poverty, schmoverty.

i'd be the first to admit that economics are cyclical, and thus economic gains and losses are not necessarily dictated by current policy initiatives. that said, even though it gets some discussion, i don't think the abysmal state of the economy under this administration is publicized enough. consider the following snippet, taken from a slate article:


Bush set another record this week as the first president to preside over five straight years in which household incomes failed to rise. People working the longest fared the worst: Earnings for full-time workers fell by 2.3 percent for men and 1.0 percent for women.

The poverty rate rose for the fourth consecutive year, after declining every year from 1993 to 2000. The percentage of people without private health insurance also went up for the fourth year in a row.

In response, the president could have revived his dormant compassionate conservatism agenda or abandoned his four-year-long effort to avoid signing a welfare reform bill. Instead, the Bush administration sent out a Commerce Department economist to declare that the poverty rate is "the last, lonely trailing indicator of the business cycle." Except for household incomes. And full-time earnings. And private health coverage. When it comes to economic progress, the people are always the last to know.


i guess i shouldn't be surprised to see republicans rolling their eyes at poverty. but i still am.