Continued from main article above....
The mainstream media won't report the economic good news. And many on Wall Street don't even want a strong economy, for fear of more rate increases from the Federal Reserve. The day after the president's Camp David message, the New York Times editorial cried, "Hold the champagne" and proceeded to obsess about a slowdown in housing.
In actuality, I'm a bit concerned about the slowdown in housing thanks to the tightening financial policies of the Federal Reserve, but it doesn't obliterate the relatively good news and relatively good health of the U.S. economy. Of course I don't expect the mainstream media would ever talk about such things because they are good news for Bush and Republicans in general.
There's no counting how many recessions Times columnist Paul Krugman has predicted, but Mr. Bush was exactly right to point out the 4 percent real gross domestic product growth during the first half of 2006, brisk productivity rates, 5.5 million new jobs over the past three years and a historically low 4.8 percent unemployment rate.
The same could be said about the Clueless Wonder of JoeUser, or a bunch of Clueless Wonders in the typical hangouts of the Democrat weenies and ultra liberal whiners and Bush bashers -- though the old saying is even a broken clock is right twice a day, I don't think many of us have ever seen those folks right even once.
Oh, I would also add here that I wouldn't expect much other than mistakes and inaccurate information to flow forth from the bastion of all that is truthful and accurate in reporting (the New York Times) anyway...
Anyway, continuing....
Mr. Bush's critics say he's whistling past the graveyard. But the president rightly insists, "The entrepreneurial spirit in the country is strong, and that's good for America."
Mr. Bush inherited the Internet bubble meltdown from the Clinton years, as well as the corporate scandals. Then came the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the ensuing war. But the Bush recovery also followed suit, the result of slashing high marginal tax rates on investment in mid-2003.
And the recovery continues. Recent strong numbers for retail sales and industrial production suggest a 3-1/2 percent economic growth rate in the second half of 2006, a far cry from soft-landings, hard-landings or the recession scenarios that are beginning to proliferate.
Hmmmm, searching for some bad news here, but not seeming to find any....
And when the president says economic growth has had a positive effect on the budget, he is right again. Tax receipts are growing around 14 percent for the second straight year, the biggest gain in a quarter-century. Income-tax collections, bolstered by the success of owner-operated business entrepreneurs and other self-employed, are helping lift these revenues. These folks, who prefer unincorporated Subchapter S or limited-liability company partnerships, are the ones who show up in the household survey of employment -- which is at a record high.
Meanwhile, non-withheld revenues from lower-taxed capital gains and dividends are paying for themselves. Total tax receipts in 2006 will come in around $2.4 trillion, roughly $400 billion above the tax-collection peak of 2000.
The Congressional Budget Office may now acknowledge that deficit projections were $100 billion too high, but it maintains only higher taxes in the next 10 years will solve the budget problem. This defies common sense. If it pays less to work and invest after-tax, as implied by the CBO scenario, does anyone truly believe people would work harder to expand the economy? If that were the case, why not raise tax rates back to 70 percent, where Ronald Reagan found them, or 91 percent, where John F. Kennedy first had them? The CBO thinking begs credulity.
I'm guessing and betting that these CBO types are the same ones that fuel the resident Bush basher here at JU, and who provide materials for Democratic talking points and other liberals that want to take swings at Bush any way they can.
Again though, I don't seem to see any real bad news in the actual numbers shown above. In fact, just the opposite -- HIGHER REVENUE than was ever projected by the CBO. How could they be so wrong, and why aren't some bashers making apologies for their incredible errors in judgement and wrongful prognostications? Nevermind, we know that ain't likely to happen.
The remainder of the original material is interesting too, though it diverges from discussion on the main point and isn't reproduced here so as to avoid going beyond the reaches of fair use.
