulates hiring, etc. The key to the effectiveness of this tool, however, is that the stimulus be directed toward the proper outlets. These outlets are those with which the fiscal stimulus has the most bang for the buck, those that will recycle the dollars back into the economy rather than stick them in some personal, non-productive account somewhere.
So there you go. The "Wonder Twins" of economic stimulus should help us back on the road to recovery. Unfortunately, one of these tools is being used as a tool of wealth distribution for friends of Bush and the GOP rather than as a true tool of fiscal stimulus.
Economics 101: In times of economic hardship, taxes should be cut to stimulate consumer demand. To that there is little doubt.
So what could be wrong? Bush wants to cut trillions of dollars in taxes. This should stimulate the economy like nothing we could ever imagine. Unfortunately (I find myself using the word "unfortunately" a lot since Bush seized office), the targets of the tax cuts are such that the stimulative effect of such actions on the economy will be nil. This is because the cuts go to the wealthy, who are unlikely to spend any of the new cash injection, rather than the non-wealthy who are most likely to redirect the funds back into the economy.
Think of it this way, if you make half a million dollars a year and you get a big fat tax break so that you now make an additional $50,000, what do you care? You already buy whatever you want, an extra 50K isn't going to change your spending habits one iota. Now, suppose you make $20,000 per year and payroll taxes were eliminated giving you an extra $1,000 bucks or so over the course of the year. You better believe that every single penny of that $1K will be spent (i.e. put back into the economy as a stimulative injection.)
Bush, who proposes every tax cut his handlers can think of for his crony contributor buddies (estate tax, dividend tax, capital gains tax), fails consistently to target those who would actually re-spend the newly found income. And this while the heavily regressive user taxes (sales, tolls and other fees on public infrastructure) and payroll taxes either rise or remain unconsidered. Thus, the wealthy will now have fatter portfolios and savings accounts while the middle-class and working poor get laid-off. Forget about the economy. It gets nothing.
Bottom line: The resultant lack of economic stimulus leads to a long-term stagnant or (God-forbid) shrinking economy with little stimulative recourse as well as increased financial-class polarity nationwide.
Truly, if Bush had absolutely any intention of designing a fiscal stimulus that would actually stimulate the economy rather than simply reward his friends and contributors, he would have targeted those in the nation who actually need the money to resume their daily activities.
As an extra slap in the face, Administration minions will quickly point out that the Democrats' criticism that deficits would cause rising interest rates is obviously a bunch of cow pucky since rates are in no danger of going higher. What they won't mention is that a) the effect that they refer to takes time to develop and is not an instantaneous change upon speculation of growing and persisting deficits. b) There are other factors devastating the economy and crippling the government's traditional tools of stimulus that are causing the low rate environment. And finally c) the reason that rates are in no danger of going higher in the near future is actually WORSE for the economy than the reason for the original criticism (huge government deficits).
In other words, the GOP defends themselves with reasoning that is actually more destructive than the thing for which they were first criticized.
In the end, the disingenuousness of Bush and the GOP is surpassed only by the indifference of the voting public. And for that we will all pay dearly. No doubt Bush's contributors will benefit from that payment as well.
Grassley Holds Line on Tax Cut,As White House Tests His Vow (WSJ) Sen. Charles Grassley gave President Bush plenty of notice that his latest tax-cut package would have trouble in the Senate."The White House is going to have to be flexible with me," the Iowa Republican warned in January, days after Mr. Bush unveiled his $725 billion tax plan.The White House still has to, even as debate over the package enters the homestretch. Its final shape remains dependent on the handiwork of Mr. Grassley , a self-described hayseed who brings populist rather than pro-business instincts to the challenge of balancing the Senate's competing political forces.Despite heavy pressure from the White House and his conservative colleagues, the Finance Committee chairman has no intention of breaking his vow to two deficit-wary Republicans that the final bill's price tag won't exceed $350 billion. "The commitment will make it hard to fit things in," Mr. Grassley concedes in an interview.
U.N.: Iraqi Children Face Death from Malnutrition (Reuters) More than 300,000 Iraqi children face death from acute malnutrition, twice as many as before U.S. and British forces invaded the country in March, the United Nations UNICEF agency warned on Wednesday. Many of these -- nearly eight per cent of all Iraqi children under five -- could be saved if the occupation forces ensured that aid convoys could move around freely and kept looters away from water plants and pipelines, it said. The agency, charged with protecting children around the globe, said a survey taken in Baghdad indicated that 7.7 percent of children under five in urban centers were suffering from acute malnutrition, nearly twice as many as one year ago.
N.Korea Nuclear Reactor Project Proceeds (Newsday) A U.S.-led project to build two nuclear reactors in North Korea has proceeded despite the standoff over the communist state's suspected nuclear weapons development, South Korean officials said Wednesday. The reactors are the most coveted part of a 1994 accord that was the backbone of U.S. efforts to keep the Korean peninsula nuclear-free until North Korea recently declared the deal dead. South Korean officials say the fact that the project is still alive shows the accord is salvageable. Under the agreement, North Korea agreed to freeze its suspected nuclear weapons facilities in return for the reactors, which are to be used to generate electricity, something North Korea badly needs. Their design is such that it would be difficult to use them to make weapons.
France Says It Is Target of Untruths (Washington Post) The French government believes it is the victim of an "organized campaign of disinformation" from within the Bush administration, designed to discredit it with allegations of complicity with the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein. In a letter prepared for delivery today to administration officials and members of Congress, France details what it says are false news stories, with anonymous administration officials as sources, that appeared in the U.S. media over the past nine months. A two-page list attached to the letter includes reports of alleged French weapons sales to Iraq and culminates in a report last week that French officials in Syria issued French passports to escaping Iraqis being sought by the U.S. military. The stories, all of which Paris has heatedly denied, are part of an "ugly campaign to destroy the image of France," a French official said. Officials said they have no doubt that the stories were spread by factions in the administration itself -- hard-line civilians within and close to the Pentagon are their primary suspects -- and that there was no visible effort by the White House or other departments to discipline those involved or even find out who they are.
An Evolution has begun. Politicalstrategy.org has officially closed down. Look for DailyNewsOnline.com to rise from the ashes, a powerful new site you won't want to miss. Click here to find out more! Click here to join the mailing list and be notified when the DailyNewsOnline is launched!
Sun Tzu Files 
and 
indicate whether the poll numbers are up or down from the previous poll. Incumbents are in italics. (prior results in '()')