Bush's Poverty

An article in today's New York Times has finally come around and framed the issues in terms of what is needed and what President Bush has denied, federally funded programs to help those living in poverty. The article cites the hypocrisy dealing with the aftermath of the Gulf Coast hurricanes. Even before the hurricanes the affected regions were some of the poorest parts of the United States. Afterwards, and with the lag affect of the new credit card-written measures, it is likely to be even poorer, with its poor spread out among many southern states and concentrated in cities like Atlanta and Houston. The Times article notes that:

"Economic growth is crucial to reducing poverty, but the effect of tax rates is less clear. In 1993, President Bill Clinton raised taxes on upper-income families, the economy boomed and poverty fell for the next seven years. In 2001, President Bush cut taxes deeply, but even with economic growth, the poverty rate has risen every year since."


This is slightly misleading because the evidence presented shows that while Clinton slightly raised upper income taxes, there was a decade of prosperousness that reached those living in poverty and Bush's tax cuts, which benefited high income earners the most had an increasing effect on poverty. This is because of the spending cuts Bush's tax cuts made inevitable and the fact that supply-side economics is a bankrupt concept. The Times article also mentioned:

"The week before his speech, Mr. Bush suspended the Davis-Bacon Act, a 1931 law that prohibits federally financed construction jobs from paying wages less than a local average. The administration argued that the suspension, which applied only to storm areas, would benefit local residents by stretching financial resources."

As I have argued previously, the suspension of the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 would benefit the corrupt winners of the no-bid contracts (which have since been reconsidered) like Halliburton and Fluor, while hurting the people who need the income the jobs provide the most. It would take money out of their pockets without providing any certainty of government savings; the Act is tied to no reduction in contract value for money saved on labor costs. The press is finally taking note the failures since the hurricanes in the reconstruction. I hope it continues.