Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (307855)	10/13/2002 5:46:45 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 769667

If the Economy Mattered By David S. Broder Columnist The Washington Post Sunday, October 13, 2002 Suppose, for a moment, that Iraq and the war on terrorism were not occupying the headlines and competing with the everyday economic issues for the attention of voters. What would the campaign debate look like? We don't have to guess what Democrats would be saying. In orchestrated speeches over the past few weeks, former vice president Al Gore, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt laid down the Democratic indictment of the Bush administration's economic record. The speeches did not have the impact Democrats had hoped for; the war drums on Iraq and the hunt for the Washington area sniper drowned them out. But the Democrats had a lengthy bill of particulars, which in other times might have carried some political weight. Here, in bare-bones summary, are the charges the three Democratic leaders laid at the GOP's door: • Two million jobs lost in the private sector since George W. Bush became president. • Some 1.3 million more Americans below the poverty line. • An additional 1.4 million people without health insurance. • Unemployment up 2 percent and long-term unemployment almost doubled. • Overall economic growth at 1 percent, the lowest for any administration in 50 years. • The value of Americans' stock holdings down $4.5 trillion and a 30 percent drop in the value of IRAs and 401(k) plans. • A projected budget surplus of $5.6 trillion converted into a deficit of $400 billion. • Some $2 trillion transferred from Social Security taxes to the non-Social Security budget. • And 45 of the 50 states struggling with budget problems that are forcing program cuts or higher taxes. That is a partial list of the economic crimes alleged by Democrats. If anyone were listening, Republicans would have to come up with explanations or rebuttals. It is not a subject the White House is eager to discuss, but I was able to put the issue to one of the president's senior economic advisers -- a man who insisted on anonymity but was willing to respond. Here's the essence of the Republican case: First, the Democrats have no alternative economic plan and the Senate never even passed a budget this year. Second, they are all wet in starting their clock on the day Bush took office. During the Clinton years, thanks in part to "too much cheerleading" by those in power, an unhealthy and unsustainable "bubble" developed in the economy that inflated the markets, causing people to take foolish risks with their investments and their household budgets. The bubble burst, not when Bush took office but in the first quarter of 2000. Almost two-thirds of the inflated values of the Nasdaq market were gone by the time Bush raised his hand to be sworn in. Bush and his economic team were well aware that they were inheriting a mess, and they moved promptly and appropriately to deal with it. With the Fed cutting interest rates, as was proper, the tax rebates mailed out in late summer of 2001 stopped what could have been a fatal cycle of decreasing consumer demand. That bolstered confidence enough that economic growth then resumed and has continued ever since, despite the shock of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. As for the budget deficit, it is exactly what "any reputable economist" would say is appropriate for a soft economy -- to say nothing of a time of national emergency. As a result, the country now is in its fifth straight quarter of economic growth. Steady improvements in productivity, helped by a boost to business from possible tax cuts next year, bode well for the future -- though no one can be certain that we have shaken off all the effects of the bursting bubble. And, of course, another terrorist attack could damage the economy. That's the essence of the rebuttal argument. I have two thoughts. If the voters were listening, the Democrats' catalogue of losses would probably outweigh the Republicans' efforts to put the record into a broader historical context. And there is one question my administration source did not blow away. If, as he says, the Bush team was well aware by Inauguration Day that the bottom was dropping out of the "bubble" economy, then why did it rely on those inflated budget surplus estimates to justify the long-term tax cuts that the president still defends? "We were in line with the blue-chip [consensus] estimates," my White House instructor said. But did you believe them? "That," he said, "is a good question." © 2002 The Washington Post Company washingtonpost.com