Read and Digest Jew (RS is the Jew btw)

CLEARLY, there are major differences between the economic policies of Senators Barack Obama and John McCain. Mr. McCain wants more tax cuts for the rich; Mr. Obama wants tax cuts for the poor and middle class. The two men also disagree on health care, energy and many other topics.

David G. Klein

Such differences are hardly surprising. Democrats and Republicans have followed different approaches to the economy for as long as there have been Democrats and Republicans. Longer, actually. Remember Hamilton versus Jefferson?

Many Americans know that there are characteristic policy differences between the two parties. But few are aware of two important facts about the post-World War II era, both of which are brilliantly delineated in a new book, “Unequal Democracy,” by Larry M. Bartels, a professor of political science at Princeton. Understanding them might help voters see what could be at stake, economically speaking, in November.

I call the first fact the Great Partisan Growth Divide. Simply put, the United States economy has grown faster, on average, under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.

The stark contrast between the whiz-bang Clinton years and the dreary Bush years is familiar because it is so recent. But while it is extreme, it is not atypical. Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.

That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut.

Such a large historical gap in economic performance between the two parties is rather surprising, because presidents have limited leverage over the nation’s economy. Most economists will tell you that Federal Reserve policy and oil prices, to name just two influences, are far more powerful than fiscal policy. Furthermore, as those mutual fund prospectuses constantly warn us, past results are no guarantee of future performance. But statistical regularities, like facts, are stubborn things. You bet against them at your peril.

The second big historical fact, which might be called the Great Partisan Inequality Divide, is the focus of Professor Bartels’s work.

It is well known that income inequality in the United States has been on the rise for about 30 years now — an unsettling development that has finally touched the public consciousness. But Professor Bartels unearths a stunning statistical regularity: Over the entire 60-year period, income inequality trended substantially upward under Republican presidents but slightly downward under Democrats, thus accounting for the widening income gaps over all. And the bad news for America’s poor is that Republicans have won five of the seven elections going back to 1980.

The Great Partisan Inequality Divide is not limited to the poor. To get a more granular look, Professor Bartels studied the postwar history of income gains at five different places in the income distribution.

The 20th percentile is the income level at which 20 percent of all families have less income and 80 percent have more. It is thus a plausible dividing line between the poor and the nonpoor. Similarly, the 40th percentile is the income level at which 40 percent of the families are poorer and 60 percent are richer. And similarly for the 60th, 80th, and 95th percentiles. The 95th percentile is the best dividing line between the rich and the nonrich that the data permitted Professor Bartels to study. (That dividing line, by the way, is well below the $5 million threshold John McCain has jokingly used for defining the rich. It’s closer to $180,000.)

The accompanying table, which is adapted from the book, tells a remarkably consistent story. It shows that when Democrats were in the White House, lower-income families experienced slightly faster income growth than higher-income families — which means that incomes were equalizing. In stark contrast, it also shows much faster income growth for the better-off when Republicans were in the White House — thus widening the gap in income.

The table also shows that families at the 95th percentile fared almost as well under Republican presidents as under Democrats (1.90 percent growth per year, versus 2.12 percent), giving them little stake, economically, in election outcomes. But the stakes were enormous for the less well-to-do. Families at the 20th percentile fared much worse under Republicans than under Democrats (0.43 percent versus 2.64 percent). Eight years of growth at an annual rate of 0.43 percent increases a family’s income by just 3.5 percent, while eight years of growth at 2.64 percent raises it by 23.2 percent.

The sources of such large differences make for a slightly complicated story. In the early part of the period — say, the pre-Reagan years — the Great Partisan Growth Divide accounted for most of the Great Partisan Inequality divide, because the poor do relatively better in a high-growth economy.

Beginning with the Reagan presidency, however, growth differences are smaller and tax and transfer policies have played a larger role. We know, for example, that Republicans have typically favored large tax cuts for upper-income groups while Democrats have opposed them. In addition, Democrats have been more willing to raise the minimum wage, and Republicans have been more hostile toward unions.

The two Great Partisan Divides combine to suggest that, if history is a guide, an Obama victory in November would lead to faster economic growth with less inequality, while a McCain victory would lead to slower economic growth with more inequality. Which part of the Obama menu don’t you like?

Alan S. Blinder is a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve. He has advised many Democratic politicians.

Backpost.

So the bar trip has actually begun and is in full swing. Besides enjoying the adventure and relaxation that accompanies each day, I find myself startled by how long I’m going to be living out of this single suitcase…and how much can happen in 7 days…as well as how friggin’ long 50 more days abroad is going to be. Of course, it will all come screeching to a halt soon enough, as I begin my career as a corporate attorney in New York…so I’m going to enjoy it while I can…

Thus far, I am still on the European leg of the trip: We flew into Zurich and spent our days wandering the old cobblestone streets, drinking large large beers with each and every meal (and between meals), and basically wandered the streets, cathedrals, and museums of the city for 8 hours a day, punctuated only by episodes of South Park, The Office, the Olympics, and large quantities of alcohol. I would offer some in-depth analysis of how I feel about the astounding efficiency of modern European cities when compared to their American counterparts, as well as what a shame it is that America’s reigning perspective of “America is the best, thus no one can do anything better” prevents us from experimentation or *gasp* learning from other cultures…but instead I will offer a much more important conclusion I reached about Europe: Beautiful girls date very substandard men in Europe. That’s all. Tons of hotties paired up with an equal number of “really?s”

