Carrie Lukas is the managing director of the Independent Women's Forum, and a co-author of Liberty Is No War on Women, published by the Independent Women's Forum.
Sometimes we ask questions knowing what the answer will be. I go through this daily when I ask my seven-year-old daughter if she's brushed her hair yet. Her tangled mane tells the story. My question is really just to remind her of what clearly needs to be done.
Republicans are similarly asking Americans the traditional campaign question: Are you better off than you were four years ago? Women—who Democrats are trying to distract with the specter of a "war on women"—should consider this important question, and what it says about the policies that have been advanced during the past four years.
Really, the answer to that question is an obvious no. The country isn't better off, and most Americans aren't better off as a result of the past four years. Americans know this intuitively, and can see evidence of continued hardship in the stories of their friends, neighbors, and own families.
[See a collection of political cartoons on the 2012 campaign.]
National statistics confirm their experience.
President Barack Obama may be trying to paint a rosy picture of stopping the hemorrhaging of jobs, but the numbers paint a sobering story. In January 2009, when President Obama took office, 140 million Americans were working. As of July 2012, the number of working Americans had ticked up 3 million. Yet during that time period 5.5 million Americans left the labor force and 400,000 more Americans become unemployed. As a result, we have a historically low labor force participation rate: That means not only is the unemployment rate stubbornly high, but millions of Americans have become so gloomy about their economic prospects they aren't bothering to look for work anymore. That's a far cry from morning in America.
Rather than recovering, household incomes have continued to decline. The Washington Post reports that between "June 2009 to June 2012, inflation-adjusted median household income fell 4.8 percent, to $50,964 … Incomes have dropped more since the beginning of the recovery than they did during the recession itself."
[See a collection of political cartoons on the economy.]
While Americans have less to live on, the costs of everyday goods are climbing. When President Obama took office, the average cost of a gallon of gasoline was less than two dollars. Today, it's $3.82. Food prices have also been on the rise, increasing by 3.7 percent in 2011. The Department of Agriculture expects another 2.5 to 3.5 percent increase in 2012, and another 3 to 4 percent increase in 2013. This is bad news for millions of American families who already feel pinched.
While American families struggle to make ends meet, the federal government isn't even trying to. The national debt just passed $16 trillion, a mindboggling number. That's about $5.4 trillion more than when President Obama took office. That means that today every American man, woman, and child's share of the debt is $50,000, and Americans can expect this burden to get worse. President Obama's budget would continue piling trillions of dollars onto the national debt.
[See a collection of political cartoons on the budget and deficit.]
Aware of these pesky facts, the president's supporters are struggling to find an acceptable answer to the are-you-better-off question. So far, the talking point seems to be that the challenges President Obama faced when taking office were much greater than anyone knew. Americans, therefore, should simply be grateful to not yet be fully into the abyss.
Americans are unlikely to accept this line. Americans expected to recover from hard times. We aren't satisfied with the idea of this level of unemployment and the growing dependency on government—with people exiting the labor force and joining the rolls receiving food stamps and disability checks from Uncle Sam—to become a new normal. We don't want to accept the idea that our children's future will be less bright than generations past.
[Take the U.S. News Poll: Are You Better Off Now Than You Were Four Years Ago?]
More importantly, many Americans don't just intuitively know that our country is worse off, but they also suspect they know why it's worse off: Government has grown too much and is strangling what used to be private life, making it impossible for the innovators and job creators to make America thrive again.
Americans understand that the administration's policies have helped make them worse off. That's the real problem for the president as he tries to convince the American people that he deserves a second term.
The Democrats are trying to distract women with the specter of a "war on women"? The Democrats? They're the ones using women's rights as a distraction?
Just wanted to point out the moment I stopped believing the author.
Yeah, but the stats that she brings up are rather depressing. You might not agree with the claim that "war on women" is a distraction but it doesn't change that household incomes have gone down, gas is up, the deficit is overwhelming, food prices are up.
While I understand the Democratic platform on women's reproductive issues, that's personally not what I am most concerned about in this election and I tune out when I hear about it. People need jobs. The economy needs to improve. I personally believe those are the most pressing issues.
