Full Version: Kerry's Misery Index
Story on Kerry's Misery Index
Yesterday John Kerry spoke to students about a "misery index" which is supposed to measure the actual condition of the economy. In this index he claims that under Bush the 'misery' is far worse under Bush than it was in 2000.
Question for debate: Should this be an accepted practice for the Kerry campaign to create a special 'index' that will cast the economy in a negative light?
Yesterday John Kerry spoke to students about a "misery index" which is supposed to measure the actual condition of the economy. In this index he claims that under Bush the 'misery' is far worse under Bush than it was in 2000.
Question for debate: Should this be an accepted practice for the Kerry campaign to create a special 'index' that will cast the economy in a negative light?
Should this be an accepted practice for the Kerry campaign to create a special 'index' that will cast the economy in a negative light?
Anything goes. I glanced a few CNNMoney articles on Kerry's misery index. I think this one comes closest to the truth:
We're neither better off or worse overall economically (unless you think deficits matter, which I do). I wish speech writers in both camps would embrace that reality.
Anything goes. I glanced a few CNNMoney articles on Kerry's misery index. I think this one comes closest to the truth:
QUOTE
"It's true there's been a shift of income distribution, with a lot of income gains accruing to upper income individuals. The labor market is paying a bigger and bigger premium for being well educated," said Ethan Harris, chief economist for Lehman Bros. "At the other end of the distribution, if you look at Joe Six-Pack, you've seen a big decline in big paying, low skill jobs in manufacturing."
But the decline in median income, which was cited by the Kerry campaign Monday, doesn't take into account the impact of tax cuts or the rise in federal spending on entitlement programs such as Medicaid and Medicare.
Census data show after-tax median household income between 2000 and 2002, adjusted for inflation, fell only 2.1 percent, not the 3.3 percent pre-tax decline [figure that Kerry has been using in his "misery index"]. The median income family's tax bill fell by $625 during that period. Add in government entitlements, which increased by $560, and the income decline was only 0.6 percent to $42,061.
But the decline in median income, which was cited by the Kerry campaign Monday, doesn't take into account the impact of tax cuts or the rise in federal spending on entitlement programs such as Medicaid and Medicare.
Census data show after-tax median household income between 2000 and 2002, adjusted for inflation, fell only 2.1 percent, not the 3.3 percent pre-tax decline [figure that Kerry has been using in his "misery index"]. The median income family's tax bill fell by $625 during that period. Add in government entitlements, which increased by $560, and the income decline was only 0.6 percent to $42,061.
We're neither better off or worse overall economically (unless you think deficits matter, which I do). I wish speech writers in both camps would embrace that reality.
We can expect Kerry to spin the numbers as he is doing. An economist on NPR this AM did not think that any short term look at selected numbers, as Kerry is doing, gives a true picture of the economy.
But this is an election year and we can expect more of the same from both sides. Kerry will no doubt try desperately to downplay the improvement in this economy as we come out of this long recession. IMO he will not be successful.
But this is an election year and we can expect more of the same from both sides. Kerry will no doubt try desperately to downplay the improvement in this economy as we come out of this long recession. IMO he will not be successful.
To the individual voter, the only "index" that matters is their own pesonal "economic index." Kerry did this, i believe, as a poll to see how happy or unhappy people were with their current economic status. Either way, I don't think that the "misery index" decides the upcoming election. These guys (Kerry and Bush) have already proven that anything goes this year, so this will be only the beginning of these crazy things.
According to Factcheck.org this "misery index" was created entirely to cast Bush in a bad light.
And tell's how they created the index:
Hmmmm, I would call this the "misery index of spin"
QUOTE
Kerry's campaign has invented a new "misery index" that makes Bush's economic record look, well, miserable. Why a new index? Perhaps because the classic "misery index" -- which adds together the unemployment rate and the rate of inflation -- currently is better than it's been in most years since World War II. In fact, it's less than half the miserable level reached in 1980, the last year of the Carter administration, and better than in any of Clinton's first four years:
And tell's how they created the index:
QUOTE
So it's not surprising that the Kerry campaign has come up with another way of looking at the economy. On April 12 Kerry issued a news release saying "Middle-Class Misery Hits Record Under George Bush," based on a new index put together by former Clinton economic adviser Gene Sperling and former Al Gore adviser Jason Furman.
The Kerry index is, to put it mildly, selective.
Rather than use all consumer prices, the Kerry index cherry-picks three items that have gone up faster than the overall rate of inflation: college tuition (at public four-year universities only), gasoline, and health care.
And rather than use the overall unemployment rate -- which was 5.5% at this point in Clinton's first term, only two-tenths of one percent lower than now -- Kerry has used the number of jobs, which produces a more negative picture.
