The meme: Income inequality during the Bush Administration has widened, as the rich have gotten ever richer.
A sub-meme: Income inequality during the previous administration lessened, or at least didn’t get any worse.
But facts are stubborn things, as information obtained from the Census Bureau and viewable at the full post shows (scroll down at the link to get to inflation-adjusted data):
From Table H-3. Mean Household Income Received by Each
Fifth and Top 5 Percent — All Races: 1967 to 2005
The highest quintile (fifth) and 5% of households had double-digit real income increases from 1996-2000, while those same groups experienced declines from 2001-2005.
It is likely that the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts caused the higher-income groups to have a slight increases in real after-tax income. But don’t forget that the tax cuts benefited every income group, thanks to the expansion of the Earned Income Credit and the reduction of the lowest tax bracket from 15% to 10%.
Other than the New York Times, which has been obsessed with income inequality since at least the early 1980s, Old Media rarely focused on the growth in income disparities that occurred the 1990s. In the runup to the 2000 election and ever since, that has all changed. Even Wall Street Journal writers who should know better like Arthur Brooks (requires subscription) take it as an article of faith. Democratic presidential candidates, especially John Edwards (noted near the end), have made income inequality a central theme of their campaigns, and reporters like NPR’s Mara Liasson simply assume it’s true. Apparently the best defense the Bush Administration can mount is that it has been happening for decades (second paragraph at link).
Why?
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Nicely done, Tom.I hadn't rea
July 15, 2007 - 08:53 ET by BlondeNicely done, Tom.
I hadn't really thought about "income inequality" as a theme...but as you so aptly point out, it most certainly has become front and center with the dem's. Spot on.
Silly socialists. Oh, did I mention hypocrites?
Comment
July 15, 2007 - 09:26 ET by Tom BlumerOf course, I flagged your comment as "insightful." :-->
I didn't even get into the mobility element of the inequality argument, but I did just add it as a previous-post ref at BizzyBlog.com:
http://bizzyblog.com...
The PR problems of the Repub
July 15, 2007 - 09:24 ET by dscottThe PR problems of the Repub party are primarily due to the ability of the Dems and their mouth pieces (MSM) to slickly present their assertions whereas Repubs do not take the time to listen to their base. It's a matter of proportion, the Dems do a better job of listening to their constituent groups than the Repubs. If the Repubs did the listening they would have had the facts to quash all the false assertions.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Don't you think some of the
July 15, 2007 - 09:42 ET by sarcasmoDon't you think some of the problems have to do with things like spending, or inserting anti-poker provisions in port security bills, etc.? Congress under the Democrats deserves, if anything, an even lower reputation, but it's not like people were all that happy before, either...For good reasons.
JMR
I hate to break it to you,
July 15, 2007 - 11:08 ET by robert108I hate to break it to you, but despite the lies of the political class, govt doesn't exist to "make us happy". It exists to exert power over us and to control our lives. Our only defense against the cancer of govt is the electoral process.
and ultimately the 2nd ammend
July 15, 2007 - 11:11 ET byand ultimately the 2nd ammendment
actually the govt is by consent of the governed, and is responsible for security
govt does not exist to exert power over us and control our lives
"The more I study science, the more I believe in God." Einstein
Err, you picked on the wron
July 15, 2007 - 11:12 ET by Jack BauerErr, you picked on the wrong guy for that point. Sarc is our resident Libertarian Ronette.
He distrusts big government more than almost anyone posting here.
And there's a hell of a lot of anti-big government, nanny state, socialized happiness, sentiment on NB, believe me.
"Almost"?? Who's
July 16, 2007 - 10:38 ET by sarcasmo"Almost"?? Who's even worse than me?!?!? :)
JMR
sarc, just using a weasly pol
July 16, 2007 - 12:47 ET by Jack Bauersarc, just using a weasly politicians modifier: there may be someone of whom I am not aware who would immmediatly pounce on my 'absolute' pronouncment.
But if you're claiming the crown, I wouldn't argue. It's good to be King. Even as a libertarian.
How d'ya like my 'Ronette' crack?
So, different people have dif
July 15, 2007 - 09:45 ET by MikeBSo, different people have different incomes. So what? This has been true since the beginning of history. Different people have different attitudes towards education. Different people have different interests and choose different professions, jobs, or carreers.
