Good economic news
in eye of beholder
On June 1, the economic news looked good, so Trump tweeted (prematurely) taking credit for it.
It was the 92nd consecutive month of job creation since October 2010, early in Obama's first term. Figures showed the lowest unemployment rate in 18 years, from the end of Clinton's presidency. While this suggested Democratic administrations were the real job creators, it is not clear how much credit or blame any president can take for economic conditions.
Deeper in the newspaper article we learn the unemployment rate went down because of "a reduction in the size of the labor force." Fewer people were looking, so more of them were finding jobs. It wasn't explained who had stopped looking or why.
We don't know how many of the new jobs pay subsistence wages, if they include any benefits such as health insurance or retirement plans, or even if they are full-time. Also, economists are puzzled because wages aren't rising very fast, barely ahead of inflation. Some of them think it might possibly have to do with the decline of unions.
Economic news in the mainstream media is almost always from the supply-side, about markets and investors. About the Feds and their great fear of inflation if wages go up and unemployment goes down. For the Feds, good news tends to be bad news.
On June 6, the newspaper reported about the long-term financial outlook for Medicare and Social Security. As usual, officials said that both trust funds would be unable to pay full benefits in a decade or two. As usual, the article didn't mention proposed tweaks such as taking off the cap on income subject to Social Security.
Any income over $400 a year is subject to payroll tax, except that any income over $118,500 a year is not subject to payroll tax. Ironically, those who complain loudest about taxes are talking about the progressive income tax, not the very regressive payroll tax.
According to the June 6 article, the Treasury said income to the Medicare fund will be lower than estimated because of "lower payroll taxes attributable to lowered wages in 2017." So which is it, dudes, a modest rise in wages or lowered wages? Get your stories straight.
For once, I'd like to get mainstream media explanations from the viewpoint of working people, not investors and bankers.
Coralie Koonce
Fayetteville
Open borders support
naive or part of agenda
Regarding Brother Lowell [Grisham's] recent column in the Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, he is either naive or he has a dark agenda.
Grisham seems to suggest we should open the United States to any and all immigrants who want to come. No vetting, no background checks and no checks regarding disease or mental stability. No problem if they have no means to support themselves or their family. Radical terrorists, whatever, all are welcome. Just show the millions who would come love and all will be well.
Preposterous! Grisham's other claims are ludicrous, such as: Immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native born people; they are twice as likely to start a business; all pay property taxes and illegals pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits. These last few stupid claims destroy his credibility.
As I said before, Lowell is either naive or has an agenda, either of which is dangerous and certainly shows no respect for our "rule of law." He should take a look at the problems Europe is experiencing as a result of being overwhelmed with migrants, primarily lslamists.
Harlan Phillips
Bella Vista
Commentary on 06/15/2018