Terra Extraneus

[Average Americans] understand the economy differently – and view it much more negatively – than Bush Administration officials, Wall Street analysts and conservative economists who stress positive macro-economic statistics. Indeed, nothing raises the public ire more than the elites saying this is a good economy, which seems to deny the hard work and inventiveness of people who raise their living standards against the odds. However, conservatives are not alone in this disconnect with the public on the economy, as liberal elites portrayal of Americans as passive victims also alienates their intended audience. These liberal elites underestimate Americans’ emphasis on personal responsibility and greatly overestimate the degree to which they see themselves as victims in the current economy.

The above is an excerpt from one of two studies recently made available online by the Economic Policy Institute:

• “The Economic Disconnect: How Both the Left and the Right Get It Wrong,” Dec. 5, 2006, 11 pages.

• “Talking Past Each Other: What Everyday Americans Really Think (and Elites Don’t Get) About the Economy,” December 2006, 64 pages.

Some excerpts from Economic Disconnect:

• The opening excerpt above.

• “Americans are dissatisfied with the national economy, and are doubtful it will improve in the future. This is an economy defined by its inability to produce rising incomes in the face of growing financial pressures, though people are proud of their efforts to overcome these systemic obstacles.”

• “Over two thirds of the country view the economy negatively. … The public’s central perspective is of a middle class in decline, badly squeezed between rising costs, reduced benefits, and stagnant earnings. The public holds out little hope for the economy improving any time soon, suggesting that these current problems may reflect a structural change.”

• “Americans see themselves as largely on their own in the current economy, but they are eager for the government to take on a more active role to help ease their financial burden in areas such as health care, energy and education and support greater regulation of the corporate interests that are seen as contributing to these rising costs.”

Here is a press release which summarizes Talking Past.

Also, here is a link to a recent post I wrote regarding middle-class economics: “Who’s in the Middle Class, How Much Do They Make — and How Much is Left Over?”

No Comments

Extreme Mortman presents:

* “Top Ten Funniest Political Moments Of 2006.” Top of the list: Dick Cheney’s eventful hunting trip.

* “Top Ten Funniest Political Quotes Of 2006.” Top of the list: John Kerry’s reputation-killing crack about education and Iraq.

[Hat Tip: Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice.]

1 Comment

* * * * *
See: “Part 1: Should We Feel Sorry for the Middle Class?”
* * * * *

Are you a member of the middle class? Am I? An intelligent discussion of the travails of the middle class is not possible unless we define the term. Yet there is no consensus among economists or the general public regarding who makes up America’s middle class.

American Demographics magazine reported:

The majority of Americans define themselves as middle class, regardless of their actual income level. This perception is obviously off-base, but with no official definition, it’s hard to pin down how much Americans overestimate their middle-class status.

Similarly, the Washington Times reported:

There is no real definition of the middle class in the United States, assert economists and sociologists, who say “middle class” always has been more of a state of mind than an actual economic status. Even the U.S. Census Bureau has no official definition.

One organization defines the middle class as composed of those families who make $25,000 to $100,000 a year. That range is absurdly broad. Surely it is obvious that the $25,000/year family, e.g., two wage-earners working full-time for $6/hour, is in a different economic class than the $100,000 family.

HOW MUCH DO THEY MAKE?
The most sensible approach is to let simple mathematics define the “middle class.” Divide all households into groups based on household income, and the middle group is the middle class. Those who use this approach commonly divide the nation into quintiles (five equal groups), but that method creates a middle group that is much too small to satisfy our common perception of who is included in the great middle class.

Let’s see what we get by dividing U.S. households into three or four equal groups. Splitting U.S. Census Bureau 2005 income distribution data into quartiles, the “poor” and “lower class” consist of the 25% of households with income of $23,000 or less, and the “upper class” and “rich” are the 25% of households with $80,000 or more. That makes the middle class the middle 50%, half of the nation, having household incomes from $23,000 to $80,000. Now we’re getting somewhere. However, that gives us a middle class that is still too broadly defined; the lower end of it includes two-income families scraping by on minimum wage.

