Who knew? Media reports on economy based on who is in power.

Thanks to Glen for finding this article.

In 1996, Bill Clinton ran for reelection as president. The U.S. economy was doing well at the time: unemployment down to 5.2%, inflation under control at 3%, and overall growth at 2.2%. And the press reported all this good news: According to the 2004 MRC study, 85% of all major economic stories on the economy in the summer of 1996 were positive.

Eight years later, George W. Bush was running for re-election as president. The U.S. economy in 2004 did much better than in 1996: The economy grew at a 3.9% pace, while unemployment and inflation roughly matched their 1996 levels (5.4% and 2.7% respectively). Yet this time, 77% of all major media economic coverage was negative. (For the full report, see www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2004/fax2004
1020.asp.) And since the 2004 election, the barrage of bad news has continued: reports of housing bubbles, warnings of an imminent collapse in the U.S. dollar, and so on.
[...]
Democrats are proposing higher taxation of energy companies--and making it clear that they will not vote to renew President Bush's cut in taxes on dividends and capital gains. Leading members of the new Congress have expressed strong protectionist views.

Democrats hope to push labour costs up faster than productivity--and to curb corporate profits they regard as inflated. If they succeed, profitability must suffer, and stock prices must decline.

And yet, bizarrely, at this very moment of maximum worry, the press reports--so negative, for so long--are suddenly turning positive again. On Jan. 31, Associated Press reporter Andrew Taylor filed a story from Washington that opened cheerily: "The House passed a [US] $463.5-billion spending bill Wednesday that covers about one-sixth of the federal budget as Democrats cleared away the financial mess they inherited from Republicans."

Don't get me wrong, Bush isn't perfect, as government spending has skyrocketed under his watch, but the market economy has many of the strengths that people pointed to when Clinton was president. Now, previous blogs have reported similar stories of the Clinton and Bush economies, and no doubt, people (liberals) will dig up some statistic speaking about how the economy is really not that great. That's fine, but those who bring up those statistics will speak as if unemployment and inflation didn't matter, and I did not see Clinton economics under so much scrutiny. Bad news is easy to find when you want it.

Help me!!!

Now, all the time I hear about how evil Bush is. Much of this criticism has been how he cares only for the rich, and that he doesn't give a crap about the poor.

Now, I want to understand where those on the other side are coming from. I realize that many liberals hate Bush because of the Iraq war. I can understand this viewpoint, because I would never really like Clinton or Carter as president because of their views on abortion. My "abortion" is their "Iraq War." That's fine.

However, I also hear about how Bush, and really, Republicans, only care about the rich. I don't buy that. I would think Bush's domestic record would garner a little praise from liberals. In a Cato article, On Spending Bush Is No Reagan, (pdf file), Cato investigates how much spending has increased, by department.



Oh my!!! Defense has grown 27.6%. That's quite a bit. But, Health and Human Services has grown 21.4%. That's hardly devoted to rich people. Oh, wait. Education has grown 56.0%. That means, take half of what was being spent on education, and add it back to the education money. In my view, that kind of assistance is the best. It is the ideal "hand up" assistance, not "hand out".

Now, this kind of assistance is not free from criticism. Liberals have charged that Bush is a "borrow and spend" kind of guy, not "tax and spend." However, I am not fighting the criticism about how Bush handles money, I am fighting the criticism that Bush only cares about the rich.

But wait, Bush has committed the unpardonable sin. He cut taxes for the rich. Whether or not the rich should have been paying 38% is never discussed. Despite my smart alec remarks, I can understand liberals having problems with this. However, tax receipts have grown with Bush's tax cuts, as they have with Reagan's, according to Wall Street Journal. Of course, the Wall Street Journal is hardly an unbiased source, and there may have been other factors involved in the economy. However, I ask this. Can someone perhaps provide the benefit of the doubt that maybe, just maybe, more is not always better when it comes to taxing the rich, from a philosophical and economical standpoint? That maybe there is a distinct possibility that cutting taxes sometimes spurs the economy? That maybe, 40% for the top bracket is just a little too high and too taxing on the economy? And that, even if you disagree, and think higher taxes are better, that maybe Bush is not cutting taxes because of some disregard for the poor, that he thinks cutting taxes may actually help the economy?

I titled this "Help me!!!" Help me believe that it is not a matter of liberals just hating Bush. Help me believe that Democrats actually have legitimate reasons for saying Bush loves the rich and hates the poor. I understand that liberals hate Bush because of the Iraq War, and his gay marriage amendment, and that he cut taxes for the rich, but I would think how he spends government money would at least give the hint of a smile on the face of a liberal. When someone says Bush has no concern for the poor, that leaves me utterly confused. Show me where I am going wrong.