There is income inequality between a neurosurgeon who spent at least 8 years in post-high school education and a fry cook at McDonald's who went to work there right out of high school. Does the left think they should each earn the same amount? Do the politicians on the left believe like Karl Marx, "to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities"? (Rhetorical questions)
Apparently, many people believe that "the rich" hide their ill-gotten gains under their mattress and spend their Friday evenings counting the money and laughing evilly. Where do "the poor" think their jobs came from? They certainly don't work for another poor person.
On the other hand, if a high school kid invests $100/month in a mutual fund that realizes 10% per year, from the time he/she is 18 until he/she is 65, they would have a little over $2.3 million on which to retire. If they invested $2000 per year, they'd have $2.6 million. I think the limit on IRAs is now $3000 per year, in which case if they fully funded an IRA, the value on retirement would be $3.49 million. So, even the poor can join the rich in retirement.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
This is another strawman of the liberals
July 15, 2007 - 11:07 ET by c5thenWhat is the alternative to income inequality? ncome equality, or, everyone makes the same amount. That is a tenent od communism, where the "state" decides who gets what based upon their "needs". What that turns into invariably is that those in power get the most and those in charge of distribution get to take bribes.
This needs to get brought up every time someone trys to talk about "income inequality". There is nothing wrong with this. It is normal. The discussion is simply meant to stir fealings of jealosy and foment an "us against them" philosophy. Remember that Socialism/Communism is based on the class system, and without having people aware of different classes, it is impossible to maintain. One of the purposes of a progressive tax system is to implement barriers at certain income points and thus maintain certain classes.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
A question I would love to he
July 15, 2007 - 13:14 ET by Prester JohnA question I would love to hear asked, but alas, never will:
Mr. Edwards, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama, Mr. Kennedy, et al, how much of your own personal treasure do you plan on donating to the US Treasury to help eliminate the gross inequality in income that is now prevalent in these United States?
Income Inequality
July 15, 2007 - 14:26 ET by River CityPJ:
Ditto!
Add to that Warren Buffet the next time he whines about not being taxed enough. Seems like he brings it up at least once a year but you never hear him follow up the complaint with how much he is voluntarily sending in to the treasury in a check. And the same to any wealthy person who feels they aren't paying enough in taxes. What prevents them from writing a check to the US Treasury of their own free will? Why do they want to impose higher taxes on me? Leave me alone.
But yet you hear them whinnin
July 16, 2007 - 10:13 ET by dscottBut yet you hear them whinning about the AMT, where they are forced to pay a minimum amount of tax. Who pays the AMT, why the 4 million tax payers who used accountants to pay little or no tax, that wouldn't be you or me. The kicker is while claiming they are forced to pay 25 or 26% income tax, the effective taxation rate after allowed deductions is still 15%. Oh, boohoo.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Prester John
July 16, 2007 - 10:27 ET by econ 101Funny.
But this is how socialism works everyone else pays to make it "fair". But the leaders of the socialist party is exempt
FOX NEWS is news. MSM is Jerry Springer crap
WWW.FAIRTAX.ORG
Income inequality
July 15, 2007 - 14:55 ET by redrock505I agree with the general criticism about the media's obsession with income inequality on philosophical grounds, but the charts provided in this post have nothing to do with income inequality. That the rich got richer during the internet bubble of the late 90s, and didn't get richer when that bubble burst and the market suffered after 9/11, is hardly a surprise, but since it has nothing whatsoever to do with either income inequality or the policies of either president, why post this spurious information? A refutation of media bias it is not.
Since the "internet bu
July 15, 2007 - 16:22 ET by robert108Since the "internet bubble", along with both Enron and Global Crossing were the responsibility of the Clinton Administration, the comparison is quite accurate, redrock. You can't simply eliminate some factors at your whim. It's the totality of all influences that's the issue here.
}}----> Right on Robert
July 16, 2007 - 10:18 ET by Cool ArrowAnd, of course, California thought it was smart locking in energy costs when the floor fell out.
Income inequality
July 16, 2007 - 10:30 ET by redrock505First of all, I'd like to know which of Clinton's policies you think caused the internet stock bubble. I'm unaware of any. In my view, Clinton deserves non of the credit he claims for a booming economy and a budget surplus, but neither is he the culprit in the imploded bubble. But perhaps you are right. Inform me.
