[N8 v2.0]

BUSH BY THE NUMBERS
February 26, 2004 | RICH LOWRY

President Bush is taking a beating on the economy, partly because he has failed to realize the power of numbers. In his 1996 re-election campaign, Bill Clinton took the numbers from a recovering economy and repeated them until the American public reached the point of statistical saturation and became convinced the nation had achieved economic nirvana. It was a classic case of "talking up" the economy. Lately, Democratic presidential candidates have done exactly the opposite, making a recovering economy seem a cesspit of misery. If Bush is to save his presidency, he must push back. He must tout his numbers.

The numbers speak of strong overall economic growth. The gross domestic product -- the figure for the total output economy -- grew at an 8.2 percent rate in the third quarter of 2003, and at a 4 percent rate in the fourth quarter. The GDP is forecast to grow at a 4.5 percent rate in 2004. As economist J. Edward Carter writes: "For the third consecutive year, the U.S. economy is poised to grow faster than most other industrialized economies. France, Germany and Japan, for instance, are not expected to grow even half as fast as the United States."

The numbers indicate an economy constantly finding new and better ways to work. Nonfarm productivity -- a crucial indicator of economic efficiency that corresponds over the long term with higher wages and greater national wealth -- grew at a healthy 4.2 percent rate in 2003. During Bush's first three years in office, productivity has been increasing at a 4.1 percent annual rate, the best start to any presidential term in roughly 50 years.

The numbers highlight a booming housing market. The rate of homeownership hit 68.6 percent during the past three months of 2003, an all-time high. Sales for new and existing homes were also at all-time highs last year. Housing starts have jumped 26 percent since 2001, and the 30-year fixed mortgage rate has dropped 20 percent, from 7.06 percent to 5.66 percent.

The numbers tell of bustling activity all around. Manufacturing production has increased 2.3 percent since January 2003. There was a 10 percent increase in equipment and software spending in the fourth quarter of 2004, the third consecutive quarter of strong growth in such investment. In January, retail sales were up a robust 5.8 percent over a year earlier. Profits among companies that are part of the Standard & Poor's 500 stock index increased by 26 percent in the fourth quarter of 2003.

The numbers trumpet a stock market that has recovered from the Clinton era bubble. Since the trough of October 2002, the stock market's value has increased by more than $4 trillion. The market capitalization of the New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ has grown roughly 40 percent since October of 2002.

What do the numbers say about those tax cuts that are either irresponsibly large or laughably small, depending on which Democrat is attacking them? Personal tax payments have declined 19 percent since 2001, and disposable income has thus increased 11 percent. In 2004, U.S. households are expected to receive $300 billion more in income-tax refunds than in 2003 (yes, the budget deficit has gone up, but it is economically inconsequential, and Democrats don't have any serious plans for reducing it anyway).

The numbers provide some perspective on Bush's biggest political liability: lagging job growth. Since reaching a high of 6.3 percent in June 2003, the unemployment rate has dipped to 5.6 percent, lower than the average unemployment rate of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.

The numbers even like George Bush more than Bill Clinton. According to J. Edward Carter's calculation, during the first three years of the Bush administration compared with the first three years of the Clinton administration, the inflation rate is lower (1.9 percent versus 2.6 percent), the unemployment rate is lower (5.5 percent versus 6.2 percent), annual productivity growth is higher (4.1 percent versus .5 percent), and the increase in nonfarm real compensation per hour is higher (+0.8 percent versus -0.3 percent).

Bush should introduce the American public to these numbers. They are among the best friends he has.

 

[N8 v2.0]

In related news:

Healthy GDP Raises Hopes for Job Growth

America's economy, bolstered by brisk business spending, grew at a healthy 4.1 percent annual rate in the final quarter of 2003. (AP Graphic)

 

[N8 v2.0]

"The issue is not who you go to bed with. The issue is whether either of you have a job when you get up in the morning."

-Comment from Dem Debate

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

yeah! he is such a good president, that the US dollar has lost a ****load of value (good for me, as i get my money for school and expenses from peru, and am gonna be out of here in a couple of years), but extremely bad for you buddy, you are sticking around here to see the long run results of this.

crumbling dollar, 2.3 million lost jobs, the biggest defficit in history, and a tense US-world situation.

i cannot understand how most people i know around here (am in the biblebelt) fail to realize the obvious economic catastrophe the US is steering to.

good thing there are more bucks, bad thing your bucks are worth less than ever.

at this rate, if bush get elected, by 2008 the exchange rate would make it cheaper for me to vacation in miami than in brazil.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Originally posted by N8
In related news:

Healthy GDP Raises Hopes for Job Growth

America's economy, bolstered by brisk business spending, grew at a healthy 4.1 percent annual rate in the final quarter of 2003. (AP Graphic)

that 4.1% is nothing special. but wait, there is one little problem.

that is not adjusted. its based on today US bucks, which had plumbed a lot.

compare the value of that growth with another stong currency and you'll see how good you are faring in a world perspective.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

but go ahead! and elect him!, because he cares about the "traditional US family", (if in a country with this diversity since its birth, that ever existed). and because he saves you (and 80% of the population) a couple thousand bucks a year in taxes. (which is BS, because even if you numerically make more now, your money is worth less than yesterday in a world economy).
you'd have to make a few million bucks a year to overcome that desbalance.

and yeah! all this wars make it look he's making the US a stronger nation, but not, actually its reducing its piece of the pie of the world cake.

try to see thing outside of your borders (or at least outside your county), to truly notice whats really going on.



oh boy! what a great president.