NYT, V8, and the Economy

It’s the first day of spring semester classes here at ESU. Only 6 minutes into my five credit hour Spanish course I was back out in the hall wondering what the heck to do with my 54 minutes before my next class began. I indirectly walked to the coffee shop, spent 1.09 on a mere 16oz of Fake-uccino and picked up a free (free only if you are enrolled and have paid your $2000 tuition/subscription fee ) copy of the New York Times. As a proud resident of rural USA I typically steer clear of the NYT for obvious opinionated and regionally relevant reasons (three points for alliteration), but because I still had the greater part of an hour to burn and my mind set on learning something, I decided to see what New Yorkers found to be newsworthy today. Two articles caught my attention right away.
The first was about the decline in production of the V-8 engine. It finaly accured to someone other than myself that all those high falutin’ SUV owners didn’t actually NEED 350 horses to carry their two kids to soccer practice. So Ford, Chevy, and Crystler are going to use more “turbo charged V6 engines.” In a response to the fuel economy savings I expect those with more money than brains to start fires in their yards and driveways (may lead to an increase in the housing market). The good news is that niche vehicles (those vehicles that actually use the power supplied by a good ole’ V8) will remain as high powered as ever, honestly though I imagine that soon all new trucks will be diesel powered, as diesels are more fuel efficient and have a readily available alternative fuel source. As I write this I realize that those who know me well know that my ’91 Silverado chugs gallons of gas with its V8… well…. I use it… it pulls a trailer… and I promise to buy a diesel… when they sell for a reasonable price… and I’m rich.
The second article caught my attention was in the business section. While I can’t remember the exact wording in the title, I’m pretty sure it went something like “Economic recession as depressing as ’92.” While the article did not seem to shed any new light on the state of the American economy, it was… well… depressing. Tax cuts help mostly the super wealthy and corporations, average wage rising much slower than inflation, bad loans hurt banks… And so on. It reminded me of a brief conversation I had with my former employer just after I was rejected for a well deserved raise. As he sat in the break-room reading a newspaper and I got stuff from my locker, “Damn, the price of everything is going up…” says he to no one in particular.
“Hah! Yeah, everything but the price of labor!” I exclaim with gusto. (Gusto may be an unnecessary adverb when paired with exclaim… but I like it.)
“Hrumph” he grumbles as he exits quickly.
It’s true, and I don’t think it’s that big of a secret. The poor are getting poorer because the cost of living is increasing and the minimum wage job they work is stagnant. I am aware of the recent increase in minimum wage, but it is honestly not enough. I’d like to see the congressmen/women live on $7.15 an hour.
So now the economy is a huge election issue, as it should have been without question. I even heard Obama say something about an increase in minimum wage… $9.50 he proposes… I’d like to see that get through congress. As I watch the election details unwind one thing keeps coming to mind. While the economy as a whole in on the decline, the advertising industry must be rolling in the cash right now. Senator McCain spent nearly half a million in advertising in Michigan alone…. But that pales in comparison to Michigan’s republican primary winner, Mitt Romney. He spent over a million dollars…. That’s a one with six zero’s behind it. When are we going to put a cap on how much money a person can spend on advertising? This is ridiculous. Millions of dollars spent every week to sling mud at opponents. If you want that damn much air time all you have to do is cry or say something racist (I hear belittling MLK works quite well). Although most of the problems I point out would be difficult to solve, and I’m mostly unwilling to give any sort of solution, I think this one is easy. Each candidate should set up a fund for advertising. This fund MUST not be over, say, two million dollars. Any further money donated, raised, or otherwise acquired for advertising will be put into an umbrella fund and will be used to advertise for ALL the top/serious candidates. Imagine a world where there were ads that simply prompted viewers to vote for someone…. Anyone… just vote.
That’s what is so great about this country. People get to decide who their leader is… I mean… that’s the idea… right? But seriously… for the most part… after the elite have selected a few people for us to chose from… we get to pick the character traits that we find to be most fitting of a leader… well… sorta. At least we only have to be under that leadership for a max of eight years. I mean… that’s a good start. A nation shouldn’t be under one persons rule for too long… When you’re going the wrong way just about any turn is good… I mean…. If you’re going south and you need to go north…. Well… east is a start.

Now that I’m on the topic… another thing that was mentioned in the depressing economic article was that Hillary has the same economic adviser that her husband had. This is, by far, the best thing I have heard about that… for lack of a nicer term… senator. So… although I would prefer a nation under the lead of… well almost anyone else, I’ve decided not to flee the nation if Clinton wins…. Ech…. I just threw up a little…. Because maybe she could help the econ…. I can’t finish that sentence… the Dark Side has apparently clouded my judgment… I should never have picked up that paper.