Mirror Sites:
CSUDH - Habermas - UWP - Archives

California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Created: June 15, 2004
Reviewed:
Latest Update: June 15, 2004
jeannecurran@habermas.org
takata@uwp.edu

Understanding Election Issues: Jobs

The economy may be just fine, as Bush Republicans claim. Or it may be a disaster, as Kerry Democrats claim. This essay takes a look at the respective claims as of June 2004, and the data sources for those claims. On the issue of jobs, consider what each of the major parties says about the labor market in June 2004.

Bush Record on Jobs, As Represented on Democratic National Committee Web Site:

The Bush Economic Record: What a Difference Three Years Makes

Jobs 2,931,000 Number of jobs lost in the private sector since Bush took office.1 135,000 Average number of jobs created monthly under every President since Truman.2 -79,189 Average number of jobs created monthly under Bush.1 2,447,000 Number of people who have become unemployed since Bush took office.1 37 percent Increase in the unemployment rate since Bush took office.1 4.1 percent Unemployment rate when Bush took office in January 2001.1 5.6 percent Unemployment rate in March 2004.1 8,170,000 Total number of unemployed Americans.1 675,000 Number of Americans experiencing long-term unemployment (27 weeks or more) when Bush took office in January 2001.1 1,871,000 Number of Americans suffering long-term unemployment in March 2004.1 177 percent Increase in long-term unemployment under Bush.1 11.8 percent Percentage of consumers who believe jobs are plentiful.3 760,000 Number of workers who have lost their unemployment insurance since December 2002.4 Ballooning Deficits $5.6 trillion Baseline surplus for the 10-year period for FY 2002-2011, as projected by the Congressional Budget Office when Bush took office in January 2001.5 $5.2 trillion Budget deficit over next 10 years if Bush's 2005 budget proposal is enacted.6 $2.4 trillion Amount Bush's budget will raid from the Social Security and Medicare trust funds over the next 10 years.6 $478 billion Budget deficit for 2004 as predicted by CBO, if Bush' s proposals are enacted.6 $188 billion Amount Bush's budget deficit for 2004 exceeds the highest budget deficit in history, which was posted in 1992 by Bush's father.6 Bush's 2003 "Jobs and Growth" Plan $2.2 trillion Ten-year cost of Bush's proposed tax cuts including additional costs for interest on the national debt.7 32.4 percent Percent of tax cut for the top 1 percent of wage earners under the Bush "growth" plan.8 8.5 percent Percent of tax cuts for the bottom 60 percent of wage earners under the Bush "growth" plan.8 64 million Number of taxpayers (48 percent) who receive $100 or less under the Bush "growth" plan.9 $30,127 Average tax cut for the top 1 percent of taxpayers under the Bush "growth" plan.9 $289 Average tax cut for the middle 20 percent of taxpayers under the Bush "growth" plan.9 $4-5 billion Amount Bush tax proposal would cost states.10 1 million Number of taxpayers the Alternative Minimum Tax affected in 1999.11 36 million Number of taxpayers the Alternative Minimum Tax will affect in 2010 because of Bush's tax cuts and his failure to address the AMT.11 Lower Income, Rising Costs 1.1 percent Decrease in real median household income in 2002.12 10 percent Increase in bankruptcies since Bush took office.13 1,625,213 Number of consumers who filed for bankruptcy in 2003.13 24 percent Drop in consumer confidence since Bush took office.14 50 percent Increase in out-of-pocket health care costs for workers since Bush took office.15 14 percent Increase in the cost of job-based health insurance in 2003; highest rate in 13 years.15 8.7 percent Increase in the cost of the 10 most-used prescription drugs in 2003.16 61 percent Percent of employers who cited rising drug costs as a major cause of premium increases in 2003.15 11.5 percent Increase in gas prices since 2000.17 49 Number of states that increased tuition at their public colleges and universities in 2003. State budget cuts fueled by the Bush recession have forced colleges to hike tuitions and fees-threatening access to higher education for low-income students.18 35 percent Increase in tuition and fees at four-year public institutions since Bush took office, adjusted for inflation.19

