February 24, 2004

Consumer confidence tanks

The closely watched Conference Board assessment of consumer confidence dropped to its lowest level since October – and took its biggest one-month dive since before the Iraq war. The number, 87.3, came in below Wall Street’s already lowered expectations, and was down sharply from 96.4 in January. The Conference Board’s survey has two components, current situation and future expectations. Both were down. The expectations component is considered particularly important as a gauge of likely consumer spending six months or so into the future. Consumer spending is ultimately responsible for about two-thirds of U.S. economic output. Many analysts believe that tax refunds will help prop up the economy at least in the short term. But the big issue is still jobs – or rather, the lack of them. “Consumers began the year on a high note, but their optimism has quickly given way to caution,” said Lynn Franco, Director of The Conference Board’s Consumer Research Center. “Consumers remain disheartened with current economic conditions, and at the core of their disenchantment is the labor market. While the current expansion has generated jobs over the past several months, the pace of creation remains too tepid to generate a sustainable turnaround in consumers’ confidence. And, with consumers anticipating economic conditions to remain about the same in the months ahead, their short-term outlook turned less optimistic.” The job recovery from the recession that began early in 2000 has been among the most sluggish on record.

Posted by tbrown at 02:03 PM

Stumping

While the conference board was readying its numbers for release today, President Bush was opening his re-election bid. His key assertions: he’s doing a good job in the war on terror and on the economy: “We have a record of historic achievement. And most important, we have a positive vision for the years ahead -- for winning the war against terror, for extending peace and freedom, and creating jobs and opportunity here at home.” The president got in a couple of good jabs: At his presumed Democratic opponent, Sen. John Kerry: “The other party's nomination battle is still playing out. The candidates are an interesting group, with diverse opinions: For tax cuts, and against them. For NAFTA, and against NAFTA. For the Patriot Act, and against the Patriot Act. In favor of liberating Iraq, and opposed to it. And that's just one senator from Massachusetts.” (The Kerry camp denied he was inconsistent on these issues.) At opponents of the war: “They now agree that the world is better off with Saddam Hussein out of power; they just didn't support removing Saddam from power. Maybe they were hoping he'd lose the next Iraqi election." The one piece of news was that Vice President Dick Cheney, who is beginning to look more a detriment than a help to the president, will be on the ticket with him again: “ … I have taken the measure of this man. They don't come any better, and I am proud to have Dick Cheney by my side.” Otherwise, the speech – while highly partisan and, no doubt, what the solid GOP base wants to hear – struck me as both wooden and disingenuous. That may just be me. The full text is here. Decide for yourself. Update: I guess it is just me. Bill Clinton's former chief speechwriter, who would have to be considered an expert witness, gives Bush high marks for this one.

Posted by tbrown at 02:01 PM

Bush will support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage

That’s the headline. The real story is that the amendment not only would ban gay marriage, it looks like it would deny them the rights of civil unions and domestic partnerships as well. Here’s what the proposed amendment says: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.” It’s that “legal incidents thereof” that may extend the amendment beyond just marriage, as a law prof explains here. Andrew Sullivan, an influential blogger and a gay, says Bush has “launched a civil war against the rights of gay citizens and their families.” He has a lot to say, and it’s well worth reading. He follows up with additional posts here. Town Hall rounds up some of the pro-amendment sentiment, including this from the Heritage Foundation: “Activist judges and local officials in several states have shown a disregard for laws which protect traditional marriage. By their precipitous action, these officials have sought to freeze out the voice of the people, creating a new social order by judicial fiat. It is now the prudent course-for the sake of constitutional government and the sake of marriage-to amend the United States Constitution to define marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman.” Washington Post columnist William Raspberry has an excellent piece today centered around David Blankenhorn of the Institute for American Values, who thinks the debate over same-sex marriage mostly misses the point: “What got me into this whole field some 15 years ago was the disturbing phenomenon of father absence. Thirty-five percent of our children are living without their fathers, a fact that exacerbates a whole range of social problems — and almost the entire problem of father absence is due to heterosexual behavior. But that doesn't make the opponents of gay marriage wrong. " … in a liberal society, a lot of our difficult choices are between two goods. That's the case here. There is the social good of equal dignity for all people. I support that. Equal dignity is a very American idea, in theory if not always in practice. "On the other hand, if there is one thing in this life I know, it's that children need mothers and fathers. …”

Posted by tbrown at 01:59 PM

Teachers as ‘terrorists’

Maybe the folks at the National Review are joking, just like our secretary of education said he was. But it’s a bad joke.

Posted by tbrown at 01:16 PM