Boortz points out the obvious, this morning:

"Do you realize that at this point the story of the abuse of some Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison has received more press coverage for a longer period of time than did the story of the capture of Saddam Hussein? And just why is that? Come on, haven't you been listening? It's because the media believes the story of Abu Ghraib hurts George Bush, while the story of the capture of Saddam Hussein helps George Bush."

Assuming then, that he's right, we will see the media alternately ignoring the story, or trying to downplay it's impact, before the end of business today. I'll be back tommrow to say SITYS.

How will the liberal media slant the good news? Can anyone provide some possibilities? John Kerry must be having a bad day. First, Bill Clinton is mucking things up---and now the economy is greatly improving. It's enough to make a grown man cry. Where's Paul Krugman when you need him? I'm sure that he will have something negative to say.

Don't worry. The media will merely spin this as an unsustainable hyperinflationary expansion that will spurn Federal Reserve to raise the prime rate back to 15%, thus sending the economy back to level worse than the Great Depression. Don't believe me? Yesterday as I drove home, the news radio already were trumpetting that meme.

It's not the economy, stupid! This election will be decided on issues of prison management, not whether the voters have jobs!

This is good news. Now, if we can create 850000 jobs per month for the next few months we might even catch up to what the Bush administration projected in February.

Bithead-

(uh, Dan - sorry for the hijack)

I just heard that - I'm forward doing "Posse Com" stuff in Savannah for you know what.

Tried to call him from my mobile about (what I thought was) this weeks Army Times article.

It's one of the worst cases of what he (and you) describe, that I've seen in a long time. The article purports to "tell the news" about the next BCT from 2ID rotating out of Korea. But the whole thing is from the POV of how it affects 1 EMs girlfriend. It is unbelievable. I mean, I've seriously never seen anything like it.
Back at my hotel now, (obviously), and the next issue is already up.

So I've hung up. 30 May issue, if you have any better luck googling than me. If I can't find it, I'll type it up and drop it off at Neil's.

Again, sorry Dan - I'll wait for a topic to be valid, but if there is any link between Bits opening post and this thread it this: The economy story is being ignored for exactly the reason Bits and Boortz purport.

I was going to be snarky and simply post:

"Hey, What's this have to do with Abu Ghraib?", but I see that Bits beat me to it.

Any search suggestions

“Don't believe me? Yesterday as I drove home, the news radio already were trumpetting that meme.”

President Bush should have never been down in the polls for even one day concerning the nation’s economy. The unemployment rate has always been 5.7% or below. On top of that, our productivity increases have been superb. The major media never pulled this nonsense while Bill Clinton was running for reelection. I don’t claim to be another Richard Neustadt. However, can anyone point to even one instance in American history when a president worried about being reelected with similar economic numbers?

How bad did things get? I can offer you an anecdotal example. A friend of mine works in an advertising department of a major department store chain. These people are well paid and possess very secure jobs. And yet, a few months ago some were starting to panic about possibly losing their jobs!

“Funny thing -- in the service sectors thought to be most vulnerable to offshore outsourcing (financial activities, professional and business services) the number of payroll jobs are currently at their highest levels for the past year.”

I think I’m going to start crying. Dan Drezner apparently believes that many people are honestly confused rgarding the issue of outsourcing. Nothing could be further from the truth. This issue has only been used to push down President Bush’s poll numbers. The vast majority of professional economists agree with Dan’s assessment. Nonetheless, there is an unofficial policy enforced within the academic community: you don’t have to lie for the Democrat Party---but one is minimally expected to keep their mouths shut! Do you want a real good example of this phenomenon? An academic statistician appeared on NPR early during the Florida recount controversy. This woman went into great detail why a recount was virtually impossible. Imperfect Human beings, she asserted, will inevitably mess up. One error in 50,000 is enough to throw off the recount. I naively expected that this would become the standard meme. Who doubts that the Democrat academic machine got to her?