We achieve a more meaningful definition of middle class by dividing U.S. households into three equal groups, with the middle group — households in the $30,000 to $67,500 range — composing the middle class. That correlates well with the median household income, $46,326 in 2005, which is very close to the exact middle of the middle class as I have defined it.

So, alert the media, distribute the memo and bang the drums of the blogosphere: America’s “middle class” has now been concisely and coherently defined as composed of the middle third of households, based on total household income, which in 2005 consisted of those families making $30,000 to $67,500 a year.

IS THE MIDDLE CLASS WEALTHY?
Is that a lot of money? This series on the “Middle Class Trap” was prompted (more…)

11 Comments

If John McCain is elected president in 2008, he will become the oldest person to ever enter the office, at 72 years old. The distinction currently belongs to Ronald Reagan, who was 69 when he began his first term in 1981.

McCain would be the White House’s first incoming septuagenarian. Among our 43 U.S. presidents, 8 were in their 40s when they began their first terms, 25 were in their 50s, and 10 in their 60s. Bill Clinton became our first baby boomer president, and was followed by fellow boomer George W. Bush. In the 21st century, are voters willing to elect a man born 10 years before the Baby Boom even began?

Of course, if 60 is the new 40, then 70 is the new 50. To prove it, in August, McCain backpacked through the Grand Canyon — and his publicists have been mentioning it every chance they get since. Expect to see plenty more feats of strength and daring by McCain during the next two years.

Related to age is the question of health. McCain seems to be in good health. His chief concern is melanoma. He had a cancerous mole removed from his shoulder in 1993, and two cancerous tumors removed from his temple and arm in 2000; no more problems since then.

During the McCain campaign, comparisons to Ronald Reagan are inevitable. McCain may benefit by the comparison. In a poll this year, citizens named Reagan the best president in the last 60 years (George W. Bush was named the worst). However, there is a big problem for McCain with the Reagan comparison: thinking of Reagan brings to mind the late president’s Alzheimer’s disease during his final years. That’s not what McCain wants voters thinking about.

No matter how energetic McCain is, health concerns are an inescapable fact of life for people in their 70s. Two Stanford scholars wrote this when Bob Dole was the GOP nominee in 1996 at age 73:

No matter how healthy the elderly candidate for the presidency appears to be, there is a significant likelihood that he will not survive or that his intellectual powers and leadership ability may be compromised, far more so than among those in their 50s.

If McCain gets the nomination, his choice of running mate becomes crucial. Will he pick someone in their 40s or 50s to balance the ticket, or will he worry that a significantly younger running mate will only underscore his age? Most importantly, it will be essential for McCain to choose someone the nation would be comfortable with in the Oval Office. It also would be interesting to see how McCain’s age plays against the Democratic nominee, particularly if the nominee is youthful, such as John Edwards, 53, or Baruck Obama, 47. (Hillary Clinton turns 60 next year.)

Reagan was the master at using humor to deflect questions about his age. In his 1984 debate with Walter Mondale, Reagan (73 at the time; Mondale was 56) quipped:

I will not make age an issue in this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.

I have seen McCain’s attempts at humor. He does not have Reagan’s gift, but he can be funny, as he was in 2002 in a Saturday Night Live skit promoting his supposed album, “McCain sings Streisand.” “I’ve been in politics for over 20 years, and for over 20 years, I’ve had Barbra Streisand trying to do my job. So I decided to try my hand at her job,” McCain deadpanned. You can be sure McCain has been rehearsing age-related one-liners for the campaign trail.

My opinion: McCain’s age is not an issue. Nine of our 43 presidents — that’s 21%, a significant percentage — failed to complete their terms. Four were assassinated, four more died in office, and one resigned. Two of them were in their 40s and five were in their 50s; in other words, youth is no guarantee of a full term. The only thing certain about the future is that it is full of surprises.

* * * * *
Thanks to Michael Bates at Batesline for linking to this post. Thanks also to Andy Jackson at SmartChristian for pointing this way. Andy says he’s leaning toward McCain, but will be watching to see if McCain is able to maintain his energy level during the next two years of campaigning.

