In my last commentary I said, among other things, “there has been much talk of bipartisanship by both the Administration and the Democratic leadership but that is nothing more than posturing. In almost every area of policy the parties are too far apart for compromise to be possible.”
“The Administration as one of its first acts after the recent election announced that it would renominate six of his earlier choices to sit on the federal appeals court, leaving Democratic senators and other analysts to ponder what message he is sending.
“Mr. Bush's motive in sending up the nominations has been closely analyzed, with several Democrats and liberals labeling it as provocative and a sign that he does not intend to seek compromise as he suggested he would after Republican losses in the elections last week.
“Democrats have asked the president to be bipartisan, but this is a clear slap in the face at our request,'' said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York” (From the NY Times of November 16)
Democrats on the other hand are determined to push their agenda with an increase in the minimum wage being at the top of the list. As I discussed in my last presentation this is not something Republicans are likely to accept, except as part of a deal on the estate tax, a price Democrats are not likely to be willing to pay.
Another issue likely to be on the front burner is college tuition costs. The Administration, as well as such Republican columnists as David Brooks, have said repeatedly that the solution to the nation’s growing income inequality is more education. However, even as they make that argument the Administration has been consistently cutting back on student aid. For instance Pell grants one of the most important programs for low-income college students has steadily declined. Pell Grants now cover about a third of the average costs at a four-year public school, compared with 42 percent five years ago. Government loans also have not kept pace with rising costs. Subsidized loans accounted for only 55 percent of student borrowing in the most recent academic year, down from 69 percent 10 years earlier. Democrats will undoubtedly try to reverse that trend. Republicans on the other hand are likely to oppose this as being “unaffordable.” This is likely to be another area for stalemate at least until the Presidential election two years hence.
One area that has gotten a great deal of publicity lately is the Alternative Minimum Tax. At the time this tax was enacted it was designed to prevent the super-rich from using deductions, credits, and other shelters to avoid paying any taxes. But because of rising incomes, the tax is expected to expand from 3.8 million of the upper middle class to more than 30 million of that group in 2010, a constituency both parties are courting. The mistake that was made in enacting this tax was not to have it adjust by the inflation index. Now, however, it has been dealt with on a year-to-year basis, but to hold the number of affected taxpayers steady at about 4 million, the patch would cost about $50 billion. To do away with the tax it is estimated would cost more than $1 trillion (1,000 billion) over the next decade. My own view is that the tax should not be eliminated but should be fixed permanently by making it automatically adjust by the inflation factor and that any measure passed should be revenue neutral by eliminating some other tax previously passed by the Republican Congress. Here there may be room for compromise, but I strongly suspect that Republicans would hold out for making it just another tax cut, thereby increasing the deficit, something which seems to have become almost a matter of faith with the party that once prided itself on its reputation for fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets.
Another matter in the area of taxation that will come up is the so-called marriage penalty, which I suspect is not widely understood. Essentially it is inaccurate to assume that all married couples pay a marriage penalty. Where the incomes of the partners are disparate they not only do not pay a penalty they actually get a benefit. Thus if one of the partners has a significant income and the other has none or a substantially smaller one, the married couple will in fact pay less taxes than if they had remained single. On the other hand if the couple has substantially equal incomes they will end up paying a somewhat higher tax than if they were single. One way to avoid this is to allow couples the option of filing singly or married whichever way would benefit them most. The loss in tax revenue would most likely be substantial. Furthermore, by offering this advantage to married couples we are in effect discriminating against unmarried ones who do not have this option. Furthermore, according to Microsoft Money forty-two percent of married taxpayers paid more because they were filing jointly than they would have if they remained single, according to a 1996 Congressional Budget Office analysis. The average penalty was a significant $1,380. But more couples -- 51% of the total -- paid less tax jointly than if had they not married. The average bonus these couples received: $1,300. So it may be that this is an area that should be addressed with caution.
Whether Democrats will want to touch this hot potato is questionable though Republicans will most likely try to demagogue this and try to make it a pro family issue.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Euphoria and Reality
The election is over and Democrats won to an extent that few expected, though many had hoped.