Increase in civilian labor force: 233
Increase in employment: 196
Increase in unemployment: 39

(Numbers are in thousands, seasonally adjusted and don't quite add up - presumably due to rounding. These numbers are taken from the respective BLS statistics.)

So is an increase in the number of unemployed really something to "cheer about"? But I guess we are just not supposed to look at that number, no, no, that would be "slanting the good news", as David Thomson writes.

I suppose one could point out that the unemployment rate follows a rather similar pattern to the one after the last recession. We are now roughly 2-3 years into a recovery and pretty much at exactly the same point (5.6 % unemployed) that we were at in 1995/6.

Funny thing is: the Clinton recovery worked just fine without budget-busting tax cuts.

Oh, and Saddam vs. Abu Ghraib? You've got to be kidding, right? The Bush administration makes Saddam disappear, nobody knows where he is, no trial has started or is about to start, and you expect the media to keep reporting - what? I can already see the headlines:

"Saddam has been captured, let's rejoice again - even though we don't actually have any new information whatsoever"

Oh, and when was the last report on Saddam's capture on Fox News? Haven't they also covered Abu Ghraib more than Saddam's capture? I guess they must have caught that "liberal media" virus, too...

New math electron?

The Bush administration projectd 2.6 million jobs created for 2004.

According to the BLS, here's the net jobs added each month:
January.. .159,000
February. ..83,000
March. ... .353,000
April. . . . ..346,000
May.. . . . ..248,000
Sum =.. .1,189,000 jobs

We just need to average around 200,000 jobs a month for the rest of the year to meet the projection. In fact, we're ahead of the pace needed to meet the projection for 2004.

850,000 per month would put us insanely out in front of the projection (being about 2.6 million in and of itself in three months).

David Thomson: "The unemployment rate has always been 5.7% or below."

Actually, no. It was at 5.8 % or above in 17 months from April 2002 to November 2003. The peak was at 6.3 % in June 2003. Prior to that, the last time it was that high was April 1994.

Again, sorry Dan - I'll wait for a topic to be valid, but if there is any link between Bits opening post and this thread it this: The economy story is being ignored for exactly the reason Bits and Boortz purport.

My point, exactly.

BigFire: Spin you say? Molly Ivins has that covered. Her syndicated column is about one company - one man really - whose fortunes in the growing economy leave just over a thousand employees waiting in the wind for the axe to fall. You'll need to read the column or another story to really know who Richard Strong is and what the details of his story are.

Ivins does ask this though, "Don't you just love these heartwarming stories of adventurous, risk-taking pioneer capitalists?". Sorry capitalists out there. One man's error casts a broad sword of judgement on us all.

She elaborates her position after heavily quoting a recent Center for American Progress report about the "REAL" state of the economy saying everything she can without violating the terms of her syndication contract.

And let me point out that the reason we're in an "economic recovery" is because of increased worker productivity – we work harder, they get the money.

Folks, this is what the Bush administration is really about. While we're all distracted with 9-11 and the war on terrorism, it is steadily making this country less fair and making life harder for most citizens. How long are you going to put any credence at all into what they tell you?

The Center for American Progress report and Molly Ivins both ignore the fact that the rate of borrowing is, maybe, kind of, sort of, up because interest rates are at record lows. I do appreciate her reachin out to the "folks" though.

Jody: "The Bush administration projectd 2.6 million jobs created for 2004."

Actually, no. It's a bit complicated. This was explained here:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/10/news/economy/jobs_forecast/

Basically, they projected that an average number would rise by 2.6 million. To achieve this, the economy would have to add about 3.8 million jobs, or about 320,000 per month. So far the average per month is about 238,000, so we are quite a bit behind their forecast.

But you are right that the 850,000 figure was too high. The economy would have to add an average of "only" 373,000 jobs per month (a number not seen in any month this year) for the rest of the year to meet the original forecast (which was played down by the administration soon after it was made).

