Posted on 06/10/2007 3:04:11 PM PDT by Kaslin
WASHINGTON -- Early in George W. Bush's presidency, liberal critics said: The economy is not growing. Which was true. He inherited the debris of the 1990s' irrational exuberances. A brief (eight months) and mild (the mildest since World War II) recession began in March 2001, before any of his policies were implemented. It ended in November 2001.
In 2002, when his tax cuts kicked in and the economy began 65 months -- so far -- of uninterrupted growth, critics said: But it is a "jobless recovery." When the unemployment rate steadily declined -- today it is 4.5 percent; time was, 6 percent was considered full employment -- critics said: Well, all right, the economy is growing and creating jobs and wealth, but the wealth is not being distributed in accordance with the laws of God or Nature or liberalism or something.
Last Sunday, eight Democratic presidential candidates debated for two hours, saying about the economy ... next to nothing. You must slog to page 43 in the 51-page transcript before Barack Obama laments that "the burdens and benefits of this new global economy are not being spread evenly across the board" and promises to "institute some fairness in the system."
Well. When in the long human story have economic burdens and benefits been "spread evenly"? Does Obama think they should be, even though talents never are? What relationship of "fairness" does he envision between the value received by individuals and the value added by them? Does he disagree -- if so, on what evidence? -- with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke that "the influence of globalization on inequality has been moderate and almost surely less important than the effects of skill-biased technological change"?
What Samuel Johnson said of Milton's "Paradise Lost" can be said of the debate's short discussion of economic matters: No one could wish it longer. Granted, the candidates had bigger fish to fry -- one another, for their various positions on starting and ending the war. And the questioners set the debate's agenda. But if the Democrats had anything pithy to say about the economy, they would have said it.
They have a problem. How do you exclaim, as Hillary Clinton does, that today's economy is "like going back to the era of the robber barons," and insist that the nation urgently needs substantial tax increases, in the face of these facts:
In the 102 quarters since Ronald Reagan's tax cuts went into effect more than 25 years ago, there have been 96 quarters of growth. Since the Bush tax cuts and the current expansion began, the economy's growth has averaged 3 percent per quarter and more than 8 million jobs have been created. The deficit as a percentage of GDP is below the post-World War II average.
Democrats, economic hypochondriacs, all see economic sickness. They should get on with legislating their cure.
Twenty-three months after the next president is inaugurated, the Bush tax cuts expire. The winner of the 2008 election and her or his congressional allies will determine what is done about the fact that, unless action is taken, in 2011 the economy will be walloped:
The five income tax brackets (10, 25, 28, 33 and 35 percent) will be increased 50, 12, 10.7, 9.1 and 13.1 percent, respectively, to 15, 28, 31, 36 and 39.6 percent. The child tax credit reverts to $500 from $1,000. The estate tax rate, which falls to zero in 2009, will snap back to a 60 percent maximum and exemptions that have increased will decrease. The capital gains rate will rise and the marriage penalty will be revived, as will the double taxation of dividends.
Furthermore, the Alternative Minimum Tax was enacted by Democratic moralists in 1969 because 21 millionaires had legally avoided paying any income tax. The AMT, which allows almost no deductions, had one rate (24 percent) until 1993, when Democrats replaced it with two (26 percent and 28 percent). It has never been indexed for inflation and in the current tax year will hit almost one in five households -- 23 million of them.
Democrats need not confine themselves to their ritual tropes about how "the middle class is under assault" (Clinton again). They control Congress; they can act. The unemployed John Edwards, who has the luxury of irresponsibility, challenges Democrats to repeal the Bush tax cuts they disapprove of rather than wait for them to expire.
Democrats cannot end the war (actually, they can but won't) but they can send their tax agenda to the president and dare him to veto it. They can but they won't. Do you wonder why?
Wills said something positive about Bush! Quick look out the window! Pigs must be flying!
Bush has done a few positive things during his term, I will have to scratch my head to remember, but he has done them well.
Taxcuts, most Conservative Judges appointed to the Federal Judicary ever, first elements of privitization introduced into an entitlement program ever. First serious attempt at SS reform etc etc etc
Maybe if the Ultra Conservatives were not so busy screaming hate because not only 100% of only what they personally wanted got done in DC, they might remember some simple facts.
But that right, we don’t want no stinking facts! We have all the “reality” we need on the Right these days. Just tune in to your favorite lunatic ranter on the Radio, or on the ‘Net and tune out ALL factual reality.
Dogma Uber Alles! No facts allowed!
I blame Bush.
That you, Algore?
“attempt at SS reform etc etc etc”
We don’t give credit for failure, that would be the Demcoratic Party, and why didn’t bush et al fight as hard for Social Security reform as they are for the wildly unpopular Amnesty proposal?
“Maybe if the Ultra Conservatives were not so busy screaming hate because not only 100% of only what they personally wanted got done in DC, they might remember some simple facts.”
Maybe if bush listened to the people who put him into office he there wouldn’t be such screaming after all only HE wants “what is best for America” a purely liberal talking point.
Republicans have done a poor job to informing the public about the impact of the losing the Bush tax cuts. Also, I think the Republicans have played nice far too long. See:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1845782/posts
for some talking points.
“Republicans” have never wanted to support W. They want to throw a hissy fit and blame him for their losses in elections.
All WH initiatives have been scorned by the so-called “base”. They’re quiet about tax cuts, because they know those work. But when you’re in a reflexive knee-jerk anti-Bush stance, it’s difficult to say anything good about his policies.
Speaking of lunatic ranters, have you had issues with 'America's favorite lunatic ranter'... I don't see you hosting his live threads anymore ? Just wonderin' .. :)
How sad...whatever happened to public service instead of self-service?
IIRC President Bush went all over the country giving speeches about this for many months. He couldn't just stay in Washington and do it from there as the MSM does not even cover most of the things that he does. By going all over the country, he got publicity from local media which at least covered the events.
Something definitely needs to be done about Social Security and our leftist politicians know it. They just do not want him to have any victory on anything. They got old people to be afraid that they would lose their SS checks, which they knew was a complete lie. Lying for the cause seems to be OK with the left.
It disappeared when politics became a very lucrative career.
PING for George Will on Economy.
“I will have to scratch my head to remember”
April 15th is a good reminder - the Bush tax cuts WORKED.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.