It was widely expected that the Democrats would win in the House of Representatives but while there was always hope for the Senate, it was generally considered to be a long shot. Well the long shot came in. In the outgoing Congress, which will remain under Republican control until January, the Republicans controlled the House by 15 votes. As of this moment Democrats control the House by 33 votes and eight races are still undecided. However in the Senate the control is by only one vote, which means that the death or incapacity of a single Senator in a state having a Republican governor would swing the Senate back to Republican control. Nevertheless, grounds for euphoria-absolutely.
There are even more reasons for optimism. Voters seem for the first time in a long time, to care about the political process. More than 40 percent of registered voters showed up - apparently, the highest midterm turnout in a generation. (20 years) Voters aged 18 to 29 cast an estimated 10 million votes, or 13 percent of all ballots, up from 11 percent in 2002 and they voted for Democrats by a wide margin: 22 percentage points, according to CNN's exit poll data. Democrats cracked the South, justifying Dean’s 50 state strategy, Evangelicals gave smaller majorities to Republicans than in past elections, and almost every demographic group tended more Democratic.
Governing is where the issue of reality comes in. First nothing has changed until January. Democrats, or at least some of them are talking about bringing our troops home from Iraq within 60 days, or at least within six month. This is not governing. This is grand standing. The reality is that the President, not Congress has the power to make these decisions. Clearly, Congress can pass resolutions but they are not binding on the President. Congress holds the purse strings but Democrats would not dare to cut off funding for our troops. That would be political suicide.
Congress can investigate, and intends to do so, but I predict that the President will obstruct on the grounds of national security, on executive privilege, on attorney/client privilege, etc. All this can affect the political climate, but it cannot dictate policy. So on Iraq nothing fundamental has changed, even if Rumsfeld is out. If there is a change in policy, and there may well be one in the making, it will ultimately be the President who will dictate this. This may be all to the good from a political standpoint because we are now in a loose-loose situation no matter what policy is followed, and the ability to continue to blame the Republican President may be all to the good. The President may denounce the “blame game” but the “blame game” is just another way of ascribing responsibility, the acceptance of which this President and this Administration have never been good at.
On the domestic front the picture is somewhat different but not much. There has been much talk of bipartisanship by both the Administration and the Democratic leadership but that is nothing more than posturing. In every area of policy the parties are too far apart for compromise to be possible.
One area that has been spoken of as lending itself to bipartisan action is raising the minimum wage and the Administration has indicated an interest in dealing with this on a bipartisan basis. But we have already seen what they mean by this. They will not go along on this without a quid pro quo. This was illustrated in the last session of Congress when the House voted 230 to 180 to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, from the $5.15 rate on the books since 1997. The bill also would have exempted from taxation all estates worth as much as $5 million -- or $10 million for a married couple -- and apply a 15 percent tax rate to inheritances above that threshold and as much as $25 million. For estates exceeding $25 million in value, the tax rate would be 30 percent. The measure died in the Senate after then Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid said he "is confident the Senate will defeat this fiscally irresponsible estate-tax proposal, as we have in the past."
For all the posturing Republicans will not support a minimum wage increase without their estate tax measure and Democrats will not accept it. There will be no bi-partisanship.
Once Democrats take control in January, they may be able to pass the minimum wage bill but because of a possible filibuster by Republicans in the Senate it is not likely to pass there, and if somehow it does pass the Congress without the estate tax provision, it will almost surely encounter a Presidential veto. Good from a political standpoint but not from a policy standpoint.
The reality is that under the U.S. Constitution the President wields enormous power. While the Congressional victory will give Democrats veto power over Republican initiatives, such as making the tax cuts permanent, their own initiatives face an uncertain fate. The next two years will consist primarily of posturing leading up to the Presidential Race in 2008. To the extent that Democrats may be able to accomplish anything positive it will be in areas with such great public support that Republicans dare not oppose them. Whether an increase in the minimum wage is such a wedge issue is problematic.
It was widely expected that the Democrats would win in the House of Representatives but while there was always hope for the Senate, it was generally considered to be a long shot. Well the long shot came in. In the outgoing Congress, which will remain under Republican control until January, the Republicans controlled the House by 15 votes. As of this moment Democrats control the House by 33 votes and eight races are still undecided. However in the Senate the control is by only one vote, which means that the death or incapacity of a single Senator in a state having a Republican governor would swing the Senate back to Republican control. Nevertheless, grounds for euphoria-absolutely.