Here is a link to an article concerning the national economy under Bush and Clinton:

“While President Bush's economic record is arguably better than the record Bill Clinton ran on in 1996, this truth is frequently obscured by unrelenting partisan criticism based more on fancy than fact. But the fact remains that the United States boasts the world's largest and most vibrant economy. It will stay that way so long as we are guided by a trust in what President Bush calls ‘the power and possibilities of freedom.’”

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/carter200402260852.asp

Remember, I said:

"...we will see the media alternately ignoring the story, or trying to downplay it's impact, before the end of business today...."

Looks like I was right, already. The press is already trying to downplay the story before the ink is dry.

Hindrocket points up an AP feed today:

The Associated Press notes that the jobs report "was good news for President Bush." But the AP wouldn't want anyone to draw the wrong conclusions, so it can't resist adding:

Still, the economy is far from the booming 1990s. Last month, 8.2 million people remained unemployed.

Thing is, as presented, the AP is lying. Hindrocket says, correctly:

It's always fun when liberals do statistics. Current unemployment rate: 5.6%. Average unemployment rate during the "booming 1990s": 5.76%.

SITYS.

The article posted by Dan is clearly false and misleading. After all, as John Kerry said, this is "the worst economy in the United States of America since the Great Depression when it comes to jobs."

Bithead: "Thing is, as presented, the AP is lying."

Very funny. How about a survey asking how many people think that the "booming 1990s" refers to "the ten years 1990-1999" (or is that 1991-2000?).

As I pointed out above, the recovery is following a very similar path as it did under Clinton, except Clinton pulled it off without budget-busting tax cuts.

Even Fox News picked up the AP quote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121763,00.html

The funny thing is that the AP report actually glossed over the 39,000 rise in (absolute) unemployment by rounding to the nearest 100,000. Yeah, THAT "liberal" media - leaves out no opportunity at giving Bush a free pass. ;-)

And, you think that one year differnece is going to alter the unemployment numbers in Clinton's favor, do you?

Remember, now, the economy was already tanking in the spring of 2000....

Bithead: "And, you think that one year differnece is going to alter the unemployment numbers in Clinton's favor, do you?"

Actually, yes (the average goes down from 5.75 % for 1990-1999 to 5.59 % for 1991-2000 - although given that all numbers are rounded to one decimal, that is not conclusive). But that's not the point I was trying to make.

I was arguing that "the booming 1990s" must refer to the actual boom years during the 1990s, not the entire decade. Your reply actually seems to confirm a similar interpretation, since you talk about Clinton, who, if I recall correctly, was not President during the entire 1990s.

If we just take the Clinton years (i.e. 1993-2000), the average unemployment rate was just 5.2 %. (If we exclude 1993, for which Clinton could hardly be held responsible, the average of the remaining seven years even goes down to 4.95 %!)

"Remember, now, the economy was already tanking in the spring of 2000...."

In the spring? Now that's news. At the end of 2000 it started to go down, yes, but not in the spring. In any case, the unemployment average for 2000 was 4.0 %, and it barely moved away from that figure (the year ended at 3.9 %). Unemployment only started to rise in January 2001. Must have been a vote of confidence by the economy in the new guy in the White House. :-)

Now, seriously, I actually believe that was pure coincidence. There will always be booms followed by recessions followed by recoveries, regardless of who is President. But the main question remains why did we have to bust the budget to have this kind of recovery, which is no better than the same phase of Clinton's recovery? And Clinton - gasp, shock, horror - actually raised taxes to achieve it? To achieve a great economic boom and a balanced budget, I mean. And John Kerry voted for all this, shame on him! Yes, yes, those Bush attack ads are giving a very accurate picture of the last ten years. Economic revisionism at its best.

Maybe you guys should get your facts straight before accusing the "liberal" media of not reporting what you would prefer to hear instead? No? Oh well...

gw said "budget-busting tax cuts".

Your nose grows with every lie you tell.

