I had one of those "uniquely American" moments yesterday. I use that term in the context of a president Bush response to a woman who caught him offguard last year during one of his national public relations campaign tours to reassure folks Social Security would be safe, would be there for them, even if his effort succeeded to gut it.
"Promises made will be kept by the government," is a hard swallow in light of Bush's record on everything from assurances "we don't torture" to "we don't spy on Americans."
So it was perhaps bound to happen in one of Bush's townhall meetings somewhere that a concerned and unconvinced 50-something woman would rise up from the audience and explain to Bush she was a divorced mother of three, including a 'mentally challenged' son, working three jobs.
*************
BUSH: You work three jobs?
WOMAN: Three jobs, yes.
BUSH: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that. (Applause.) Get any sleep? (Laughter.)
*************
What I find uniquely American about this encounter isn't the fact that the struggling woman works three jobs to try to make ends meet. No, what I take as uniquely American is the reaction of the president, the "oddience", the glib quip about sleep, and the laughter. It eases the tension of the real underlying message nicely, doesn't it? It then gets reported in the uniquely American media as a light moment Bush video clip.
Personally, I don't find any humor in that. Nor, in Bush's words, do I find it "fantastic that you're doing that" as regards that mom's efforts to stay afloat. But it IS the reaction to her situation I find "uniquely American" because the reaction to and reporting of this ignores the entire goddamned point.
So anyway, back to yesterday. In our household I often do the grocery shopping. Hence, I pretty well know the prices I pay for items I purchase regularly. Like orange juice.
The last time I purchased frozen OJ was back in July before we departed on a three week trip. That is, until Thursday when I purchased two more cans. To my surprise, the price of OJ was over 19% higher than a month ago.
Then yesterday I read the following news telling how retail sales had recently surged 1.4%. I think that was supposed to indicate a good sign for the economy in that the media called it "robust consumer spending."
I'm no economist, but when I finally juxtaposed that news with the price of my latest OJ purchase, it occurred to me that maybe Americans ARE spending more. They're just GETTING LESS! It's not that we're out here prospering like that single mother with three kids and three jobs. Maybe we're spending more solely because we have to pay more--for the same stuff.
The article went on to hint of the underlying flaw in these statistics by mentioning a.) the rise in gasoline prices, followed by b.) "The figures are not adjusted for inflation." So, what the hell good are these statistics anyway? Why bother to report 'em, if they have little bearing upon American's economic reality?
Conclusion? Well, I'm pretty sure all that robust consumer spending is NOT a sign of a prospering economy any more than the story of the single mom struggling to get by with three kids and three jobs is glib and funny as reported.
Maybe in the months ahead I will pay even more for even less orange juice. And maybe that working mom can add a fourth fucking job.
In both cases, as Bush might say, "I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that."
"Uniquely American, isn't it?" [sic]
3 comments:
and WHAT, pray tell, does Bush know about working 3 jobs, OR the price of orange juice? remember his daddy didn't even know the price of a loaf of bread (which may have cost him the election back when people cared about such things). Perfect logic re: your take on how consumer spending is up because prices are higher ... yet another confirmation of how damned statistics can be manipulated to show anything! should we congratulate the govt economists for doing such a "fantastic" job in painting these rosy pictures?
and as i'm rushing out the door yesterday, I think I heard lou dobbs saying some statistics prove we didn't really have a surplus under clinton ... that when you take into acct things like social security & federal pensions for the next 30-yrs, there never was a surplus. WTFFF? who do you suppose came up with that & since when does ANY administration use 30-yr projections to prove their current year's surplus or deficit? ah yes, UNIQUELY American! D.K.
dk: One of the things I DO enjoy about travelling by car long distances is the free morning paper that usually comes with the room. (That and the free breakfast hardly compensate for unloading, unpacking, repacking, reloading the car--altho by the 12th night of living out of suitcases, I confess, we were getting pretty darn good at it.)
If you're lucky, you get something like a USA Today, which I kinda like. (Although I just dropped "Capitol Hill Blue" for quoting a USA Today article countering Al Gore's environmentalism as expressed in his movie "An Inconvenient Truth". (It was written by Peter Schweizer, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and author of Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy.)
Well, I've digressed--sorry. But perhaps Lou Dobbs was staying in a Holiday Inn Express, or a Wingate (where they have free beer and wine customer appreciation nites) when the USA Today was delivered next morn to his room the day they ran the article about the "Federal bottom line gets a lot bleaker under standard accounting rules" article appeared. (And I don't know, being in travel mode as we were, I didn't investigate the reporter who wrote this.)
But according to the article (and you would probably know this far better than I, there are different ways of counting the same chickens to come up with the differing amounts of eggs they're producing.)
In the article, they cite three different methods of counting the same thing.
1. The kindest method - the one we are quoted, the "Official deficit" (which really, really sucks....looks like a big frickin' lie to me)
2. The less kinder method - the "audited" version (better, but still mostly fudge)
3. The brutal-er (& probably most real) version - the corporate style method
Under #3, Clintons biggest surplus in year 2000, turns into a brutal $12+ TRILLION (!) deficit.
Oh, who knows, maybe that article was written by some research fellow at the Hoover Institute. Or, maybe it was written by a real accountant?
But Dobbs may not be to blame here (although I have issues with that guy too). He may have been travelling; may have opened his motel room door and picked up his free copy of USA Today the day that article ran?
really good post....really valid point...and yeah Bush doesn't know shit...at all...very disturbing...on so many levels...Bush doesn't understand ANYTHING that relates to normal life- he is like one of those 18th century Brit Kings that even had to have others bath and dress him...Bush doesn't really understand Real Americans at ALL...he is merely a Evilsmallballedsmallmindedheartlesssumbitch.....
( yet another word for the ol'dictionary)
Post a Comment