There are even more reasons for optimism. Voters seem for the first time in a long time, to care about the political process. More than 40 percent of registered voters showed up - apparently, the highest midterm turnout in a generation. (20 years) Voters aged 18 to 29 cast an estimated 10 million votes, or 13 percent of all ballots, up from 11 percent in 2002 and they voted for Democrats by a wide margin: 22 percentage points, according to CNN's exit poll data. Democrats cracked the South, justifying Dean’s 50 state strategy, Evangelicals gave smaller majorities to Republicans than in past elections, and almost every demographic group tended more Democratic.
Governing is where the issue of reality comes in. First nothing has changed until January. Democrats, or at least some of them are talking about bringing our troops home from Iraq within 60 days, or at least within six month. This is not governing. This is grand standing. The reality is that the President, not Congress has the power to make these decisions. Clearly, Congress can pass resolutions but they are not binding on the President. Congress holds the purse strings but Democrats would not dare to cut off funding for our troops. That would be political suicide.
Congress can investigate, and intends to do so, but I predict that the President will obstruct on the grounds of national security, on executive privilege, on attorney/client privilege, etc. All this can affect the political climate, but it cannot dictate policy. So on Iraq nothing fundamental has changed, even if Rumsfeld is out. If there is a change in policy, and there may well be one in the making, it will ultimately be the President who will dictate this. This may be all to the good from a political standpoint because we are now in a loose-loose situation no matter what policy is followed, and the ability to continue to blame the Republican President may be all to the good. The President may denounce the “blame game” but the “blame game” is just another way of ascribing responsibility, the acceptance of which this President and this Administration have never been good at.
On the domestic front the picture is somewhat different but not much. There has been much talk of bipartisanship by both the Administration and the Democratic leadership but that is nothing more than posturing. In every area of policy the parties are too far apart for compromise to be possible.
One area that has been spoken of as lending itself to bipartisan action is raising the minimum wage and the Administration has indicated an interest in dealing with this on a bipartisan basis. But we have already seen what they mean by this. They will not go along on this without a quid pro quo. This was illustrated in the last session of Congress when the House voted 230 to 180 to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, from the $5.15 rate on the books since 1997. The bill also would have exempted from taxation all estates worth as much as $5 million -- or $10 million for a married couple -- and apply a 15 percent tax rate to inheritances above that threshold and as much as $25 million. For estates exceeding $25 million in value, the tax rate would be 30 percent. The measure died in the Senate after then Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid said he "is confident the Senate will defeat this fiscally irresponsible estate-tax proposal, as we have in the past."
For all the posturing Republicans will not support a minimum wage increase without their estate tax measure and Democrats will not accept it. There will be no bi-partisanship.
Once Democrats take control in January, they may be able to pass the minimum wage bill but because of a possible filibuster by Republicans in the Senate it is not likely to pass there, and if somehow it does pass the Congress without the estate tax provision, it will almost surely encounter a Presidential veto. Good from a political standpoint but not from a policy standpoint.
The reality is that under the U.S. Constitution the President wields enormous power. While the Congressional victory will give Democrats veto power over Republican initiatives, such as making the tax cuts permanent, their own initiatives face an uncertain fate. The next two years will consist primarily of posturing leading up to the Presidential Race in 2008. To the extent that Democrats may be able to accomplish anything positive it will be in areas with such great public support that Republicans dare not oppose them. Whether an increase in the minimum wage is such a wedge issue is problematic.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
What Have Republicans Wrought?
As we conclude the sixth year of the Republican reign (and by Republican reign I mean having complete control of all the levers of government, the executive, both houses of the Congress and a compliant Supreme Court) it may be well to look at what has happened on their watch. We have often argued about their policies and have found them wanting, but it may be that a much more telling measure may be what they have wrought.
Let us begin with a worldview. As Bush was sworn in on January 20, 2001 the country was at peace. Democracy was sweeping the globe; moderate democratic governments were in power in South America, and in much of the globe including Thailand. Iraq was contained with sanctions and no fly zones and in Iran it’s youth was clamoring for reform and had elected as its President, the moderate, Mohammad Khatami. Korea was a member of the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and had admitted inspectors into it’s closed society. It had negotiated the “Sunshine Policy” with South Korea, which led to a lessening of tension, and we were witnesses to relatives from the divided nation meeting each other, amid hugs and tears for the first time in decades. In Thailand a Democratically elected government ruled the country.