Cause of Budget Deficit: 2002-2005(pdf)

The tax cuts aren't the "budget busting" variable they are made out to be by opponents of them. In addition, the deficit as a percentage of GDP(the figure economists use/that labor think tanks hate) is actually smaller in historical terms.

gw asked "But the main question remains why did we have to bust the budget to have this kind of recovery, which is no better than the same phase of Clinton's recovery?"

The first Bush administration budget didn't take effect until Jan 2002. Thus the loss of jobs in 2001 are runs earned by the previous pitcher. Overall, Clinton did maintain a strong record on jobs. However, the wavering positions on how to handle the tax surplus was wrong. Arguably the the surplus should have resulted with policy that cut taxes to keep that money in the economy rather than extract it when it was not necessary for the governmen to function.

I've already addressed the "budget busting tax cuts" fallacy, but according to CBO testimony the tax cuts are the reason the economy recovered from the mild recession of late 2000 to early 2001. The deficit is larger because of an increase in discretionary spending. Homeland security, No Child Left Behind, DoD increases, the Prescription Drug Bill are some of the factors contributing higher spending.

gw asked "But the main question remains why did we have to bust the budget to have this kind of recovery, which is no better than the same phase of Clinton's recovery?"

The first Bush administration budget didn't take effect until Jan 2002. Thus the loss of jobs in 2001 are runs earned by the previous pitcher. Overall, Clinton did maintain a strong record on jobs. However, the wavering positions on how to handle the tax surplus was wrong. Arguably the the surplus should have resulted with policy that cut taxes to keep that money in the economy rather than extract it when it was not necessary for the governmen to function.

I've already addressed the "budget busting tax cuts" fallacy, but according to CBO testimony the tax cuts are the reason the economy recovered from the mild recession of late 2000 to early 2001. The deficit is larger because of an increase in discretionary spending. Homeland security, No Child Left Behind, DoD increases, the Prescription Drug Bill are some of the factors contributing higher spending.

Oops, DP'd.

GW:
Actually, yes (the average goes down from 5.75 % for 1990-1999 to 5.59 % for 1991-2000 - although given that all numbers are rounded to one decimal, that is not conclusive).

You're correct, it's not. So, another defense of Clinton falls on it's cheeks.

If we just take the Clinton years (i.e. 1993-2000), the average unemployment rate was just 5.2 %. (If we exclude 1993, for which Clinton could hardly be held responsible, the average of the remaining seven years even goes down to 4.95 %!)

And how could he *not* be held responsible?

"Remember, now, the economy was already tanking in the spring of 2000...."

In the spring? Now that's news

I'll let the others burn you down on this one... It's too easy. Hint; Do you think the failure wasn't giving signs, month before the numbers started falling off?

But the main question remains why did we have to bust the budget to have this kind of recovery

Stout clobbered this one, already.

I would add to his comments that no economy in history has ever been helped by raising taxes; In the long term, when the piper comes back to collect his due, the economy always falls out. So it was with the end of the Clinton fiasco... which lasted through the beginning of the Bush years.

Brennan Stout: "Your nose grows with every lie you tell."

Yours must be very long then.

"The tax cuts aren't the "budget busting" variable they are made out to be by opponents of them."

Your funny statistics show the "share of decline in projections" (they don't even say projections of what, but presumably of revenues), which is not exactly the same as "share of deficit", is it?

So how about these numbers instead?
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/gwbdata.pdf

Total cost of tax cuts in 2003: $256.7 billion. That's more than half the on-budget deficit and more than 2/3 of the total deficit (which is smaller because it includes the Social Security surplus).

"In addition, the deficit as a percentage of GDP(the figure economists use/that labor think tanks hate) is actually smaller in historical terms."

And that nose keeps growing...