While I understand the Democratic platform on women's reproductive issues, that's personally not what I am most concerned about in this election and I tune out when I hear about it. People need jobs. The economy needs to improve. I personally believe those are the most pressing issues.
Me, too. I wish the Rs would start talking about that already!
Yeah, but the stats that she brings up are rather depressing. You might not agree with the claim that "war on women" is a distraction but it doesn't change that household incomes have gone down, gas is up, the deficit is overwhelming, food prices are up.
While I understand the Democratic platform on women's reproductive issues, that's personally not what I am most concerned about in this election and I tune out when I hear about it. People need jobs. The economy needs to improve. I personally believe those are the most pressing issues.
Can somebody explain to me how the price of gas is Obama's fault? I mean this seriously, does the President really have much input into the price of a commodity?
Yeah, but the stats that she brings up are rather depressing. You might not agree with the claim that "war on women" is a distraction but it doesn't change that household incomes have gone down, gas is up, the deficit is overwhelming, food prices are up.
Wages were stagnant before Obama came to office. Oil prices were rising before Obama came to office. Food prices go up any time oil prices rise, and any time there are droughts.
Here's another depressing statistic: big companies have posted record profits in the past few years, and CEO pay rose 6% in the last year. The big question, for me, is why we haven't seen any of those benefits filtering down to the average worker. Why are profits up, while earning power for workers is down? Should we blame that on Obama?
"The typical American worker would have to labor for 244 years to make what the typical boss of a big public company makes in one. The median pay for U.S. workers was about $39,300 last year. That was up 1 percent from the year before, not enough to keep pace with inflation." seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2018290135_usceopay26.html
Yeah, but the stats that she brings up are rather depressing. You might not agree with the claim that "war on women" is a distraction but it doesn't change that household incomes have gone down, gas is up, the deficit is overwhelming, food prices are up.
Wages were stagnant before Obama came to office. Oil prices were rising before Obama came to office. Food prices go up any time oil prices rise, and any time there are droughts.
Here's another depressing statistic: big companies have posted record profits in the past few years, and CEO pay rose 6% in the last year. The big question, for me, is why we haven't seen any of those benefits filtering down to the average worker. Why are profits up, while earning power for workers is down? Should we blame that on Obama?
"The typical American worker would have to labor for 244 years to make what the typical boss of a big public company makes in one. The median pay for U.S. workers was about $39,300 last year. That was up 1 percent from the year before, not enough to keep pace with inflation." seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2018290135_usceopay26.html
Maybe I missed it in the article, but she seems to be making a false argument. No one is saying things are good right now. To argue that we are worse off, she has to compare the numbers to 4 years ago. She doesn't seem to be doing that. Am I wrong?
I'm not going to speak on jobs because I personally believe there is only so much the president and government can do before the private sector has to start unclenching their fists and investing money back into their companies via hiring vs. sitting on large chunks of money.
But as far as gas and food....so food prices are up because gas prices are up, and because this has been an incredibly dry summer and there have been major droughts in a lot of farm countries, right? And gas prices are up because OPEC pretty much controls the flow and therefore availability, and that combined with the total uncertainty in the Middle East since Arab Spring is probably causing the price fluxuations. So what exactly is the President supposed to do about gas prices or food prices? He doesn't control the weather, or OPEC, or the uprisings in the Middle East, so unless he was to bring prices down by government subsidizing of gas and increased subsidizing of food then how exactly are either of those things his fault?
Also, doesn't food go up all the time anyways? Annual inflation is usually, what, about 3%?
Gas is up due to ts in gulf. And, the president...didn't he just release a large dump from the strategic oil reserves (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57620.html) and STILL prices are up. Of course the president is blamed, as bush was (are people's memories really this short?). So, he did subsidize gas, to no avail.
As for food-we do subsidize this and still prices are up.
Yeah, but the stats that she brings up are rather depressing. You might not agree with the claim that "war on women" is a distraction but it doesn't change that household incomes have gone down, gas is up, the deficit is overwhelming, food prices are up.
Wages were stagnant before Obama came to office. Oil prices were rising before Obama came to office. Food prices go up any time oil prices rise, and any time there are droughts.
But, then, how are you better off? So many in the other thread said they were, that we were as a nation. And, as for oil...see above
The Democrats are trying to distract women with the specter of a "war on women"? The Democrats? They're the ones using women's rights as a distraction?