3 Comments

Are America’s middle class citizens victims of “economic injustice” in a system that has become “broken?” Or, rather, is the American middle class composed of greedy materialists who “serve mammon rather than God?” Those are the choices offered in a debate between Joe Carter and Dan Edelen. Guess I’ll jump into the fray.

Joe Carter is a writer for the evangelical conservative Family Research Council, and Carter’s Evangelical Outpost was named Best Religious Blog in the 2005 Weblog Awards (and is on TerraX’s “must read” blogroll). Dan Edelen is a Christian freelance writer who writes the blog, Cerulean Sanctum.

A debate between the two began on Monday with Edelen’s post: “Politics, Economics and the American Church.” Edelen wrote that an overlooked reason for the Republican Party’s poor showing in last week’s election is economic discontent among the middle class. “It’s still the economy, stupid!” Edelen wrote.

Middle class voters smarting from job losses and inequities in the economy voted with their wallets, not with an eye toward Iraq, terrorism, or any other topic.

Describing it as an “economic justice issue,” Edelen cited the dilemma of the U.S. middle class: inflation, mounting debt, second mortgages, the necessity of two incomes to make ends meet, lack of job security and nonexistent savings. Meanwhile, the top 1% of the wealthy own almost all the wealth, and corporations’ top execs enjoy skyrocketing income.

Faced with this gloomy scenario, Edelen proposes:

I believe that our churches must start working toward some kind of money pool to help fellow congregants who fall on hard times. With so many families’ money highly leveraged, and the reality that the middle class is fighting a losing battle against rising costs, something needs to be done on a macro level to fix some of the financial injustices people face today. But the pulpit is silent. … Who in the Church in America speaks out against the real problem, our broken system?

Edelen concludes his post with this grim prophecy:

All it takes is a minor recession … With so many precariously perched families with no savings, high credit card debt, loans taken against homes of decreasing value — it won’t take much. Church, are we ready? Truly? Time to wake up and start preparing for that day. It’s coming faster than we think.

Carter, who describes himself as Edelen’s friend, took issue with his buddy’s post, which he labeled “absolutely bizarre.” As a matter of fact, Carter called Edelen “sinfully hubristic” for expressing such a view. (more…)

5 Comments

Mark Daniels at Better Living ponders whom Time magazine will name Person of the Year for 2006. Daniels says Nancy Pelosi. I disagree, and suggest another possibility in my comment to his post.

No Comments

Jim Wallis of Sojourners and author of the God’s Politics blog provides a “voter’s guide” of biblical issues Christians should consider in evaluating candidates on Tuesday’s ballots. Here is a link to the full text of Wallis’ “Voting God’s Politics.” The following is my own abridgement of Wallis’ issues list:

• Compassion and Economic Justice: Does the candidate support measures that provide for family economic success and security, … that promote fair and decent wages, that show a serious commitment to lifting children out of poverty, and support policies on aid, debt, and trade that would bring extreme global poverty to an end?

• Peace and Restraint of Violence: Is the candidate committed to a serious plan for ending the war in Iraq … to remove American forces while seeking both security and peace for Iraq, to the elimination of nuclear weapons, to supporting security and freedom in the Middle East, and to strengthening international law to fight terrorism?

• Consistent Ethic of Life: All life is a sacred gift from God … public policies should reflect a consistent ethic of life. … Abortion is always a moral tragedy, but how do we find real solutions for preventing unwanted pregnancies and supporting women caught in very difficult and desperate circumstances? Does the candidate support policies that will dramatically reduce the number of abortions, end capital punishment, and stop genocide, especially in Darfur?

• Racial Justice: Racism is a sin and undermines the integrity of a society. Is the candidate committed to reversing and ending racial discrimination in all aspects of our society, especially in the criminal justice and education systems?

• Human Rights, Dignity, and Gender Justice: Each human being [is] created in God’s image. … On immigration, how do we welcome the stranger, respect the law, and insure national security? And how do we combat the growing epidemic of sexual trafficking and virtual slavery? Does the candidate support humane and holistic immigration policies and comprehensive immigration reform? Do they insist on policies that end torture, stop human trafficking, promote religious freedom, and protect women?

