It's Still the Economy, Stupid!

Nineteen days and counting. That's to election day when Democrats and the media tell us they will control the House and the Senate. And the sky is the limit. There will be higher taxes and an increase in minimum wage and socialized health-care and a cut and run retreat from Iraq.

Internationally we hear that China and the Petro-countries need to worry because Democrats will teach them a lesson about trade and energy. So who is celebrating the Democrats' "landslide" invasion? Let's see. North Korea for one will get it's usual $5 billion or so a year it got from Clinton/Carter. And Iran and Venezuela are rubbing their hands because Chavez and the Mullahs will get the respect and financial support they got from Clinton but missed desperately from Bush. Better yet is the Chinese Army will again be a major contributor to Democrats. And even Fidel Castro will be honored by several Democrat and Black-Caucus/Democrat delegations when he dies. After all he only killed those that "had it cummin."

Economic impression is that a Washington Post opinion by David S Broder tells us that the National Journal recently asked 11 "distinguished, non-aligned economists" to grade this Republican Congress. Their conclusion is "average." Yet Broder, a self appointed intellect, ends his rant by comparing the personal income results after 5 1/2 years of Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 43. He says: "Personal income after inflation and taxes rose 22.7 percent under Reagan, 20.4 percent under Clinton and only 14.1 percent under Bush. That's certainly not a C, and it may not even be a passing grade."


Problem with Broder's unintelligent comparison is that Reagan inherited 14% inflation and 22% interest rates. Clinton inherited a 4% booming economy which was bolstered by the computer productivity explosion and Y2K of almost a trillion spending and the stock market run up. Bush 43 on the other hand inherited the Clinton market crash that erased over $11 trillion and over 3.5 million jobs. Then the Clinton recession hit and Clinton's 9/11 happened. It's estimated that erased another $8 trillion in wealth and cut another 4 million jobs. Yet the Bush economy that started in late 2003 when the Clinton mess bottomed out, has performed above any reasonable expectation.

So I wonder what grade brother Broder might give using real facts? Reagan surely gets an A, while Clinton botched a strong economy and failed to protect it and America, loosing about $20 trillion in wealth and as many as 8 million jobs from 2000-03. That's an F!!! Bush 43 on the other hand earns extra credit for seeing the looming mess in 2000, when Clinton/Gore and their crowd were celebrating an estimated "$11 surplus as far as the eye could see." So let's give Bush his very deserved B+.

On another political note, Radar magazine tells America who are the dumbest of the dumb in Congress. And it's Katherine Harris Republican, Florida, that gets the nod. Why? Well the so called "I can't say there was any scientific criteria," is actually that Harris, as Secretary of State, didn't give Gore the presidency in Florida in 2000, and worse, "and some of the allegations concerning how she treats her staff. Sound like enough?" Seems to me that this is further proof that facts and science might also be outlawed if the Democrats take the House and Senate in 2006.