Just wanted to point out the moment I stopped believing the author.
I agree to an extent about the war on women angle. There is this sense that if you don't think, act and feel like a liberal/feminist, then you are not a true/strong woman.
Can somebody explain to me how the price of gas is Obama's fault? I mean this seriously, does the President really have much input into the price of a commodity?
"While Americans have less to live on, the costs of everyday goods are climbing. When President Obama took office, the average cost of a gallon of gasoline was less than two dollars. Today, it's $3.82."
Is this even true?? It's been 7-8 years since gas has been under $2. Just wanted to point that out. At least in my state.
"While Americans have less to live on, the costs of everyday goods are climbing. When President Obama took office, the average cost of a gallon of gasoline was less than two dollars. Today, it's $3.82."
Is this even true?? It's been 7-8 years since gas has been under $2. Just wanted to point that out. At least in my state.
It is technically accurate but it's extremely misleading. Gas temporarily dropped very low in late 2008/early 2009 as the economy was crashing and nobody knew when the bottom was going to drop out.
But in early/mid 2008 it was at $4 a gallon. The $2/gallon was a blip. It's not as though gas was at $2 a gallon for years and then after Obama was elected, it shot up to $4. But the way this article (and others I've seen written by conservatives) makes it seem, that's exactly what happened. It's simply untrue.
It's also funny to look back at 2008 and see how Fox News and the Republicans went on and on about how the President has no power or control over gas prices and how it's unfair to blame Bush for the gas prices. But now, it's OMG gas prices are all Obama's fault!!!
The Democrats are trying to distract women with the specter of a "war on women"? The Democrats? They're the ones using women's rights as a distraction?
Just wanted to point out the moment I stopped believing the author.
I agree to an extent about the war on women angle. There is this sense that if you don't think, act and feel like a liberal/feminist, then you are not a true/strong woman.
If that means limiting the opportunities of women, then yes, this feminist doesn't approve.
I have no problem whatsoever with a woman who chooses not to work or use birth control or even wear pants. I have huge problems with anyone who tries to restrict my participation in those activities.
Post by basilosaurus on Sept 15, 2012 14:24:27 GMT -5
So, it was republicans who introduced all that anti-abortion legislation? Gosh, I must have missed that.
Domestic oil production has risen quite a bit under Obama, and yet gas is still expensive. So, what else is he to do? Oh, wait, how about ending oil subsidies to companies posting bajillion dollar profits every quarter? Is that something the fix the budget fiscal conservatives can get behind?
"While Americans have less to live on, the costs of everyday goods are climbing. When President Obama took office, the average cost of a gallon of gasoline was less than two dollars. Today, it's $3.82."
Is this even true?? It's been 7-8 years since gas has been under $2. Just wanted to point that out. At least in my state.
I don't think that's true either. I remember very clearly in the fall of 2008 that gas went up to $4 for the first time. It started dropping from there, but I dont remember it being under $2 for a decade or so!
And I thought we all agreed that the price increase was mostly due to commodities speculation?
If the economy really was improving, there would have been no need for the latest QE3 that Bernanke just implemented. Obama can't have it both ways --- things are getting better or we need more stimulus to improve the economy. It is precisely Obama's policies and the lack of tax certainty that businesses do not spend their money, expand and hire more people. He has been not been friendy to business and most of his policies have helped Wall street - not main street.
It is precisely Obama's policies and the lack of tax certainty that businesses do not spend their money, expand and hire more people. He has been not been friendy to business and most of his policies have helped Wall street - not main street.
Ah, okay. So it's Obama's fault that big businesses aren't hiring or giving out raises. And it's Obama's fault that the big businesses are making record profits (helping Wall Street not main street).
If the economy really was improving, there would have been no need for the latest QE3 that Bernanke just implemented. Obama can't have it both ways --- things are getting better or we need more stimulus to improve the economy. It is precisely Obama's policies and the lack of tax certainty that businesses do not spend their money, expand and hire more people. He has been not been friendy to business and most of his policies have helped Wall street - not main street.
How can you not be friendly to business but be friendly to Wall Street at the same time? What, exactly, do you think Wall Street is, lys?