When Presidential Silence Is Golden
Americans actually listen when presidents talk about the economy - and that apparently makes fiscal matters worse, say two political scientists who discovered that consumer confidence tumbles following a presidential speech on economic matters.
“Presidential speechmaking on economic issues is, if the goal is to assuage the public, likely to be counterproductive, at least in the short run,” reported political scientists Robert L. Dudley and Alan J. Rosenblatt of Virginia’s George Mason University in a paper presented at the April meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. “Speeches focusing on economic issues do not serve to bolster consumer confidence. Instead our analysis demonstrates a fairly consistent negative effect of speeches on consumer sentiment.”
Dudley and Rosenblatt examined every presidential address between 1960 and 1992, from which they selected 32 speeches devoted to economic matters. Then they examined how attitudes toward the economy were affected by tracking subsequent changes in the University of Michigan’s Consumer Confidence Index, which is based on a monthly survey of attitudes toward the economy.
Overall, the consumer confidence index dropped by about 2 1/2 points in the quarter following a presidential speech on the economy, even after factoring in shifts in sentiment due to changes in inflation and unemployment. (This closely watched index currently stands at 88.4; movement of even a few points constitutes significant change.)
Republican presidents appeared to spook the public the most. “Speeches given by Republicans reduce consumer confidence by as little as 3 points and as much as 10 points,” they wrote.
Dudley said they expected to find that presidential speeches on the economy would boost confidence, not knock it down. “The public must feel that when the president talks about the economy, there must be something wrong,” he said, even when presidents are attempting to cheerlead or are delivering favorable news. “Just in talking about it, you signal it as an area of concern.”
These researchers’ advice to Clinton: Mum’s the word, at least on the economy. “It may be that presidents are well-served by their natural reluctance to speak of the economy during bad times,” they concluded. “It may well be that ‘Silence is golden.”’
Mr. Chips isn’t in the chips
Despite the bad rap being taken by public schools these days, a new study by the National Center for Education Statistics suggests that public school teachers are far better educated and much better paid than their colleagues in private and parochial schools. In fact, the annual base salary of the average full-time public school teacher was about $12,000 higher than his or her private school counterpart in 1991, the latest year for which data were available. And nearly half of all public school teachers had obtained a master’s degree, compared to less than a third of all private school teachers.
Among the largest associations of private and parochial schools, independent private schools (better known as prep schools) paid the most and employed the besteducated faculty, followed by Catholic schools and those affiliated with the Association of Christian Schools.
xxxx No parity in pay Public school teachers’ average base pay: $30,751. Private school teachers’ average base pay: $18,713 Parochial school teachers’ average base pay: $18,374