Strong? Part 2 (OR More Data)

From the Wall Street Journal:

Workers with professional degrees, such as doctors and lawyers, were the only educational group to see their inflation-adjusted earnings increase over the most recent economic expansion, adding to the concern that the economy has benefited higher-earning Americans at the expense of others.

Given this, the Republicans are berating Democrats in Congress for not wanting to “give Americans access to American oil,” presumably to ease their financial burdens. A burden which happens to be more severe because they’re making, effectively, less money than they were before President Bush was elected. And, how much diffence will this make?

The idiocy of this is nicely summarized by Sen. Whitehouse (D-RI): (via digby)

WHITEHOUSE: Gentlemen, we’re in the middle of a near total mortgage system meltdown in this country. We have a health care system that burns 16 percent of our GDP, in which the Medicare liability alone has been estimated at $34 trillion. We’re burning $10 billion a month in Iraq.

This administration has run up $7.7 trillion in national debt, by our calculation. And there is worsening evidence every day of global warming, with worsening environmental and national security and economic ramifications. In light of those conditions, do any of you seriously contend that drilling for more oil is the number one issue facing the American people today?

(Long silent pause during which nobody answers.)

WHITEHOUSE: No, it doesn’t seem so

Improvement? (OR Missing the target)

President Bush declared yesterday that the solution to high oil prices is drilling, throwing his political weight (such as it is) behind Sen. McCain.

Rayola Dougher at the American Petroleum Institute says those deposits could boost the nation’s oil supply by one to two million barrels a day within seven years.

Seven? As in 70% of a decade? Seriously? This is the answer to high oil prices? You’re kidding, right?

Seriously, if the answer to our problems is seven years out, wouldn’t it make sense to take the initial steps towards a sustainable solution, like more efficient cars?

The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy figures the nation will save an equivalent amount — two million barrels a day — just from the latest increase in fuel efficiency requirements for cars, but not until 2025.

Yeah, those pathetic increases in CAFE standards… Congress had a chance to pass legislation that would actually be helpful but whiffed (or maybe fouled it off). So now we have to hear that further exploiting our planet is a good idea. All so we can save a few cents on gas IN SEVEN YEARS!

This sounds like a typical Republican ploy. Find a destructive and ineffective policy that can be touted as the answer to all our problems and then attack your Democratic opponent for sensibly opposing it.

Which then begs the question: Does the support of a President with a 75% disapproval rate actually help you get elected?