Today’s new census numbers confirm the disproportionality of President Bush’s economic expansion. Unfortunately, the president’s economic policies — which were supposed to serve as “a rising tide that raised all boats” — have redistributed wealth to the richest Americans and left the middle and lower classes behind.

And while the new data “did show an uptick for 2007,” years of declining income and earnings outweigh this most recent growth.

Taking the new census numbers into account, most Americans lost money during the Bush expansion:

- Median household incomes down: 0.6% lower in 2007 than in 2000

- Men’s earnings down: 0.38% less in 2007 than in 1999

- Women’s earnings can’t keep up: continued upward swing but were unable to “overcome other drags on household income”

- More Americans in poverty: 5.7 million more people lived in poverty in 2007 than did in 2000

The Center for Policy and Budget Priorities notes, “never before on record has poverty been higher and median income for working-age households lower at the end of a multi-year economic expansion than at the beginning. The new data add to the mounting evidence that the gains from the 2001-2007 expansion were concentrated among high-income Americans.”

A new Center for American Progress report graphically presents the severity of the income redistribution:

Today, during an appearance on Fox News, McCain adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer dismissed the Tax Policy Center’s conclusion that Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) tax plan would increase the deficit. Pfotenhauer argued that the center was a “liberal think tank” that did not analyze “the spending side” of McCain’s plan:

[We'll] keep the growth rate in federal spending to about 2.4 percent. I love Austin’s statement that we are going to somehow balloon the deficit. First, the Tax Policy Center is a liberal think tank run by former Clinton-ites and Jason Furman worked there up until about two months ago. But set that aside. They don’t look at the spending side, they only look at the tax side.

Watch it:

But even conservative economists who have looked at the “spending side” of the senator’s plan, believe that his proposal would only add to the deficit:

- “The spending cuts are far too vague to be counted on for significant savings and, even if they were more specific, I can’t see how they would come close to offsetting the level of tax cuts he recommends.” [Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition]

- “[But] I am worried that continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will tear apart our social fabric and defeat any economic proposal to reduce the deficit and stimulate growth. Guns are crowding out butter.” [Michael Connolly, Professor of Economics, University of Miami]

- “He’s not going to balance the budget.” [William Albrecht, professor emeritus at the University of Iowa]

In July, the McCain campaign falsely suggested that 300 economists agreed that the senator’s economic plan could reduce the deficit and balance the budget by 2013. When contacted by reporters many of those economists — Connolly and Albrecht included — actually expressed deep reservations about McCain’ pledge to reduce the deficit.

Our guest blogger is Brian Levine, a senior policy advisor at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

This morning, we learned that 37.3 million Americans are living in poverty. Every year, the release of these numbers brings a wave of attention to the plight of the poor. This year, it might even prompt some curious voters to check out the websites of the presidential candidates. But don’t bother scouring JohnMcCain.com looking for the Senator’s poverty plan – it doesn’t exist.

Visitors to JohnMcCain.com can learn where the Republican nominee stands on the Second Amendment, “liberal judicial activists” — even the space program. While John McCain “understands the importance of investing in key industries such as space,” he apparently does not understand the importance of helping the 37.3 million Americans living in poverty right here on Planet Earth.

You can’t really blame John McCain for ignoring poverty. After all, it would take $90 billion a year to cut poverty in half. That might seem like a reasonable cost for lifting more than 18 million people over the poverty line. But McCain doesn’t have room in his budget – he needs $100 billion a year for his corporate tax break and there better be enough left over to deliver a $992,000 tax cut to each household in the top 0.1 percent of the income scale.

Maybe John McCain will come up with a poverty plan sometime between now and the election. In the meantime, at least we know that in a McCain Administration, the poor will be protected from activist judges and anti-astronaut zealots.