Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (23809)	1/11/2004 3:00:35 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793834

"Back to the 60s." Expect a lot more cries from the Liberals for a turn toward more "cradle to grave" security. They won't be happy until they turn us into the EU. January 11, 2004 New York Times OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR Call It the Family Risk Factor By JACOB S. HACKER Jacob S. Hacker, assistant professor of political science at Yale and a fellow at the New America Foundation, is working on a book about economic insecurity. NEW HAVEN, Conn.--On the heels of Friday's glum Labor Department report, Americans have a right to be confused. Soaring growth, stocks and consumer confidence have heartened investors. And yet, the country remains mired in a jobless recovery. The reality is that the economy has become more uncertain and anxiety-producing for most of us — not just over the past three years, but over the past 30. But by fixating on the day-to-day ups and downs, analysts have largely missed the more telling trend: an increasing shift of economic risk from government and corporations onto workers and their families. Signs of this transformation are everywhere: in the laid-off programmer whose stock options are suddenly worthless, in the former welfare mom who can get a job but not health care or day care, in the family forced into bankruptcy by the sickness of a child. But these episodes, while viewed with sympathy, are usually seen in isolation, rather than as parts of a larger problem. This blinkered view stands in the way of both diagnoses of the causes of the new economic insecurity and prescriptions for its cure. Consider the accompanying chart. The line traces the year-to-year instability of family income from 1972 to 1998, based on the University of Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics. It measures the extent to which a family's income from both government and the private sector fluctuates from year to year, controlling for the size of the family and the general rise of income among all Americans (so as not to confuse upward mobility with instability). The formula captures both changes in the income of families and changes in families themselves, like divorce and separation, that alter their standard of living. What it shows is that family finances have grown much more insecure. Although insecurity dropped in the booms of the late 1980's and late 1990's, the long-term trend is sharply upward. In fact, the instability of family incomes was roughly five times greater at its peak in the 1990's than in 1972. Optimists point out that Americans are much richer than they were in the 1970's. But while they are as a whole, incomes have grown little for the middle class and working poor — even as wages have become more unstable, the financial effects of losing a job have worsened, and the cost of things families need, from housing to education, has ballooned. Yet government and the private sector aren't just ignoring these problems, they are making them worse. Many programs for the poor, for example, have been substantially cut. And middle-class programs like Social Security have steadily eroded. The truly staggering changes, however, are taking place in the private sector. The number of Americans without employment-based health benefits has been rising for decades. Employers are also restructuring workplace benefits to impose more risk on workers. Once, for instance, workers lucky enough to have a pension enjoyed a guaranteed benefit. Now, with so-called defined-contribution plans like 401(k)'s, workers have to put away their own wages and the returns of the plan depend entirely on their own investments. What might be done to help families cope with the new economic insecurity? The essential first step is to shore up existing policies to ensure broad-based and secure unemployment, pension and health benefits. Yet simply upgrading present efforts is not enough. I believe we need a new, flexible universal insurance program to protect families against catastrophic expenses and drops in income, before families fall into poverty. Universal insurance would, in turn, be coupled with tax-subsidized savings accounts that would help middle and lower-income families manage these expenses before they reached catastrophic levels. Our economy is in the throes of a great transformation — from an all-in-the-same-boat world of shared risk toward a go-it-alone world of personal responsibility. Protecting families from the greatest "hazards and vicissitudes of life" — in Franklin Delano Roosevelt's still relevant words — is necessary and possible, and it offers perhaps the best hope for reviving a constructive role for government, on bold new terms, in this new century. Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

To: Sully- who wrote (23809)	1/11/2004 3:54:34 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793834

This could well be true. There is no reason for the Bushies on the Internet to be making a lot of noise yet. To check the "Chatter," I tried the Bush "Meet Up" here in Honolulu and they couldn't raise five people to show up. Did the same thing with the Dean bunch and their meeting is going. "Bush Reelect" in DC has 160 people working already. W.'S WIDE WEB MAY ZAP DEAN E-MACHINE By DEBORAH ORIN - NY Post January 11, 2004 -- DES MOINES, Iowa - The buzz says Democratic front-runner Howard Dean is king of the Internet - but in some ways, President Bush has trumped Dean at his own game. Dean's Web site yesterday boasted of 564,000 Internet supporters, but the Bush-Cheney campaign says its e-mail list is 6 million - a 10-1 lead. That includes 400,000 who have signed up for an active role as "team leaders." An ABC News poll last month raised eyebrows by showing that Bush wallops Dean among Internet users as well as the tech-averse - the president tops Dean by 18 points in either case. Deanforamerica.com is way ahead in Internet fund-raising - campaign manager Joe Trippi says about $20 million of Dean's $41 million cash haul came over the Web, where Bush raised just $3.1 million. But Bush supporters say they're now using the site georgewbush.com to reach more small donors - the average Bush Web donation is a modest $140. Indeed, after all the gee-whiz wonder about Dean's pioneering use of the Internet, it could be that he has hit a ceiling. Trippi predicted exponential growth in 'Net supporters to 900,000 by the end of 2003 - but Dean is still short of 600,000. Team Dean boasts of using the Internet for 21st-century organizing, but as of yesterday a mere 758 Iowans had used the deanforamerica.com site to pledge to go to the Iowa caucuses. For months, Dean quickly topped or doubled every cash goal he set on the Web - but not last week. He set a $700,000 goal for Friday midnight and claimed he barely met it with $701,000 by then. The deadline actually was put off two days and the target raised to $800,000. Democrat Wesley Clark, meanwhile, raised $4 million on the Internet. Dean remains way ahead of Bush on Web traffic according to Hitwise, a service that monitors competitive Web use - but not when the White House site, Whitehouse.gov, is counted. Last week Hitwise found the White House site spiked with interest in Bush's immigration reforms. Usually, Dean's main sites combined have nearly as much Web traffic as Bush's campaign site plus Whitehouse.gov - but from Jan. 3-7, Whitehouse.gov got 66 percent of 2004 political Web traffic, Dean's main site had 8 percent and Bush 2 percent, Hitwise found. NEW YORK POST