Now six years later, we have extreme left wing governments in power in Venezuela and Peru and are nervous as to the direction of the populist government of Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva in Brazil.
In Thailand the Democratically elected government has been overthrown by a military coup and a military dictatorship reigns, without a murmur of protest from our government.
In Palestine the radical Hamas has been elected.
Iraq lies in ruins as the death toll of our troops mounts and the total casualty figure is withheld from us. As for Iraqis, their death toll has reached hundreds of thousands and total casualty figures are never mentioned, either for American troops or for Iraqi civilians, as though people who have lost their limbs, but are alive are irrelevant. And what is the response by the head of the Republican Party, who is President? After saying “We must stay the course” innumerable times, he now tells us he never meant that, but wants us to stay the course. After Washington Post columnist, Bob Woodward, published his book “State of Denial” the President assures that he actually sees the television images just as we do, after having told us they are misleading and don’t show all the good things.
He accuses his critics of a mentality of “Cut and Run” apparently never having heard of “Strategic retreats,” so that our soldiers may live to fight another day. The Republicans have lost the war and more importantly the peace in Iraq, and attack their critics for not joining them in their “State of Denial.”
Afghanistan, which was the one and only success of this Administration is back slipping as a result of neglect, and looks like a resurgent Taliban may yet turn that unhappy country into another Iraq.
In Iran, Khatami has been replaced by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the youth who once clamored for reform, now clamor for atomic power and cheer the madman. Any hope that the youth will successfully push for reform has gone down the drain.
Korea has left the NPT, kicked out the inspectors and rather than forswearing an atomic bomb brags about having one. It probably does not, but if we “stay the course” in this theater, it undoubtedly will have one before long.
In the meantime Russia’s atomic weapons are left unguarded and it is a more likely source for such weapons falling into terrorist’s hands than any of the rogue states, but negotiations to safeguard this danger have been all but abandoned.
When it comes to terrorism all attempts by the terrorists to attack our homeland were thwarted before the Republicans gained ascendancy. In the years immediately preceding that ascendancy, the terrorists tried again and again to attack our homeland. They attacked the World Trade Center but it was unsuccessful. They planned to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously. They planned to attack and blow up UN Headquarters. They planned to blow up FBI Headquarters; the Israeli Embassy in Washington; Boston airport; the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY and the George Washington Bridge. They were thwarted each time. And then Republicans gained power and 9/11 happened and somehow they reaped benefit from it. It shows that they are good at one thing!!!! PROPAGANDA. How can one reap credit for failure?
On the home front Republicans inherited a surplus in the National budget. The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion and the cumulative National debt stood at 5.7 trillion. Even though during the previous twelve years of Republican rule preceding the Clinton Administration, the Federal debt had quadrupled, the White House and the Congressional Budget office projected that the National debt of 5.7 trillion would be retired in ten years. No one questioned these projections and this Republican Administration, with the blessings of the Chairman of the Fed. Alan Greenspan, expressed fear that without a tax cut the surplus would be too large. Well. We needn’t worry about that any more. The cumulative national debt is now 8.5 trillion. While huge sums are stolen, laws are written by lobbyist for their clients instead of by legislators for the American people, and pork is rampant with appropriations for bridges to nowhere. Citizens Against Government Waste calculates that pork barrel spending has exploded from 1,439 projects worth $10 billion in 1995 to 13,997 worth $27.3 billion in 2005. The “emergency” bill for Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq war included $1.8m to promote art in West Virginia. At the same time taxes are slashed for a small minority of Republican campaign contributors. How do they propose to remedy this mess? They tell us our entitlements cost too much money. The say we can’t afford Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid anymore or loans and grants for needy college students.
In the meantime wages are stagnating. In the years 2000 to 2005 total compensation for workers, which includes wages, health insurance and pension benefits, declined 2.5% as a percent of gross domestic product, according to the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis. This contrasts with the 1990s when Workers’ share of the economy grew by 2.3%. What makes this even worse is that it happened while productivity was increasing rapidly.
