|
I'm not an advocate of trickle down economics.
However, at the national level (which is the level the President should be primarily concerned with) things are going very well economically.
In the most depressed economies there will be segments that are doing very well and in the most robust economies there will be segments that are doing very poorly. But nationally, unemployment is very low. It is at levels that only 20 years ago were considered below the theoretical minimum threshhold. Yes, there are areas where it is worse, such is the nature of an average. There are also places where it is much better.
There are currently only five states where unemployment is as high as 5.5% (and one of them is Alaska where unemployment is always high due to the seasonal nature of most their industries) which is a number that not so far in the past would have been a miracle economy. Even in the Gulf Coast states unemployment is low for the most part.
Yes there are flaws in the system of calculating unemployment but they tend to cause both under- and over- counting (it doesn't count people who have given up on finding work, but it tends to undercount the self-employed and has a mixed bag when deciding how to count people who were not interested in being in the job market but have been drawn in by an improving economy). While there are certainly pockets of bad, overall the picture is pretty damn good (especially compared to other countries where unemployment figures in Europe are generally two or three times as high; and all members of the EU use essentially the same method of counting as the U.S.)
I think it is easy to make a case that Bush hasn't done much to help the economy but it is hard to make one that he has hurt it, particularly at the local level. Considering that Bush has spent the money regardless of whether he has had the money coming in it is hard to see how another couple billion in investment taxes would have changed much.
|