After three days in Zurich, we had initially planned a trip to Northern Italy. We were going to hit Milan, Genoa, make a few day trips, and manage to shunt our way down to Florence/Tuscany before making our way back to Geneva for our respective flights out. However, after being informed that Milan fucking blows by ILYIWWMWBJ, and realizing that I have very little interested in Milan except to see where those delicious little cookies come from, and/or witness twig thin model/hags wearing clothes that I don’t comprehend with my fashion illiterate mind,…we managed to settle on scrapping everything and instead bought overnight tickets to Rome…a prospect which actually excited me.

At the moment then, I am on my way to Florence…sitting next to a B.O. machine of epic proportions who seems to fancy himself quite the handsome young devil. I disliked him immediately. And his eyes-too-close-together compatriot who continued to wear his sunglasses inside the train because…well he just looked cooler.

And now, just for the sake of keeping things up to date, I'm in a hostel in Geneva preparing to go to Istanbul...where I will begin a 17 day jaunt at 11 pm tonight. Whoo hoo! (Ohmygodit'sonlybeen10daysandi'mexhausted)

Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants.

Has nothing to do with this post.

So the short of it is that even though I have written a few updates on my laptop, I never have wireless, so I can never get online and post it. Maybe I'll do so later...though who knows...

Currently I'm sitting in an internet cafe in Florence, passing the time for my train to Geneva, where I will catch my flight to Istanbul via some other European city. More importantly, I'm eyeing a refrigeratorful of beer...pondering whether time moves faster or slower when I'm drunk mid-day.

My Current Interest in Politics:

Zero.

The Journey Begins...

After an 8 hour overnight flight in which I did not sleep a wink, I arrived in Zurich with TK at 7:00 am to kick off this whirlwind world tour. Having watched both 21 and Shrek the Third on the airplane while sweating and growing grime all over my body, I was entirely ready to just get to the hotel room, nap, and wash, shave, brush, lather, and clean myself off. That being my greatest desire, we arrived at the hotel at 7:30 am with instructions that we could not check in until 2 pm. Thus, TK and I set off on a random walk for the next 8 hours in a city where people speak much less English than I had remembered...resulting in free bike rentals and 4 hours of riding along the Zurichsee (Lake Zurich) and swerving incredibly recklessly through complicated traffic patterns and little children...as well as doing random restaurant and museum stops.

Total Beers since Leaving NYC: 7

Oh. And George Foreman sat down across from me in the Charlotte Airport. Good stuff.

Spain Basketball and Yay!

I can't actually tell who is super into the Olympics this year, except for Jeff, but if you haven't been watching, it has been a great year to pay attention...sorta like last year's NFL season. Apart from all of the Michael Phelps craziness, China-U.S. Rivalry, and crazy-interesting thoughts you can have about world politics and systems of human governance while watching a group of prepubescent girls flip across a tiny little beam...it has just been fantastic to watch what humans are capable of achieving and seeing the limits of the human body and spirit tested. Of course, it's equally fantastic that the entire world manages to come together and spend time and money promoting human achievements in this manner. With all of the existential crises facing humanity, stupid political bullshit we discuss, and other matters we wring our hands over and whatnot, I LOVE that the whole world thinks it's a good idea to see how far we can throw a 16 pound ball.

Anyway, Spain's basketball team is annoying. If you haven't been following the Olympics, this is a FULL PAGE advertisement they took out in a Spanish newspaper.

I'm not concerned whether it's "racist" or "offensive." Instead, I just find it to be another example of idiocy from a bunch of stupid jackass Steves. (Stefanos?) Enjoy the arsenic lo mein the Chinese government's gonna feed you, Pau. (You have a stupid name.)

In other news, I leave the country in 5 days...and I just received a copy of the textbook I wrote the China chapter for and he kept my chapter in completely original condition! WHOO HOO!!!! I'm published, bitch! (although still not with any credit)

Coolest Olympics Ever.

If you were anything like me and somehow ended up watching all the swimming and gymnastics events Sunday Night, the Men's 4 x 100 relay was the COOLEST THING EVER. If watched it and picked up all the commentary, history, and context, you probably yelled "Oh My God" and jumped out of your seat too...Damn...that shit was amazing.

Close second? Yao Ming's opening Three-Pointer. (Yes, I started watching the Olympics at 10 am and stopped at midnight, with some Die Hard and Parenthood thrown in the middle. Incidentally, Parenthood is also one of the greatest movies of all time.)

Karate Kid III.

That movie rules. Two of my favorite lines:

Terry Silver to John Kreese after Daniel-san is getting his ass kicked: Look over at the slope. Isn’t that perfect?

Background yelling while Daniel-san is writhing on the mat: Where’s your little jap teacher now?

That's all. I don't feel like posting right now...I'm just sitting at home watching TV on my parents' new 67 inch flatscreen...just wrapped up Die Hard 4, and now on to something else.