Sources: 1Bureau of Labor Statistics, 3/04; 2House Appropriations Committee Minority Staff, 3/04; 3Conference Board, 3/04; 4Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/25/04; 5Congressional Budget Office, Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2002-2011, 1/01; 6Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/1/04; CBO, An Analysis of Bush's Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year 2005, 3/04; 7Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1/30/04, 1/21/04; 8CTJ Fact Sheet, 1/8/03; 9CTJ Fact Sheet, 2/3/03; 10CBPP Fact Sheet, 1/10/03; 11Brookings Institute, Tax Policy Center, The AMT: Out of Control, 9/18/02; New York Times, 1/10/03; 12U.S. Census Bureau, "Money Income in the United States: 2002"; 13American Bankruptcy Institute, 3/04; 14Conference Board, 3/04; 15Kaiser Family Foundation, Employer Health Benefits Survey 2000 and 2003; 16AdvancePCS, 8/25/03; 17CNN.com, 2/23/04; 18Associated Press, 8/25/03; 19College Board, College Costs 2003

[Please note that even in real life politics you need to check the sources. Don't trust conclusions when you are not given the sources for the information.]

Copyright © 1995-2004 DNC Services Corporation: Powered by Plus Three and QRSNewmedia

Disclaimer: Paid for by the Democratic National Committee — 430 S. Capitol St. SE, Washington DC 20003.
This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

Now, the most natural response to the Democratic view of Bush's job record is the Republican View. So let's look at the Republican National Committee's statements on Jobs.

First place I looked was on the SiteMap. The first thing on map is the GOP agenda, which doesn't include a section on jobs or labor. Next place I looked was Search in the lower left corner of the main page. I typed in Keyword: jobs. Third result in list that came up was an article: President's Economic Policies Strengthen Job Growth in States Across the Country.

The GOP gives data state by state. And instead of interpreting the data for each state, they tell you how to do so:

"EXAMPLE OF HOW TO USE THE FOLLOWING DATA: The April figures show that more than 2,000 jobs were created in Alabama and the unemployment rate was 5.8% -- a 0.1% decline since March 2004 and a 0.1% decline since April 2003. Since last April, 5,100 more Alabama workers are employed. Since December 2003, jobs have been coming back in Alabama - with more than 8,700 jobs created. This is encouraging news for Alabama. While there is still more to do to get Alabama's economy moving again, these new jobs show that progress is being made and Alabama is on the road to recovery.

Alabama
Chng in emp since Mar 04 +2,000
Chng in emp since Apr 03 +5,100
Jobs coming back since: Dec-03
Emp gain since Dec-03: +8,700
April UR (%) 5.8
Chng in UR since Mar 04 -0.1
Chng in UR since Apr 03 -0.1

Remember the rule in methods that for every Table there should be a paragraph of interpretive explanation so that the reader may either read the paragraphs, or read the Tables, depending on the reader's skills and preferences. The report should be fully understandable from either reading the paragraphs of interpretation or from scanning the Tables. This is the quickest and dirtiest technique I've ever seen for that. The GOP interprets the dataset for Alabama, and then leaves you to do the other states on your own. Cute. But don't try this in a methods class. I would send you back to do your homework.

Notice also that this article doesn't tell you where to find the data sources. That means it's a "Trust me" argument, and you should almost never trust a statisticiam. We can do so much to make the data look good for us. Demand a data source. The GOP has them. This was just sloppy. Or Republican professors may not be as picky as Democratic professors. Who knows? But as far as I'm concerned, the Democrats win in this first comparison for a prettier, more easily read Table and for giving data sources. Of course the Republicans didn't write this article precisely for the reasons I used it. See, there's always room for more interpretation. That's called reading the text.