• Strengthen Families and Renew Culture: Does the candidate support policies that strengthen marriage and families, restore integrity to our civic and business practices, and act to prevent violence in our society — especially the alarming incidence of domestic violence against women and children.

• Good Stewardship of God’s Creation: The earth and the fragile atmosphere that surrounds it are God’s good creation … Global warming is a religious issue. Does a candidate support protections to clean air and water, to reduce the dangerous emissions that cause global warming, to shift from our addiction to oil and fossil fuels to cleaner, safer, and more renewable energy sources? Do they support the transformation to conservation and new energy sources that could provide jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, help solve the Middle East crisis, and even reduce the threats of terrorism?

1 Comment

Due to immigrants, it seems, doctors and nurses are not hired, raises are not given, and obsolete medical equipment is not being updated. Is it possible immigrants are milking the system even more than the poor citizenry? Or, is this assertion an example of corrupt race hatred?

One of my favorite magazines, World Magazine, reported in its September 16, 2006 issue, in an article by John Dawson, that the border states and their hospitals are paying for the medical treatment of thousands of illegal aliens. Federal law requires, according to World, that the border hospitals treat through their emergency rooms anyone that seeks aid, regardless of ability to pay or citizenship.

But, this has been the law of the land for many years. In Oklahoma, for example, 800,000 state citizens, at last report, a third of the state citizenry, use Oklahoma hospital emergency rooms as their primary source of medical treatment and the taxpayers of Oklahoma pay their bills because the indigent patients cannot. Indeed, only a few years ago, the Oklahoma legislature projected that the cost of the medical treatment of these 800,000 state citizens carried with it the risk of destabilizing the state budget, or devouring it. This was true in Oklahoma without so much as a mention of immigrants, illegal or otherwise.

Federal promises to cover the costs of immigrant medical treatment, just like older promises to cover the costs of medical treatment of citizen indigents, have been unmet, according to World Magazine. Border states and hospitals claim to be in crisis mode because of these costs, just as Oklahoma hospitals have been in perpetual crisis due to the cost of caring for the poor and uninsured.

Would illegal aliens cross the border to obtain medical care if they could get it at home? United States churches apparently have not seen fit to provide medical care south of the border. Foreign aid apparently does not provide medical care south of the border.

Sadly, World Magazine did not compare the present “immigrant medical care crisis” to the pre-existing “indigent citizen medical care” crisis. World Magazine did not compare the border states to the interior states. As a result of the poor methodology, World Magazine defaulted to prejudice and concluded the immigrants were draining the medical resources of the land, even though poor citizens had the same impact on the system. World Magazine concluded the immigrants were levying a “stealth tax” on the unfortunate border states and their hospitals, but failed to mention the same “stealth tax” the citizen poor were levying in prior years. Finally, World Magazine did not inquire further as to the failure of North American Christianity to address the medical needs of the citizen poor, much less the immigrant poor.

How did World Magazine miss the mark so completely? There is only one logical explanation. Prejudice.

No Comments

Traffic to TerraX is way up today. What’s the occasion? Slate, the online magazine owned by the Washington Post, quoted me in an article about President Bush’s bill-signing statements. Here’s the Slate article, “Attorneys Against Bush”; TerraX is mentioned in the fourth paragraph. The article references my post yesterday: “Bar Association Slams Bush for Disregard of Law.”

Funny that Slate references the “liberal-leaning Terra Extraneus.” A glance at our featured articles at the top of the homepage shows we may lean left on immigration and government assistance programs, but are right as rain on abortion, for example. A more thorough reading of our blog would confirm what we say on our “About” page: “Don’t be too quick to pigeonhole our politics.”

However, in the modern political discussion, there are only two categories, red and blue, conservative and liberal, and doggonit, we’re going to shove you into one category or the other, whether you like it or not. See: “Which Political Category Should We Shove You Into?” See also, “Confessions of a Liberal, err, Left-of-Center Idealist.”

Oh well, as they say, all publicity is good publicity. And they spelled my name right. I’d be much more cool and much less honest if didn’t admit that being quoted in a national publication made my day.

