Why Doesn't Bush Get Credit for the Economy?
Posted by: Clay Waters
7/12/2006 2:53:11 PM
Congressional reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg telegraphs President Bush's attempts to get some credit for the strong economy in Wednesday’s "Bush Steps Up Effort to Focus on Strength of Economy."
"Blessed with a growing economy but facing voters who do not give him much credit for it, President Bush is intensifying efforts to persuade the public that things are looking up, with the aim of giving Republicans a boost in the midterm elections."
"'Tax relief is working, the economy is growing, revenues are up, the deficits are down,' Mr. Bush said, 'and all across this great land, Americans are realizing their dreams and building better futures for their families.'"
Naturally, Stolberg finds "some economists" who just happen to disagree with Bush: "But some economists say that the picture is not all that rosy and that this is one reason Mr. Bush is not getting the customary bump in the polls from what his advisers call 'robust economic growth and job creation.' High gasoline prices, rising interest rates and unease over the war in Iraq are mostly to blame."
She admits: "By standard measurements, the economy does look good: a 4.6 percent unemployment rate, 5.4 million new jobs since August 2003 and a gross domestic product that grew an average of 4 percent in the past three years."
She counters those undeniably positive facts with polling data, which is based more on media-shaped perceptions: "But a poll released last month by the Pew Research Center found that just 33 percent of respondents approved of Mr. Bush’s handling of the economy, while 54 percent disapproved. And a June survey by the University of Michigan, which tracks consumer confidence in government economic policies, found that 39 percent said Mr. Bush was doing a poor job, while 13 percent said he was doing a good job, and 47 percent rated him as fair."
The same page features economics reporter Edmund Andrews' "White House Forecasts Drop in the Deficit," a follow-up up sorts to his the "good news is really bad news" front-page story Sunday on the falling deficit.
"The Bush administration said Tuesday that a big jump in tax revenue would reduce the budget deficit for this year to $296 billion, down from $318 billion in 2005. But budget analysts warned that the long-term fiscal outlook remained almost as bleak as before."
The text box has the same negative slant, with "many budget analysts" conveniently delivering the anti-Bush view: "A second straight year of less red ink fails to soothe many budget analysts."
"But the government’s overall fiscal health remains far worse than when Mr. Bush took office in 2001. Back then the government had run surpluses in four consecutive years, and forecasters were predicting trillions of dollars in surplus over the coming decade.
"The government is now predicting deficits of more than $100 billion a year through 2011 and well over $1 trillion of new debt in the next decade. In addition, the administration’s estimates omit costs of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan beyond 2007, as well as the cost of preventing a huge expansion of the alternative minimum tax."
Though the administration is certainly spending at a rate to make fiscal conservatives blanch, Andrews doesn’t mention the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and their resulting contributions to the deficit.
"In his re-election campaign, Mr. Bush promised to cut the deficit in half by 2009, though that promise was based on a bloated 2004 deficit projection of $521 billion, which never materialized. The newest budget projections show the deficit down by half from its 2004 peak by the end of 2008.
"Many budget analysts say the real problem will be preparing for a huge rise in Social Security and Medicare costs as the baby-boom generation enters retirement. The oldest boomers become eligible for Social Security benefits in 2008, and the costs of old-age entitlement programs, already the biggest component of the federal budget, are expected to start climbing rapidly soon afterward."
Times readers no doubt remember how helpful the Times was in pushing Bush's vision of Social Security reform.
Following the liberal line, Andrews blames tax cuts, not spending increases, for the deficit: "Further, Mr. Bush would make most of his tax cuts permanent rather than allow them to expire in 2010. If the cuts are extended, the government will be even more short of money after he leaves office."
|