As for unemployment an area where Republicans are bragging about the low rate, it should be noted that in 2000 just before Republicans seized the Presidency and enacted their “stimulating” tax cuts the unemployment rate stood at 4%. By 2003 it was up to 6% and it is finally down to 4.5% which they claim shows how well things are working. It took them 6 years to get it close to where it was when they seized power. The pain this has inflicted on real people can be seen from the fact that when Wallmart offered it’s extremely low paying jobs without benefits, desperate job seekers lined up. On one occasion 25,000 potential employees vied for 325 available jobs. On another 15,000 people lined up to try to snag one of the 400 available jobs.
Most incredibly, even the people who supposedly are the beneficiaries of the Bush policies have not fared well. The Investor Class, whose taxes have been slashed again and again, has not fared well in this Republican era. Between the ascendancy of a Republican President to go with a Republican Congress investors have actually lost money. At the close of the market on January 19, 2001 the day before Bush took office the Dow stood at 10,587. On October 30 2006, after a very strong run up during October it stood at 12,098 or a gain of 1,511 or 14%. During this period inflation caused purchasing power to decline by 15% or a net loss to investors of 1%. But the Dow is a poor measure of the stock market because it only tracks 30 carefully chosen stocks and they are not weighted equally, so that no one can invest in its index. The S&P 500 which tracks 500 of the largest companies is a much more meaningful indicator. It stood at 1,342 at the beginning of Republican ascendancy. On October 30 it was at 1,378, a difference of 36 or 2%. Factoring in inflation, investors in an S&P index fund lost 13%. If we look at the Nasdaq we find the respective figures to be 2,770.38 and 2,359.86 a loss of 411 points or a loss of 14%. When inflation is factored in that is a whopping 29 % loss.
WHY WOULD ANYONE VOTE REPUBLICAN?????????
It seems to me that the Republican Party not only does not deserve to govern but it cannot justify it’s very existence. It deserves to follow the way of the Whigs. It needs to disappear. Then the Democratic Party can and would split into two responsible parties and we would be governed by the people, and not by experts in deception and propaganda.
Let us begin with a worldview. As Bush was sworn in on January 20, 2001 the country was at peace. Democracy was sweeping the globe; moderate democratic governments were in power in South America, and in much of the globe including Thailand. Iraq was contained with sanctions and no fly zones and in Iran it’s youth was clamoring for reform and had elected as its President, the moderate, Mohammad Khatami. Korea was a member of the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and had admitted inspectors into it’s closed society. It had negotiated the “Sunshine Policy” with South Korea, which led to a lessening of tension, and we were witnesses to relatives from the divided nation meeting each other, amid hugs and tears for the first time in decades. In Thailand a Democratically elected government ruled the country.
Now six years later, we have extreme left wing governments in power in Venezuela and Peru and are nervous as to the direction of the populist government of Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva in Brazil.
In Thailand the Democratically elected government has been overthrown by a military coup and a military dictatorship reigns, without a murmur of protest from our government.
In Palestine the radical Hamas has been elected.
Iraq lies in ruins as the death toll of our troops mounts and the total casualty figure is withheld from us. As for Iraqis, their death toll has reached hundreds of thousands and total casualty figures are never mentioned, either for American troops or for Iraqi civilians, as though people who have lost their limbs, but are alive are irrelevant. And what is the response by the head of the Republican Party, who is President? After saying “We must stay the course” innumerable times, he now tells us he never meant that, but wants us to stay the course. After Washington Post columnist, Bob Woodward, published his book “State of Denial” the President assures that he actually sees the television images just as we do, after having told us they are misleading and don’t show all the good things.
He accuses his critics of a mentality of “Cut and Run” apparently never having heard of “Strategic retreats,” so that our soldiers may live to fight another day. The Republicans have lost the war and more importantly the peace in Iraq, and attack their critics for not joining them in their “State of Denial.”
Afghanistan, which was the one and only success of this Administration is back slipping as a result of neglect, and looks like a resurgent Taliban may yet turn that unhappy country into another Iraq.
In Iran, Khatami has been replaced by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the youth who once clamored for reform, now clamor for atomic power and cheer the madman. Any hope that the youth will successfully push for reform has gone down the drain.
Korea has left the NPT, kicked out the inspectors and rather than forswearing an atomic bomb brags about having one. It probably does not, but if we “stay the course” in this theater, it undoubtedly will have one before long.
In the meantime Russia’s atomic weapons are left unguarded and it is a more likely source for such weapons falling into terrorist’s hands than any of the rogue states, but negotiations to safeguard this danger have been all but abandoned.
