"Middleclass Misery Index" - sample LTR to editor

To the Editor:

John Kerry ‘s "Middleclass Misery Index" -which combines indicators for median family income, college tuition, health costs, gasoline cost, bankruptcies, the homeownership rate, and private-sector job growth – shows that the last few Democratic presidents have reduced middleclass misery (Carter improved index by 6, Clinton by 23), while GOP Presidents have made the middleclass more miserable (Reagan made the situation worse by 5 on the index, Bush41 made it worse by 12, and our current Bush43 has made it worse by 13).

Kerry notes that median inflation adjusted Incomes have declined by $1,462 under Bush – (median rather than average since the huge increase for the rich is not a middleclass increase – and CNN/Money verified that Kerry’s number reflected the 0.6 gain to $42,409 between 2000 and 2002, or 3.3% decline after inflation, that occurred in the Median income recorded in the Census Department's data). And Bush tries to spin this as OK because health costs have gone up, so health aid to poor and aged - entitlement programs - have increased! Perhaps we should add to the income of the rich the welfare contracts to their corporations given by the Bush folks? Can we discuss spending money in the pocket?

When the last year’s near-record jumps in the cost of healthcare premiums (11%), college tuition (13%), and gas (15%) are combined with Bush middle class income decrease, we see that Bush in 3 years has broken all previous GOP records for hurting the middle class.

As Bush tries to sell up is down, saying Kerry’s tax cut for the folks earning less than $200,000 and tax increase for those above $200,000 is really a massive tax increase, and saying Kerry’s greater fiscal discipline will be bad for the future of our kids despite such lower deficits meaning a lower birth tax (per capita debt), Kerry actually will trying to help the middle class by middle class tax cuts for health and education, creating 10 million new jobs, promoting universal access to college, providing affordable health insurance for all Americans, and creating energy independence through conservation.

It points out how much the average American has lost under this administration, something that the national media will never report. Kerry is at a disadvantage;he has to do his job as a candidate and the media's job too. I think we should all help him and write letters to the editor.

And not because it doesn't make some persuasive points. My problem is the news tonight seemed more concerned with the fact that Kerry was changing a long-standing economic scale to make Bush look bad. Instead of focusing on the results I've heard three reports so far tonight that all seem to be more interested in taking Kerry to task for trying to re-define what the misery index. He should have called it something other than the misery index because his point is being lost on the simpletons in the media.

it's being lied about or changed to suit statist perceptions.
''liberals'' are held to a different standard than every one else.
that's the real point.

we care?

Golly - all those pre-written by Rove stories about the great economy under Bush and the improvement in the Reagan Misery index - all in question.

Maybe the media will be forced to think now?

I believe Carter was the one who introduced it.

The fact that Kerry is introducing this worries me a bit. It tells me the campaign feels it is not making charges dealing with the state of the economy stick.

Then again...its still early.

Carter introduce a concept that made him look bad.

Indeed - if you have a source I'd appreciate it!

As to your basic point, I don't know if this was a great idea to blunt WSJ saying low inflation and relatively low unemployment means Bush is an economic great - or -

this was a lousy idea showing an ability to make poor decisions in the kerry camp - making a higher misery index a positive just will not compute for most folks.

I was sort of wrong....it was originally invented by Arthur Okun who worked under Kennedy according to the NYT.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/12/politics/trail/12TRAIL-MISERY.html?ex=1082433600&en=ca921b179fab5471&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Bio on Okun:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Okun.html

This glossary of terms states Carter coined the phrase "misery index"

http://www.museum.tv/debateweb/html/curriculum/history/glossary.htm

Here's C-span concurring with the above:

http://www.c-span.org/classroom/govt/1976.asp

Carter initially looked good with this. His numbers in 76 & 77 were better than Ford's last two years. He just got hammered in 78 & 79.

"As to your basic point, I don't know if this was a great idea to blunt WSJ saying low inflation and relatively low unemployment means Bush is an economic great - or -"

I just get this feeling that there is a need to "convince" people the economy sucks. That tells me two things the campaign think; fears of an economic uptick will take all the wind out of the economy attack sails & inability to make shitty economy charges stick. Not that those are mutually exclusive. Though I can't imagine jobs catching up to any economic growth within a timeframe where Bush will be able to campaign on it.

"this was a lousy idea showing an ability to make poor decisions in the kerry camp - making a higher misery index a positive just will not compute for most folks."

Well if Bush can do Orwell...why not Kerry ;-)

Okay joking aside, I would agree. It's kind of like Alexa numbers, while they make sense when you know the scale it just feels....unnatural...for lack of a better word.

not that my memory is good all the time - guess I'll have to write not remembering off to "yet another senior moment" :-)

As to your other comments, we agree - so what can I say beyond I find your post full of wisdom! and thanks for the reply.

:toast:

:-)

I can't believe this move. The "Misery Index" has been around for decades. And what does the Kerry team do? Create an all new index, cherry-pick a bunch of arcane statistics that make Bush look bad and then give it the same fucking name. Did they think no one would figure this out?

And even worse, they scaled the thing BACKWARDS. Therefore the rubes will look at Kerry's index and think that "misery" was LOWER under Bush than under Clinton.

Christ. This is so dumb it's embarrassing.