Other statistical indicators chosen by Kerry are median family income and bankruptcies, which have both worsened under Bush, and home ownership -- the only one of the seven indicators in the Kerry index to show improvement.
The Kerry index is, to put it mildly, selective.
Rather than use all consumer prices, the Kerry index cherry-picks three items that have gone up faster than the overall rate of inflation: college tuition (at public four-year universities only), gasoline, and health care.
And rather than use the overall unemployment rate -- which was 5.5% at this point in Clinton's first term, only two-tenths of one percent lower than now -- Kerry has used the number of jobs, which produces a more negative picture.
Other statistical indicators chosen by Kerry are median family income and bankruptcies, which have both worsened under Bush, and home ownership -- the only one of the seven indicators in the Kerry index to show improvement.
Hmmmm, I would call this the "misery index of spin"
Should this be an accepted practice for the Kerry campaign to create a special 'index' that will cast the economy in a negative light?
Negative light or just shining a light in the dark places of our supposed "recovery"? I think Kerry's misery index is consistent with his message that Bush's tax cuts are disproportionately favoring the upper-class.
What I dislike is his use of the word "misery index". Its actually a specific economic definition that he corrupts a bit. The real definition can be found
here.
As for whether it should be an accepted practice, I think its perfectly legit to look at the recovery from a different angle (like job creation as well) and make the argument that we aren't as well off as Bush would like us to think. I have no doubt that this will be a key point of contention in the 2004 campaign.
Negative light or just shining a light in the dark places of our supposed "recovery"? I think Kerry's misery index is consistent with his message that Bush's tax cuts are disproportionately favoring the upper-class.
What I dislike is his use of the word "misery index". Its actually a specific economic definition that he corrupts a bit. The real definition can be found
here.
As for whether it should be an accepted practice, I think its perfectly legit to look at the recovery from a different angle (like job creation as well) and make the argument that we aren't as well off as Bush would like us to think. I have no doubt that this will be a key point of contention in the 2004 campaign.
QUOTE(Doclotus @ Apr 13 2004, 11:02 AM)
What I dislike is his use of the word "misery index". Its actually a specific economic definition that he corrupts a bit.
A bit?!?
Kerry's misery index only uses the most negative aspects of unemployment and the economy for this index. How is that 'a bit'?
Should this be an accepted practice for the Kerry campaign to create a special 'index' that will cast the economy in a negative light?
This "misery index" is blowing up in Kerry's face as we speak. According to the New York Times. "...it (the misery index) gives President Carter a better rating (plus 6) over his tenure than President Reagan (minus 5)."
Median family income, college tuition, health-care costs, gas prices, bankruptcy rates, homeownership rate and private-sector job growth are the seven data points used to decide the media index.
Sleeper, let me tell you why this will blow up in Kerry's face. First and foremost, it is intentionally false. Second, it sells misery. It doesn't sell hope. Its primary purpose is to convince you that you are miserable and that this misery is Bush's fault.
It means to convince you that the reason you filed bankruptcy, can't afford to send your child to college, and can't afford health care is not your fault - it's Bush's fault.
He wants you to believe that you can't afford gas for your car because big oil is in Bush's pocket. He may further try to convince you that a percentage of the profits from gas are being fed to the Bush campaign (if you think I am feeding you that line, I'll post the quote from a news anchor).
Everyone can see right through this ploy.
The great enemy of truth is often not the lie - deliberate, contrived and dishonest - but the myth - persistant, persuasive and realistic. ~ John F. Kennedy.
This "misery index" is blowing up in Kerry's face as we speak. According to the New York Times. "...it (the misery index) gives President Carter a better rating (plus 6) over his tenure than President Reagan (minus 5)."
Median family income, college tuition, health-care costs, gas prices, bankruptcy rates, homeownership rate and private-sector job growth are the seven data points used to decide the media index.
Sleeper, let me tell you why this will blow up in Kerry's face. First and foremost, it is intentionally false. Second, it sells misery. It doesn't sell hope. Its primary purpose is to convince you that you are miserable and that this misery is Bush's fault.
It means to convince you that the reason you filed bankruptcy, can't afford to send your child to college, and can't afford health care is not your fault - it's Bush's fault.
He wants you to believe that you can't afford gas for your car because big oil is in Bush's pocket. He may further try to convince you that a percentage of the profits from gas are being fed to the Bush campaign (if you think I am feeding you that line, I'll post the quote from a news anchor).
Everyone can see right through this ploy.
The great enemy of truth is often not the lie - deliberate, contrived and dishonest - but the myth - persistant, persuasive and realistic. ~ John F. Kennedy.
