War is peace

Dubya insists the economy is on a "rising path."

Aside from debating whether or not that's true -- I mean, since we fell to below-trend growth in the second quarter, I would certainly hope we're on a "rising path" out of that ditch -- I took note of the construction of the lede paragraph of the AP story:

"GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. - The federal deficit is at a record high and economic growth has slowed, but President Bush is insisting on the campaign trail that the U.S. economy is on a "rising path.""

I don't recall noticing the writer, Deb Reichmann, before, but it's nice to see she's presenting the facts in such a way. I imagine she'll be greeted with howls about the "liberal media," but having seen some of the other AP stories written about Bush and Kerry in this campaign season, I think the liberals were due to get a little help.

Further down in the story, Bush lays this turd:

"Since last August, Americans have started work at more than 1.5 million new jobs, many of them in high-growth, high-paying industries."

First, someone ought to let him know that 1.5 million jobs in 11 months is not enough to keep up with the natural rate of growth in the labor force. Not that he'd care.

Secondly, what does he mean when he says "many" of these paltry new jobs are in high-paying industries. If he has stats, he ought to just present them. It sounds more authoritative. I mean, he's willing to throw around "1.5 million" in reference to jobs, which is about like bragging you've got a two-inch penis.

On second thought, I guess if he did reveal the number of jobs actually created in "high-paying" industries, reporters would have an easy time dividing 1.5 million by that number and realizing it's a very small percentage. They're too lazy to go back and put that 1.5 million in context, so he's safe throwing that around.

Further down, he also unleashes this laugher:

"Because of my policy of strengthening the economy while enforcing spending discipline in Washington, we remain on pace to reduce the deficit by half in the next five years."

When on earth has he enforced spending discipline? What has he vetoed or forcibly trimmed down? Certainly not the "health-care reform" bill or scores of other pork-laden appropriations bills. Just go ask somebody at the Cato Institute about what a disciplinarian Bush is.

Just when I was starting to like this Deb person, she writes this:

"Democrats view the statistics differently. They say the budget shortfall is the third consecutive — and ever-growing — deficit posted on Bush's watch, following four annual surpluses in a row under President Clinton."

Why on earth, Deb, is it necessary to say that "Democrats say" this is so? It's a plain fact, one a ten-year-old could look up on the internet. Here, I'll help: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table1

In table one, look at the "total." That's the total deficit or surplus in each year. We don't need the Democrats to point out to us what the surpluses were in 1998-2001 or what the deficits have been since.