When it comes to terrorism all attempts by the terrorists to attack our homeland were thwarted before the Republicans gained ascendancy. In the years immediately preceding that ascendancy, the terrorists tried again and again to attack our homeland. They attacked the World Trade Center but it was unsuccessful. They planned to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously. They planned to attack and blow up UN Headquarters. They planned to blow up FBI Headquarters; the Israeli Embassy in Washington; Boston airport; the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY and the George Washington Bridge. They were thwarted each time. And then Republicans gained power and 9/11 happened and somehow they reaped benefit from it. It shows that they are good at one thing!!!! PROPAGANDA. How can one reap credit for failure?
On the home front Republicans inherited a surplus in the National budget. The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion and the cumulative National debt stood at 5.7 trillion. Even though during the previous twelve years of Republican rule preceding the Clinton Administration, the Federal debt had quadrupled, the White House and the Congressional Budget office projected that the National debt of 5.7 trillion would be retired in ten years. No one questioned these projections and this Republican Administration, with the blessings of the Chairman of the Fed. Alan Greenspan, expressed fear that without a tax cut the surplus would be too large. Well. We needn’t worry about that any more. The cumulative national debt is now 8.5 trillion. While huge sums are stolen, laws are written by lobbyist for their clients instead of by legislators for the American people, and pork is rampant with appropriations for bridges to nowhere. Citizens Against Government Waste calculates that pork barrel spending has exploded from 1,439 projects worth $10 billion in 1995 to 13,997 worth $27.3 billion in 2005. The “emergency” bill for Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq war included $1.8m to promote art in West Virginia. At the same time taxes are slashed for a small minority of Republican campaign contributors. How do they propose to remedy this mess? They tell us our entitlements cost too much money. The say we can’t afford Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid anymore or loans and grants for needy college students.
In the meantime wages are stagnating. In the years 2000 to 2005 total compensation for workers, which includes wages, health insurance and pension benefits, declined 2.5% as a percent of gross domestic product, according to the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis. This contrasts with the 1990s when Workers’ share of the economy grew by 2.3%. What makes this even worse is that it happened while productivity was increasing rapidly.
As for unemployment an area where Republicans are bragging about the low rate, it should be noted that in 2000 just before Republicans seized the Presidency and enacted their “stimulating” tax cuts the unemployment rate stood at 4%. By 2003 it was up to 6% and it is finally down to 4.5% which they claim shows how well things are working. It took them 6 years to get it close to where it was when they seized power. The pain this has inflicted on real people can be seen from the fact that when Wallmart offered it’s extremely low paying jobs without benefits, desperate job seekers lined up. On one occasion 25,000 potential employees vied for 325 available jobs. On another 15,000 people lined up to try to snag one of the 400 available jobs.
Most incredibly, even the people who supposedly are the beneficiaries of the Bush policies have not fared well. The Investor Class, whose taxes have been slashed again and again, has not fared well in this Republican era. Between the ascendancy of a Republican President to go with a Republican Congress investors have actually lost money. At the close of the market on January 19, 2001 the day before Bush took office the Dow stood at 10,587. On October 30 2006, after a very strong run up during October it stood at 12,098 or a gain of 1,511 or 14%. During this period inflation caused purchasing power to decline by 15% or a net loss to investors of 1%. But the Dow is a poor measure of the stock market because it only tracks 30 carefully chosen stocks and they are not weighted equally, so that no one can invest in its index. The S&P 500 which tracks 500 of the largest companies is a much more meaningful indicator. It stood at 1,342 at the beginning of Republican ascendancy. On October 30 it was at 1,378, a difference of 36 or 2%. Factoring in inflation, investors in an S&P index fund lost 13%. If we look at the Nasdaq we find the respective figures to be 2,770.38 and 2,359.86 a loss of 411 points or a loss of 14%. When inflation is factored in that is a whopping 29 % loss.
WHY WOULD ANYONE VOTE REPUBLICAN?????????
It seems to me that the Republican Party not only does not deserve to govern but it cannot justify it’s very existence. It deserves to follow the way of the Whigs. It needs to disappear. Then the Democratic Party can and would split into two responsible parties and we would be governed by the people, and not by experts in deception and propaganda.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