QUOTE
Question for debate: Should this be an accepted practice for the Kerry campaign to create a special 'index' that will cast the economy in a negative light?
Yep, as long as the Bush campaign spins the economic numbers to the positive. The truth lies somewhere between, and it's up to the voters to decide if this is a decision-making factor at the voting booth.
So, if your situation has degraded over the past 3 years or so, Kerry's message will probably influence the voting decisions. If not, or if your situation has actually improved, then Bush's message will likely do the influencing. Either way, both campaigns will spin economics freely.
There is a major difference here: Bush believes he has done everything that can be done to improve the economy. Kerry thinks more can be done.
Why don't we finally bite the bullet and institute a Command economy already? Then we can absolutely control wages, costs of healthcare, costs of education, outlaw bankruptcy and give 100% home ownership... 
It's obvious, isn't it?
People aren't responsible, George W. Bush is!! He sets education costs, doesn't he? He decides who files for bankruptcy, doesn't he? He gives out new homes, doesn't he?
To me, the misery index should be tied to how many wins the Cleveland Indians had last year...
Man, I should be miserable.
It's obvious, isn't it?
People aren't responsible, George W. Bush is!! He sets education costs, doesn't he? He decides who files for bankruptcy, doesn't he? He gives out new homes, doesn't he?
To me, the misery index should be tied to how many wins the Cleveland Indians had last year...
Man, I should be miserable.
QUOTE(Beladonna @ Apr 13 2004, 11:44 AM)
This "misery index" is blowing up in Kerry's face as we speak. According to the New York Times. "...it (the misery index) gives President Carter a better rating (plus 6) over his tenure than President Reagan (minus 5)."
Sleeper, let me tell you why this will blow up in Kerry's face. First and foremost, it is intentionally false. Second, it sells misery. It doesn't sell hope. Its primary purpose is to convince you that you are miserable and that this misery is Bush's fault.
Sleeper, let me tell you why this will blow up in Kerry's face. First and foremost, it is intentionally false. Second, it sells misery. It doesn't sell hope. Its primary purpose is to convince you that you are miserable and that this misery is Bush's fault.
You are right on the money belladonna. Kerry is way off base with this silly “index” and he is going to pay the price for it. In fact the more this man talks the more he puts his foot in his mouth. I hope the press picks up much more of this type of nonsense so that the public can see this man clearly.
I think this should be an accepted practice. Kerry is not breaking any laws, but is simply projecting an economic indicator that he thinks is valid. The public will decide whether this is foolishness, awkward political gamesmanship, or an actual better way to gauge the economy. (or whatever else it will decide)
I would hope that the mudslings with substance would have more of an impact than ones that are more slight of hand, but some tacky line about overestimating the intelligence of the American public haunts me when I think this way.
I would hope that the mudslings with substance would have more of an impact than ones that are more slight of hand, but some tacky line about overestimating the intelligence of the American public haunts me when I think this way.
QUOTE(Sleeper @ Apr 13 2004, 01:50 PM)
Question for debate: Should this be an accepted practice for the Kerry campaign to create a special 'index' that will cast the economy in a negative light?
Sure, why not? I believe in free speech. The first thing that strikes me, however, with the naming of this index, 'the misery index', and its negative outlook on America, is how it just screams of partisan politics. John Kerry is basically saying, "right now I would prefer to see you down and out, because that's good for me in an election year." Why the pessimism John, unless you stand to benefit by it? Why not run as JFK did, whose message was rather, "things are going good, but they can be even better!" Now that's an optimistic outlook which can win elections. Pessimism just turns people off, its too depressing.
QUOTE(Sleeper @ Apr 13 2004, 01:50 PM)
Question for debate: Should this be an accepted practice for the Kerry campaign to create a special 'index' that will cast the economy in a negative light?
I am sorry, I mean no offense whatsoever here, but this strikes me as a really dumb question.
Kerry shows Bush's economic performance in a negative light. Bush shows his own performance in a positive light. Gore Showed Clinton's economic performance in a positive light, Bush showed Clinton's economic performance in a negative light. Clinton showed Bush Sr.'s economic performance in a negative light, Bush Sr, showed his own economic performance in a positive light.
And so on back until pretty close to the dawn of democracy. The same thing happens every election here in Canada, in the UK, in France, pretty much in every democracy in the world.
The fact that Kerry created a measure to demonstrate this performance is neither new nor original. As long as he states openly that the measure is of his own development (which he has) then what could possibly be wrong with it?
He called it the 'misery index'. So what? Is there some rule or tradition saying that a participant in a presidential election must be non-partisan? No, exactly the opposite.
Would it matter if he called it the happiness index, then showed Bush had a very low happiness score?
