Worker rights : Are Republicans or Democrats better for your salary?

October 27, 2:47 PMDC Corporate Ethics ExaminerJim Cunningham

Previous Next

Comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the DC Corporate Ethics Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Last week, Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly put together an interesting piece and some predictions about how the results of this election might affect your salary. First, let me cherry-pick some things I liked from the article to discuss, then I want to share my thoughts on what Kevin Drum didn’t talk about, that I believe has an even larger impact on your salary: corporate greed.

From Drum’s article, Your Salary in 2016 -- The Big Difference Between a McCain or Obama Administration:

"income inequality stays about the same under Democratic administrations but grows consistently under Republicans."

This isn’t saying much about Democrats, but it says even less about Republicans who’s campaigns, you should remember, are funded by the companies that determine your salary.

"although Republicans on average are worse for the economy than Democrats, there's one specific period when they're better: during election years…we've known that voters don't respond to average economic conditions. They respond almost exclusively to economic conditions during election years."

Color me skeptical, but how can anyone be sure how voters “respond” during non-election years? Voters have very few tools to fight these trends, but one tool they do have IS their vote. It’s not that voters aren’t responding during non-election years; it’s that no one is asking in non-election years.

"Why is there such a partisan difference in economic performance during election years? Bartels's answer reaches back to the "honeymoon period," the first year after an election, during which presidents have the maximum leverage to implement their economic program. Democrats tend to focus on employment and middle-class wage growth, which is reflected in things like job creation programs, increases in the minimum wage, more generous EITC benefits, worker-friendly appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, pro-unionization policies, and so forth. The result is a spike in economic activity, but it's a spike that has mostly worn off by the fourth year of their term.

Republicans, by contrast, tend to focus their honeymoon period on tax cuts for high earners and inflation-fighting measures. This may produce poor economic results on average, but it turns out to be timed to briefly produce a spike in activity three years in the future. Add in some extra generous spending just before election years and a possible partisan boost from the Fed (research by University of Texas economist James K. Galbraith suggests that, controlling for economic conditions, the Fed's monetary policy during election years is looser for Republican presidents than for Democrats), and you get consistently great economic performance during campaign seasons."

I’m not sure this election year reflects this very well since the economy is in the tank and Bush isn’t doing much for regular people, but I do get his point. If you remember, despite all Bush’s support from social conservatives in 2000, their issues were, clearly, never a priority. When Bush got elected, was his first priority to ban gay marriage? Abortion? No. First and foremost, Bush went after the tax cuts for the wealthy and immediately began funneling money to the military industrial complex.

"If Republicans really are consistently worse for the economy, how could they ever get elected? The answer is that while they may not perform well on average, they do perform well during the one year in four when it counts."

This can be evidenced by the fact that the end of McCain’s campaign has been all about “Joe the plumber”, but the last eight years have been much more about “Joe the CEO.” The Bush administration has never failed to put the interests of large corporations ahead of the rights of regular people, and there’s no reason to suspect, despite what he says this month, that a McCain administration would be any different.

"If Obama wins, poor families will see their incomes grow by more than $6,000 during the next eight years. If McCain wins their incomes will grow by less than $1,000. If Obama wins, middle-class families will see their incomes grow by about $13,000 during the next eight years. If McCain wins their incomes will grow by about $5,000. If Obama wins (hold on to your hats for this one), rich families will see their incomes grow by about $36,000 during the next eight years. If McCain wins their incomes will grow by about $32,000. "

It’s wishful thinking and I hope he’s right. But even if everything Drum declares is true, will it mean you see bigger and more frequent salary increases if Obama wins? I doubt it. Not unless something even bigger than the Presidency changes first. There’s an even more powerful force at work here: greed.

More on that tomorrow.