Oh, it is a wonderful economy if you are in the top one percent. It's not even all that terrible if you are in the upper 20% (though it isn't great, either). But when you look at people in the lower 80 percent of the income range, there is no cherry on top of their sundae from this so-called economic recovery.

We've seen the statistics that show the mortality rate for non-Hispanic, middle-aged white Americans is now increaseing for the first time in decades. And this decrease in life expectancy has affected poor, less-educated white women the hardest.

And while the reasons postulated for this reversal in life expectancy among the group that has generally fared the best in the past are as numerous as there are pundits on cable TV shows to pontificate on it, let me suggest that one particular factor may play a significant role. Guess which one. Yes, that's correct. It's the economy stupid. Particularly the economy that has done little for those who are not among the upper strata of wealth and income in our great land of the free, and home of the brave.

In the ten years between 2004 and 2014, median income (i.e., the level of income that splits the top half from the bottom half) fell 13 percent. What's worse, is that household expenditures increased by roughly 14 percent. Indeed, since 1996, "[t]he typical household saw its expenditures grow by more than 25 percent, from $29,400 in 1996 to $36,800 in 2014," (after adjusting for inflation) with the majority of that increase coming from spending on basic necessities such as food, housing, transportation and health care. Here is a nice chart from the recent PEW issue brief, "Household Expenditures and Income," that shows the growing disparity between what poor and middle class Americans pay for basic necessities versus their ever declining incomes.

As you can see quite clearly, income for most people continues to trend downward, while expenses for the typical family have risen even more sharply, despite the much heralded economic recovery proclaimed by President Obama and the media in January. In truth, this issue is the one that that establishment politicians and the media have done their best to avoid discussing whenever possible: that for many, many people around the country the recession never ended. Arguably, for most of them it has gotten worse. Take a look at this graphic of data compiled by PEW study that shows how much more typical household costs eat into a family's income in 2014 compared to 1996.

Even after adjusting for inflation, it's clear that increases in the cost of housing, food and health care have placed a significant financial burden on middle class and poor families following two decades of the neo-liberal economic policies that have been promoted and adopted by both Republican and Democratic administrations, beginning with President Bill Clinton. Is it any wonder that a neo-fascist clown such as Donald Trump is well ahead in the Republican Presidential race. Though he rabidly pushes racism and appeals to bigotry, he is also the only Republican candidate who loudly proclaims that trade deals such as NAFTA have harmed the working class.

In many speeches he makes a point of declaring that he will raise high tariffs on goods imported by companies that shut down manufacturing plants in America and shipped jobs overseas. Other than Sanders, no other major candidate in either party is pushing this populist theme as hard, one which appeals to many of the very people who have suffered the most over the last twenty years as they've watched any financial security they might have once have enjoyed wither into nothingness.

Most of the data in the latest [Federal reserve] survey, frankly, are less than earth-shattering: 49 percent of part-time workers would prefer to work more hours at their current wage; 29 percent of Americans expect to earn a higher income in the coming year; 43 percent of homeowners who have owned their home for at least a year believe its value has increased. But the answer to one question was astonishing. The Fed asked respondents how they would pay for a $400 emergency. The answer: 47 percent of respondents said that either they would cover the expense by borrowing or selling something, or they would not be able to come up with the $400 at all.

Yet, it seems the establishments of both major parties have no real incentive to change their current views on trade or the economy, as the vast majority of the funds that fuel their campaigns come from contributions bundled by industry lobbyists, or in unlimited amounts of cash contributed directly by multinational companies and billionaires to Super Pacs that favor incumbents at every level of government who vote to maintain the status quo. Just as supposedly only Nixon could thaw relations with Russia and China at the height of the Cold War, we now see Democratic administrations successfully work to push through trade deals favorable to large corporations at the expense of our own workers and the environment.

Perhaps surprisingly, or perhaps not, economists have done little research on the issue of financial insecurity that so many of us deal with on a daily basis. As one economist recently said, it's a "new area of research" for many of them.

David Johnson, an economist who studies income and wealth inequality at the University of Michigan, says, “People studied savings and debt. But this concept that people aren’t making ends meet or the idea that if there was a shock, they wouldn’t have the money to pay, that’s definitely a new area of research”—one that’s taken off since the Great Recession. According to Johnson, economists have long theorized that people smooth their consumption over their lifetime, offsetting bad years with good ones—borrowing in the bad, saving in the good. But recent research indicates that when people get some money—a bonus, a tax refund, a small inheritance—they are, in fact, more likely to spend it than to save it. “It could be,” Johnson says, “that people don’t have the money” to save. Many of us, it turns out, are living in a more or less continual state of financial peril.

Sanders and Trump have made opposition to unfair trade agreements a major part of their economic platform. Bernie has gone even farther, of course, seeking to increase social security, provide free college education, raise the minimum wage to $15, propose massive infrastructure investment, and provide single payer health care for all as a universal right. I think it is safe to say that his campaign has forced Hillary Clinton to respond by moving in his direction regarding these matters.