Would it better if he called it the Joblessness index, and then showed that Bush had a high score?
Would it be better if he called it the American economy index, and showed that Bush had a low score?
Would it be better if he called it the Triple weasel sundae with fudge hair index, and then showed that Bush had bet 40,000 Kwatloos on the newcomer?
I'm sorry, I just don't see the issue here.
EDIT: If you caught that last reference, then you are even more of a geek then I...
No offense, but that is a really dumb answer. 
I take it you did not look at the link I provided. Because if you did you would see that there was an original 'misery index'
The problem with this index for Kerry is that it shows during the Bush presidency, a better average than during the Clinton presidency. If you would care to look this time, you can see it right here.
Kerry is simply pushing doom and gloom as his bid for the presidency. The original "misery index" actually looked positive for Bush. Kerry could not have that so a new 'misery index was created that ONLY uses negative statistics. Hell, doing that I can make anything look bad.
The issue is: You cannot just go changing calculations and formulas used in the past to gauge one party or another just to suit your needs.
I take it you did not look at the link I provided. Because if you did you would see that there was an original 'misery index'
QUOTE
The original "misery index" is simply the jobless rate added to the inflation rate. The term was coined by economist Arthur Okun, an economic adviser in Lyndon Johnson’s administration. It was widely used during the "stagflation" of the '70s and '80s when stagnant economic growth kept unemployment high and inflation reduced the buying power of wages.
The problem with this index for Kerry is that it shows during the Bush presidency, a better average than during the Clinton presidency. If you would care to look this time, you can see it right here.
Kerry is simply pushing doom and gloom as his bid for the presidency. The original "misery index" actually looked positive for Bush. Kerry could not have that so a new 'misery index was created that ONLY uses negative statistics. Hell, doing that I can make anything look bad.
QUOTE
Rather than use all consumer prices, the Kerry index cherry-picks three items that have gone up faster than the overall rate of inflation: college tuition (at public four-year universities only), gasoline, and health care.
And rather than use the overall unemployment rate -- which was 5.5% at this point in Clinton's first term, only two-tenths of one percent lower than now -- Kerry has used the number of jobs, which produces a more negative picture
And rather than use the overall unemployment rate -- which was 5.5% at this point in Clinton's first term, only two-tenths of one percent lower than now -- Kerry has used the number of jobs, which produces a more negative picture
The issue is: You cannot just go changing calculations and formulas used in the past to gauge one party or another just to suit your needs.
QUOTE(Sleeper @ Apr 13 2004, 06:51 PM)
No offense, but that is a really dumb answer.
I take it you did not look at the link I provided. Because if you did you would see that there was an original 'misery index'
The problem with this index for Kerry is that it shows during the Bush presidency, a better average than during the Clinton presidency. If you would care to look this time, you can see it right here.
Kerry is simply pushing doom and gloom as his bid for the presidency. The original "misery index" actually looked positive for Bush. Kerry could not have that so a new 'misery index was created that ONLY uses negative statistics. Hell, doing that I can make anything look bad.
I take it you did not look at the link I provided. Because if you did you would see that there was an original 'misery index'
The problem with this index for Kerry is that it shows during the Bush presidency, a better average than during the Clinton presidency. If you would care to look this time, you can see it right here.
Kerry is simply pushing doom and gloom as his bid for the presidency. The original "misery index" actually looked positive for Bush. Kerry could not have that so a new 'misery index was created that ONLY uses negative statistics. Hell, doing that I can make anything look bad.
I know all that, I did read the link. You apparently did not read my post, in which I made the fairly clear point: Who cares?
Oh my God, you mean Kerry, as a Democratic Candidate for the Presidency is interpreting things in a manner favourable to the Democrats? Dear Lord, nobody has EVER done that before! Get the tar and feathers!
He made it clear that his 'Middle class misery index' was not the same as the original Misery index, in fact the article implies he produced it to respond to the original, using different statistics that made things look more favourable to the Democrats.
QUOTE
The issue is: You cannot just go changing calculations and formulas used in the past to gauge one party or another just to suit your needs.
Really? So you manitain that Bush (or Clinton, or Bush Sr or Regan or carter etc) never presented an economic analysis of the last four years which differed from the economic analysis of their opponents? The only difference here is that he named it, and seems to have made clear that he named it to respond to another named analysis.
So again, what exactly is the problem?
I think that the way that Kerry is using the figures is unfair because he could choose to leave some things out or put some things in that will make Bush look worse. It would be more effective (although I don't know the actual trends) to present all of the data that has been put into his new misery index (and others that haven't) separately. Some things will most likely favor Kerry and some will favor Bush, which may give Kerry a little more credibility in this area.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.