What I'm about to present has been vetted by Alan Blinder, a Princeton economist, with an outstanding reputation, who served as Vice-Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Blinder draws on the work of economic historian Larry Bartels. Bartels studied the rising income inequality divide over hte last 30 years in the US. Furthermore, Bartels is one economist who does not advise political candidates.Blinder calls Bartels's discovery the The Great Partisan Inequality Divide (GPID). It makes for great talking points when you're meeting with voters.
Here's what Bartels found in his studying the last 60 years of economic incomes as reported by Blinder:
1. Income inequality trended substantially upward under Republican Presidents.
2. It trended slightly downward under Democratic Presidents. Remember how Clinton promoted the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) that benefitted the working poor. That's one major illustration of why Democrats are fairer than Republicans.
3. GPID is not limited to the poor. At the 20th percentile--that is 20% of all families have less income and 80% have more-- and the Democrats were fairer. That's also true at the 40th, 60th, 80th and 95th percentiles.
4. The 95th percentile divides the rich from the non-rich. It means a family earns about $180,000.That includes two wage earners combining their income. (Remember McCain defined the rich at $5 million dollars, thereby confirming he knows nothing about how American families live or economics as an informed layperson.)
5. All percentiles, except the 95th, families fare better under Democratic presidents than Republican ones. At the 95th percentile there is not much difference.
6. Under President Reagan the growth rate fell and the income transfers benfitted the rich. This fits Republicans favoring tax cuts to the rich that Democrats oppose. In addition Democrats, more than Republicans, favor raising the minimum wage and supporting unions to bargain wage increases for its members. Republicans oppose the minimum wage increase and are hostile to unions.
7. Conclusion: If history is a guide an Obama presidency leads to greater economic growth, less economic inequality and more equity. A McCain presidency means slower growth and far greater economic inequality and therefore more inequity.
Comments are closed for this post.