"Smaller in historical terms", eh? Well, yes, there have indeed been a few years when the deficit was higher in % of GDP than it was in 2003. These years were: 1983, 1985, 1986, 1991, 1992 (for the on-budget deficit). Gee, were you going to blame Clinton for Reagan's and Bush sr's deficits, too?

bithead: "You're correct, it's not. So, another defense of Clinton falls on it's cheeks."

Gee, so the average of 5.59 %, calculated from rounded numbers, suggests that it's actually higher than today's rounded 5.6 %?

Look, if you just want to ignore the facts and be obnoxious, then there is really no point to this.

"And how could he *not* be held responsible?"

Well, as Brennan Stout just explained (to your applause), the first year of the new presidency is not really running on the new President's budget, among other things. It makes no difference, though, since - as I already pointed out - the average unemployment rate under Clinton was still smaller than it is now, even if you include 1993.

"I'll let the others burn you down on this one... It's too easy."

Is that your way of saying "Oops, I was an idiot, but maybe someone else will help me out of this? PLEASE???"

"Hint; Do you think the failure wasn't giving signs, month before the numbers started falling off?"

Right, the signs... You mean those signs that made Bush talk during the 2000 campaign about "giving back the surplus" and how he was going to keep the economy going strong and all that? Those signs that made the White House and the CBO stick with 10-year trillion dollar surplus projections way into 2001?

"Stout clobbered this one, already."

Yeah, that was a riot. :-)

"I would add to his comments that no economy in history has ever been helped by raising taxes"

And this comment is based on some private little study of yours?

The question is: What is the OPTIMAL tax rate for each income group?

There is no clearcut answer to this, obviously. People who keep arguing for tax cuts, regardless of the actual tax rate, seem to imply that the optimal rate might be 0 % for everybody. But if the optimal rate is not 0 %, then raising taxes from a rate that is below the optimal rate must actually be beneficial. So your silly little argument immediately falls apart unless you seriously believe that the optimal tax rate is 0 %.

Total cost of tax cuts in 2003: $256.7 billion. That's more than half the on-budget deficit and more than 2/3 of the total deficit (which is smaller because it includes the Social Security surplus).

Which as usual for the wacko left, ignores the reality of the large increase in the tax take from the economy boost.

the average unemployment rate under Clinton was still smaller than it is now, even if you include 1993.

That's because we weren't dealing with the full effect of his policies, yet.

To comment on this statement

"And let me point out that the reason we're in an "economic recovery" is because of increased worker productivity – we work harder, they get the money."

So if you automate say making widgets where one worker now produces 2 widgets instead of 1 isnt that an increase in worker productivity?

The worker isnt doing more work and since it is now automated he is probably doing less. Kinda shoots that theory full of holes doesnt it.

I cant wait for Sept job reports to come out. I can see Kerry on Oct 2.

"This administration still has a net loss of 10 jobs. That is a disgrace. The worst since the Great Depression. And people dont have health care and the jobs are low paying"

Hmm.
Have a job making money > having no job and living off welfare (unless you are just too lazy and want to stay on welfare and there are plenty of folks out there that want to do that).

As far as the TIRED health care line. A few questoins.
WHEN HAVENT SOME FOLKS HAD HEALTH CARE? NEVER

WHERE IS IT IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE HEALTH CARE?
IT ISNT. THE RIGHT TO AN ABORTION ISNT THERE EITHER!

And if you get sick and go to a hospital and cant pay are you thrown out into the street ?
NO.

"the average unemployment rate under Clinton was still smaller than it is now, even if you include 1993. "

By what - 0.2%

BTW I love Kerry's plan to create 10 million new jobs in a 4 year term. THERE ARE ONLY 8.1 million unemployed (and looking at projections that will be down to 7 million by Jan). So Kerry would be the first President in history to have zero unemployment.

Other than the 2 million jobs Kerry will create that noone will be there to fill look at the fact that the baby boomers are going to start retiring. Guess what. MORE FOLKS LEAVING THE WORK FORCE THAN COMING IN. Jobs will need to be filled and unemployment will be driven down by work force attrition.