Bush: "We've had a little history of that in our family."

[Coexist]

MSNBC has spotlighted a National Journal series of articles on the Republican Economy - they are very interesting.

What if it's the economy
article here
<snip>
Bush:"I've always felt the economy is a determinate issue, if not the determinate issue, in campaigns. We've had a little history of that in our family."
<snip>
"Edward Lazear, the chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, notes that while average wages had been rising at an accelerating rate since 2004, inflation had more than wiped out those gains, resulting in a drop in average wages after inflation through August of this year."
<snip>
"But the larger flaw, Bernstein says, is that the White House prefers to look at average figures, rather than medians. The median is the theoretical middle -- 50 percent of wage earners made more, and 50 percent made less. Even when average wages rise, the median can drop if the number of people who earned less has increased -- in other words, if income has grown unequally."

For example, in the two years from 2004 through 2005, the lowest-earning one-fifth of American households saw their average income increase by only 0.6 percent after inflation. The middle fifth saw a 0.9 percent increase. But the upper 5 percent of workers saw a 3.1 percent increase. Bernstein notes that in 2005, households in the upper fifth of the income scale earned 50.4 percent of all income, the highest proportion since records started in 1967. Especially now, Bernstein says, using "average numbers hides the fact that a very small number are doing very, very well, and most are not."

Scorecard - you do the math:

Report card on the economy
article here
Short-Term Fiscal Policy: B-
Long-Term Fiscal Policy: D
Long-Term Growth And Competitiveness: C
International Economic Policy: C
Regulation: B-
Leadership: C
Comparison With Past Congresses: C

We already know all about this - but, Surprise! The Haves have more, and the Have Not's have even less.

The economy's winners and losers

article here
<snip>
After adjusting for inflation and including the big tax cuts that have essentially kept taxes at their 2000 level, disposable personal income rose 14.1 percent under Bush, 20.4 percent under Clinton, and 22.7 under Reagan. On a per capita basis, the disparity is even greater: Growth has been 8.5 percent under Bush versus 13.2 percent under Clinton and 17 percent under Reagan.

The news on income isn't good for Republicans. Bush's results are worse than those for any other two-term president since World War II except Dwight Eisenhower. Worse than under Richard Nixon, a period that was not a very good time for the economy. During four horrendous years for the economy, income grew faster under Jimmy Carter than it has since 2001. The only recent president who had a worse record on income growth was -- George H.W. Bush.

<snip>
The winners under Bush have been corporate owners, and, to a lesser extent, noncorporate business owners, who are getting a larger piece of the pie than those groups did under Reagan or Clinton. The losers have been private-sector workers, even with their more expensive health care insurance, who have seen their income stagnate and their share of the pie dwindle since the Clinton years.

All in all, it praises what worked and points out quite well what has not. A very good read.