It's the Economy...
Yes, we've heard that line over and over and over. And it seems the improving economy (and perhaps some swiftly crafted ads and the oversaturation of media coverage they've received) has helped to nudge the President's polling numbers (as several newly released polls have shown - see this posting at Daily Kos.

So, on the surface of things and to many people, the economy seems to be stabilizing. While growth doesn't seem quite as strong as it did earlier this spring, at least the payrolls are growing and not diminishing. That's good, right?

While taking a break from my Palm book yesterday and while driving between home and office, I came across a couple of items that point to the fact that we're not doing as well as we could be--on either the surface or the underside.

Ranks of Poor, Uninsured Rose in 2003

The U.S. Census Bureau on Thursday released a snapshot of income, poverty and health insurance coverage in the United States, on a day when both presidential candidates touted their plans to get more Americans on the insurance rolls.

The Census Bureau report said real median household income remained unchanged at $43,318 between 2002 and 2003; and the nation's official poverty rate ticked up from 12.1 percent in 2002 to 12.5 percent in 2003.

Of particular interest in this election year, the Census Bureau said the number of people with health insurance increased by 1 million to 243.3 million between 2002 and 2003, while the number of people without health insurance increased by 1.4 million to 45 million.


Matthew Yglesias over at The American Prospect's blog, Tapped goes a bit deeper into the numbers:

Much ink has been spilled over the past several years regarding the president's basically failed effort to gain ground among Latino voters. The coverage tends to emphasize pure political moves, but one interesting point raised by the Brookings Institution forum on the new Census Bureau household income data I attended today is that there's been a pretty serious deterioration in objective living standards. Median income for all households dropped just $63 in 2003 (after a couple of years of decline) which is well within the range of possible sampling error. For African-American households, things were a bit worse, there was a $156 decline, still very small. Latino households, however, saw a much larger $864 drop. Lately, then, Hispanics have been bearing a very disproportionate share of the burden for a generally disappointing economy. Under the circumstances, it's no surprise the president hasn't made many inroads.

Then there was this great segment on Thursday's Morning Edition, discussing how inflation is viewed by both the government (not that bad) and the consumer (getting worse).

Consumer, Official Views on Inflation Differ (you'll need RealPlayer to open this link)

The federal government says inflation is at 3 percent. The Federal Reserve Board calls it "relatively low." Despite government assurances, many Americans say their paychecks aren't going as far as they used to.

Here's some of the analysis, but you should give the whole four-minute segment a listen (since my transcribing abilities aren't what they used to be).

David Wessel (deputy Washington bureau chief, Wall Street Journal): It's important to think about what the Consumer Price Index actually measures. The Consumer Price Index is up 3 percent and it accurately shows that milk prices, for instance, are 26 percent higher than they were a year ago, beef prices are 15 percent higher. But that's counter-balanced by some things that are actually down. Apparel prices are cheaper than they were and computer prices, the way the government figures it, are also down because if you buy a computer for $1,000 that's twice as powerful as one you could've gotten five years ago for $1,000, they look at that as a price decrease. The government measures this one way, and people look at it another way.

[...]

Wessel: The other thing most Americans are doing, I think, is they're comparing their paycheck to what they're paying. So part of the anxiety people feel is that they are correctly, many of them, not all of them, realizing that their wages aren't going up as fast as prices, and that's painful, no matter how you look at it.

[...]

Steve Inskeep (NPR): Now, the Bush campaign would say there have been tax cuts that have affected almost every American. Once you factor in the tax cuts, do Americans have more money to spend overall, or is it less when you factor in inflation and pay increases and everything else?

Wessel: That really depends on what American you're talking about. America's a big country, 300 million people, and there are plenty of people making more money and living higher living standards and have more than they did when George Bush first took office. There are other Americans for whom that is not the case. And I think some of this election is about convincing people they're in one group or another.

While it's true, politically, that voters need that kind of convincing, what's more important in this election is getting people to understand what kind of an economy, and thus what kind of a prosperous nation, we should be moving to. As they say, people vote with their pocketbooks. There is a selfish motive in voting and in all things consumer-related. But it's time that we start talking about shared growth, shared prosperity that will make this nation a stronger, more cohesive state. I know, I know--that's sounding downright pinko/commie-ish (at least that's what the blustering O'Really and Hannity would say). But we cannot continually shift the burden of paying for government services down the pike from the richest 1% of taxpayers down to the middle (or lower) class (and then take away more service from the impoverished).

OK, back to the Palm book.