When you go to the issues page of Hillary Clinton's campaign website, she has no specific topic devoted to her positions on improving the lives of the working class. You have to do some of digging to tease out what she says she will do to improve the economy for people outside her own class. For example, here's what her "Plan to Win the Global Competition for Advanced Manufacturing Jobs" states as its main goal regarding trade agreements:

Set a high bar for trade agreements, ensuring they create good American jobs, raise wages, and advance our national security.

She also says that, regarding trade and economic policies, she will pursue the following as President:

Make trade enforcement and leveling the playing field for American workers and businesses a critical presidential priority.

Crack down on currency manipulation and work with labor and business to take tough actions against unfair trade practices and the theft – physical and virtual – of America’s inventions, both by using the laws we have and seeking new authority where existing rules aren’t enough.

Boost resources to vigorously and consistently prosecute trade violations, for everything from investing in the latest technology to hiring trade analysts, subject-matter experts, and translators.

If you can tell me what that entails regarding specific proposals and actions she'll take as President regarding existing trade agreements, or those, such as the TPP, which may yet be approved by Congress before the next President assumes office, you're far more clairvoyant than I. Nonetheless, for your edification and mine, her are a list of many of the main components of her plans to revitalize our economy from links found at her campaign website:

Tax relief for communities hardest hit by the loss of manufacturing jobs.

Tax relief and support for research and innovation in America, particularly at smaller businesses and startups.

Appoint a "a new chief trade prosecutor reporting directly to the president, triple the number of trade enforcement officers and build new early-warning systems so we can intervene before trade violations cost American jobs."

Close loopholes and end tax write-offs for companies that ship jobs overseas.

End inversions - a tax avoidance scheme that lets US corporations park profits offshore to avoid the corporate earnings tax.

Get tough with China.

Invest in infrastructure.

Support working families through:

Strengthening unions and protecting worker bargaining power.

Raise the minimum wage and strengthen overtime rules.

Support equal pay, paid family leave, earned sick days, fair schedules, and quality affordable child care.

Help students by:

Encourage proven, high-quality training and apprenticeships – including a $1,500 tax credit for every apprentice hired through a bona fide apprenticeship program

Allow federal student aid to be used toward high-quality career and technical training programs with promising or proven records—including traditional career and technical education, and innovative, flexible online programs.

Promote "public-private partnership that helps smaller American manufacturers compete."

Provide tuition-free community college, and reduce student debt by allowing students to refinance their loans.

It sounds impressive, until you realize how many moving parts are involved, and that the only "bi-partisan support" for any of these goals will probably focus on the tax relief aspects of it. The Republicans in Congress will oppose everything else. And many of her statements I found are rather vague and lack specifics as to how her proposals will be funded. In short, assuming she does indeed tend to make the economy a priority, her goals seem to me no more achievable at present than those suggested by Sanders, and she seeks to do far less than he does. To make any headway, she's going to need a victory in the November election that brings in a wave of Democrats who will support her in Congress and make the case for her agenda.

So far, Clinton's campaign has not chosen to emphasize her economic plans and policy proposals very often. Instead, it has been quick to criticize Bernie's proposals and, of course, go negative by attacking his character and integrity - he's racist, he's sexist, he doesn't care about minorities, and of course, my favorite, that his supporters are all vile Bernie Bros who are spreading right wing talking points about her.

For the most part, she's chosen to promote herself - her experience, her judgment, her electability - far more often than she's chosen to make the case for her agenda; her vision for improving the lot of millions of ordinary Americans, many of them independents who are quite cynical regarding the real motivations of both parties, people who are desperately struggling to keep their financial heads above water.

So, yes, her website does provides links to lists of bullet points regarding her economic "plan" that, to be fair, are no more or less or detailed than one would expect from any candidate in the middle of a hard fought campaign for the Presidency. But at some point, she needs to go beyond attacking her rivals, Democratic and Republican alike. She needs to make the case to all those people who are struggling that she has a vision for an economic recovery that includes them at its core. In my view, her ability to convince those people that she can be and will be their champion will determine whether she can win the support of independents and Sanders supporters who are drawn to him not because of who he is or his charisma, but because of the power of his populist message.

If Clinton truly wants those votes, which I believe will be crucial to making gains for Democrats in Congress, she will need to do more than stick to the standard, and by now tired, Democratic message that voters must choose her because the Republican candidate is so much worse. She must inspire the same enthusiasm for her candidacy that Sanders did with his supporters, and that Trump, for so many ugly and despicable reasons, has inspired among his.

Whether she can do that will go a long way to determining how well she does in the general election. Her ability to help elect down ticket Democrats to the House and Senate requires a positive message that appeals to people who feel that they have been abandoned by both parties. Assuming she wins in November (and at this point one would have to rate her the favorite, if not yet a prohibitive one), her administration will ultimately be judged as successful or not depending on if she is seen as the President who restored our economy to one that it works for everyone, and not just the few at the top.