3 Comments

1975. Morelos, Zacatecas. Miguel and Maria and their 2-year-old, Angelina, live in Morelos, a village in Zacatecas, Mexico. Famous for its silver mines, Zacatecas was once one of the richest states of Mexico, but today more than half the population lives in poverty. Many jobs have moved from Mexico to China in recent years, and there are few opportunities in Zacatecas for young people like Miguel and Maria.

The young family has finally decided to follow in the steps of many Zacatecans. Moving to the United States will mean leaving relatives and their hometown behind, risking their lives to make the border crossing, and struggling to survive as illegal immigrants in the U.S. But there are no jobs in Morelos, and they have a daughter to provide for. Miguel and Maria’s dream is for Angelina to grow up with a better life than the one they have known.

1990. McAllen, Texas. Maria and 17-year-old Angelina have lived in Hidalgo County for 15 years. Miguel was killed in a farming accident 10 years ago. Maria works full-time as a waitress to provide for Angelina and two younger daughters. They don’t have much, but the life they have is better in many ways than what Maria knew growing up in Morelos.

Angelina may have been born in Mexico, but she has no memory of that place. She learned Spanish from her parents and still speaks it with her mom, but as a first-grader in McAllen public school, Angelina was a quick learner. Soon she was speaking English fluently. Among the first English words Angelina ever learned were the words of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Angelina knows that some people consider her an “illegal,” but her face turns red and her throat tightens when someone calls her a “Mexican.” The United States is the only home she has ever known.

This is a big year for Angelina. Last month she graduated from high school. Next month she is getting married. She is engaged to Ricardo, a member of the youth group of Iglesia Bautista, the bilingual Baptist church she has attended since a neighbor first invited her to Sunday School when she was 9. Ricardo works construction and Angelina works as a checker at the H-E-B grocery. Angelina plans to take classes two nights a week at the community college. Soon she will be married and start a family, and her dream is to give her children a better life than the one she has known.

2006. Dallas, Texas. Emma came along 11 months after Ricardo and Angelina were married. Fifteen years later, Emma is a freshman at a Dallas high school. Emma divides her time between girls basketball, digital photography, and instant messaging. Her favorite TV show is “American Idol,” although she can’t believe Taylor Hicks won. She loves Shakira, especially now that she’s finally recorded an album in English.

Like almost every Texan, Emma knows a little Spanish, including a few phrases she has picked up from her parents. But English is the only language Emma really knows. Her parents were born in Mexico, but neither of them have been back since they were toddlers. Emma has never been there.

Like most American teenagers, Emma has way too many other things to think about to be concerned with the country of her grandparents. She’s a good student, and she has a secret dream, one she hasn’t even told her mom. Emma hopes to be the first person in her family to earn a college degree.

2005. Washington, D.C. Five times in the past 11 years (1995, 1997, 1999, 2003, and 2005), a minority of far-right lawmakers have introduced the Citizenship Reform Act, which would do away with “birthright citizenship.” The doctrine of birthright citizenship guarantees citizenship to all children born in the U.S., except the children of diplomats. It is a right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1868 to grant citizenship to freed slaves after the Civil War. Of course, the Constitution trumps any law passed by Congress. However, proponents claim that if the law were passed and brought to the Supreme Court, it might somehow pass the test of constitutionality.

Shockingly, according to one recent poll, 49% of American citizens say they agree with doing away with birthright citizenship. I have got to believe that many of those citizens have just not thought the issue through. If there are many citizens who really do understand the ramifications of this proposal – the tragic consequences it would have for children like Emma, children born and raised in our country who know no other home but America – it would break my heart.

It is one thing to debate whether Miguel and Maria were right or wrong to cross the border in the first place, and what we should do to secure our borders. But it is a much different question to propose that the solution is to deprive citizenship of children who become Americans exactly the same way almost all of the rest of us did – they were born and raised here.

There are valid points to weigh on both sides of the immigration debate. But when it comes to the children, there is nothing to debate. If we turn our backs on our children, children like Emma and millions of others whose only home has ever been the United States of America, then we cease to be the country to which Angelina and Emma have frequently pledged their allegiance. Remember that country — one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all? That should not be up for debate.

3 Comments