Second, my point is still valid. Charts that describe income growth have nothing to do with income inequality. They are two different issues. Newsbusters rightly criticizes the MSM for its lack of fairness and balance. It seems to me that Newsbusters itself ought to be more rigorous in its argumentation and avoid using charts about growth to argue a point about inequality.
blame
July 16, 2007 - 11:58 ET by Tom BlumerThere's plenty of blame to spread around. The Clintonian specifics:
- The allowance of so many companies that barely had a business plan, no history, and no sales, to go public without raising any red flags. Start-ups normally don't go public without going through seed and early-stage funding; the people who can afford to take on those kinds of risks are venture capitalists and hands-on investors, not the general investing public.
- The (largely Democratic-contributing) brokerage and underwriting community thought (correctly) that the climate was right for duping gullible and greedy investors into IPOs where the chance of losing it all was great ("normal" IPOs ordinarily have a 5-year track record of success--at least, and little chance of going under in 2-3 years like so many dot-coms did). They also calculated that the government would do little to stop them from turning ordinary stock investors into (often unwitting) speculators.
- Perhaps the SEC could not have stopped the investor greed that went along with it (like I said, there's plenty of blame to spread around), but the fact is that Arthur Levitt's SEC did and said nothing in 1997-1999 as the storm clouds gathered in the background (after all, Bill Clinton had to make it through impeachment, and the "booming economy" feeding his high poll numbers was his trump card).
- Levitt and the SEC were AWOL even as the impending implosion became apparent in the middle of 2000 (after all, Al Gore had to be elected). That Levitt is out preaching about the virtues of overregulatory nightmares like Sarbanes Oxley and warning against relaxing SarBox in any way is particularly galling.
- An implied assumption was being pushed, with the help of a pliant and celebratory press, that the good times would roll on forever. Levitt's inaction tended to support that assumption. After all, if there was something wrong, wouldn't he be doing somehting?
}}----> And the Dot Commies
July 16, 2007 - 12:06 ET by Cool ArrowIt was all to evident during the Dot Com boom that most of what qualified as IPO's were just Internet algorithms that could be easily duplicated with a software reach around. Real assets often consisted of a server in a rented warehouse space. The rest was an idea doomed by technological advance.
I pretty much agree with your
July 16, 2007 - 13:14 ET by redrock505I pretty much agree with your analysis, but have two comments. First, I doubt very much if George Bush's SEC would have done anything different than did Clinton's if faced with the same circumstances. Second, the conservative philosophy emphasizes personal responsiblity and is suspicious of the nanny state. Therefore, Newsbusters has rightly criticized the MSM for whining about foreclosures by the big, bad lenders who sell risky mortgage packages, because the bulk of the blame lies with the consumers who voluntarily assumed the risk of those mortgages. In like manner, investors who bought "companies that barely had a business plan, no history, and no sales" assumed the risk of such foolish purchases, and have nobody but themselves to blame.
Oh, back to the "everyon
July 16, 2007 - 13:55 ET by dscottOh, back to the "everyone else is doing it, so it must be ok" or it's variant "everyone does it so I'm not as bad as you make me out to be" schtick? Please spare us this self absolution, you can't predict the future any better than the GCM models Al Gore uses for his doomsday scenerios for AGW. What Bush admin. would or would not do is totally besides the point, we are dealing with history, things that actually happened, not the hypothetical second guessing if Clinton wasn't elected at all.
At least you recognize the failure of those (Dems) asleep at the switch during the Clinton years was for political purposes, that's a start in the right direction. We'll give you points for not being a koolaide drinker.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Bubble
July 16, 2007 - 15:24 ET by Tom BlumerI don't agree. RR. In a dot-com bubble in a GOP Admin, Old Media would have been complaining about "vaporware shell companies" from the get-go -- IOW, in many cases, they would have been doing their job, but they would probably have gone for overkill by tarring the legit ones like Ebay and Amazon in the process. Dem politicians, and GOPers too, would have been speaking up.
I know this because Old Media business writers have been spent most of the Bush Admin waiting for a housing bubble. They may yet get one, but I don't think so. Imagine how they would report a real stock market bubble as a "capitalistic market economy failure" and the like in a GOP admin.