This is a crosspost from
AFL-CIO Now.
On the same day home sales were reported to have plummeted by nearly 2 percent from a year ago--the first such annual drop in 11 years--President Bush was touting the economy again. On his way to a glitzy fund-raiser Monday for Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), he held a brief press opportunity (thereby justifying the trip as official taxpayer-funded business) to crow about the "strong" economy.
But as AFL-CIO President John Sweeney noted:
If the president had bothered to listen to the working people of Ohio, he would know that the economy there and in many areas of the country is failing working families. Does the president really expect the 195,000 Ohioans who've lost good manufacturing jobs on his watch to believe their economy is strong?
Susan Carol Orlos is among those Ohio working families. For years, Orlos raised her son on her own as she struggled to make ends meet. Today, she owns a small home-renovation business.
Orlos says, "Most people are living in a bad way, working one, two, three jobs," including a friend of hers who, despite her Ph.D from an elite university, must work three jobs to keep up with the cost of living.
In fact, a poll sponsored by the Center for American Progress finds the public is "more worried about falling into debt, particularly from medical bills, than about being the victim of a terrorist attack or natural disaster."
Over the weekend, a lot of comparisons emerged between the Bush and Clinton administrations in handling the hunt for Osama bin Laden. Bondad on Daily Kos points out another really big difference: the way the two administrations managed the economy.
Job creation is among them. Over eight years, the Clinton administration created an average of 2.8 million jobs per year. So far, the Bush administration has created 80,650 jobs per month, less than the 150,000 per month it takes to absorb new job entrants into the labor force--the worst record of any U.S. president in 50 years. Following the recession of the early years of the Bush administration, job recovery has been the weakest since the Depression of the 1930s. As Bondad notes:
The Clinton team was focused in opening up new avenues of job creation that would benefit the middle class. Previously, manufacturing was the primary economic sector the helped the middle class. Total employment in this area increased from 16,790,000 in January 1993 to 17,181,000 or an overall increase of 391,000. This isn't bad, but it certainly could be better (Under Bush, the manufacturing sector has lost 2.8 million jobs). However, the Clinton team's focus on high-tech provided new avenues of wealth creation. Total information jobs increased from 2,656,000 in January 1993 to 3,706,000 in December 2000, or an increase of 1,050,000 (Under Bush, information services have lost 560,000 jobs).
Further, under former President Bill Clinton, a balanced budget created the climate for an economy in which the hourly pay for nonsupervisory workers increased by 34 percent between January 1993 and December 2000 and median family income increased by 15 percent, accounting for inflation (which the Bush administration never does when talking about wage growth).
Back in Ohio, Orlos insists on paying her employees a living wage, even when she can't afford to pay herself. She understands that paying employees the lowest wages may pay off in the short run--but not for our nation's future.
There has to be a responsibility for a long-range goal instead of just short-term goals. The responsibility for us to do better is overwhelming. I can't afford to be a human being and pay less than a living wage.
And like many working people, Orlos plans to do something to change the direction of the economy by electing candidates who will address the bottom-line issue that affect working families. As she puts it:
This country stands for something. We must do better.