MRC on the Media Spin of Greenspans Testimony

MRC on the Media Spin of Greenspans Testimony

Greenspan Urges Budget Cuts, But NBC
Distorts & Blames Tax Cuts

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told the House Committee on the Budget on Wednesday that the soon-to-be soaring number of retiring baby boomers and long-term deficit will require that Social Security costs be reduced by slowing cost of living hikes and/or by raising the retirement age, but though Greenspan specifically said he favors making the Bush tax cuts permanent and strongly urged budget cuts over tax hikes to reduce the deficit, the NBC Nightly News distorted Greenspan’s testimony and targeted the Bush tax cuts, which they bizarrely labeled “Bush’s spending,” for blame.

Greenspan's Testimony - Transcript

Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to be here today and to offer my views on the outlook for the economy and current fiscal issues. I want to emphasize that I speak for myself and not necessarily for the Federal Reserve.

More Economic Points

More Economic Points

From Rich Lowry of the conservative source National Review.

Bush by the 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.

Economist: Bush Numbers Outshine Clinton in Many Ways

Economist: Bush Numbers Outshine Clinton in Many Ways

He is chairman of "Economists for Bush" so maybe he is not the most objective person in the world. I wonder how accurate his numbers are? (BTW - at least, fellow bloggers, I admit when my source is biased. Try it sometime . . . .)

Better than Clinton?

Nine months prior to the 1996 presidential election, Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers cheerfully reported that the "American economy has performed exceptionally well over the past 3 years." While that may not surprise you, you may however be surprised to learn that President George W. Bush's economic record is, in many ways, better than the record Clinton ran on for reelection.

Compared with the "exceptional" years of 1993, 1994, and 1995, the first three years of George W. Bush's presidency featured:



lower inflation
lower unemployment
faster productivity growth
faster labor compensation growth (i.e., wages and benefits)
29.4 percent ($6.9 trillion) more economic output
45 percent ($960 billion) more exports; and
an economic growth rate 81.2 percent as fast as that under Clinton

Junk Science: Enviros, Anarchists, and Spin, Oh My!

Junk Science: Enviros, Anarchists, and Spin, Oh My!

FOXNews.com - Views - Junk Science - Enviros Commence Election-Year Attack

The Union of Concerned Scientists (search) issued a widely covered report last week condemning the Bush administration for allegedly politicizing science on a number of controversial issues, ranging from global warming to HIV/AIDS to Iraq’s nuclear weapons efforts.

It was quite an ironic charge coming from a self-described activist group whose left-wing, eco-extremist, anti-biotechnology, anti-chemical, anti-nuclear, anti-defense and anti-business screeds embody the very antithesis of the scientific ideal of objectivity. . . .

. . . the UCS . . . advised its members to give media interviews about global warming in a 1997 memo:

“1. Stay on message. The message is simple … global warming is a serious problem … we must take action now to fight global warming.

“2. Don’t confuse them with doubt. In other words, don’t talk like a scientist, with caveats and error bars. Emphasize the word consensus.

“3. Don’t talk too much. So practice your soundbites and don’t get trapped into giving the reporter what he is looking for. Set your time limit in advance … so that you can terminate the interview before you are in over your head without appearing to be evasive … Your main purpose is to advocate, not to educate.”

Contrary to UCS’ message, the reality is that global climate is anything but simple. There is much uncertainty. Advocacy with utter disregard to the complexity and uncertainty is tantamount to scientific malpractice.

As part of its accusation that the Bush administration suppressed scientific research and information, the UCS cites Nixon-era EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus as saying that it’s not legitimate to withhold a scientific analysis just because you don’t like the outcome.

Ruckelshaus, of course, had a special talent for dealing with scientific analysis he didn’t like ¯ he just ignored it.

At the conclusion of the 1971-1972 EPA hearings on whether the insecticide DDT should be banned, the EPA judge concluded that DDT was not a threat to human health or to the environment.

Then-EPA Administrator Ruckelshaus banned DDT anyway.

But Ruckelshaus never attended the hearings, didn’t read the transcript and refused to release the materials used to make his decision. He even rebuffed a U.S. Department of Agriculture effort to obtain those materials through the Freedom of Information Act, claiming they were just “internal memos.”

This wasn’t surprising given Ruckelshaus’ bias. As it turns out, he was a closet environmentalist who personally raised money for the Environmental Defense Fund, an activist group that led the charge to ban DDT.

Dem Hate Speech?

Dem Hate Speech?

If a Rep or a conservative ahd said this . . . can you even imagine?

"All those look alike to me."

"Just a bunch of ."

I can HEAR the outrage it's so intense . . . and this is just a hypothetical situation!

FOXNews.com - Politics - Rep. Brown Apologizes for 'White Men' Comment

MIAMI — U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown (search) apologized Thursday for remarks she made a day earlier when she said Hispanics and whites "all look alike to me."

Brown made the statement during a Wednesday briefing on Haiti with Assistant Secretary of State Roger Noriega (search), a Mexican-American, and the Florida congressional delegation. During the meeting, attended by about 30 people, Brown sat across the table from Noriega and launched an attack on President Bush's policy on Haiti (search).

She said Republican leaders were "racist" in their policies toward the Caribbean nation, which is almost entirely black, and called the president's representatives "a bunch of white men."

"I sincerely did not mean to offend Secretary Noriega or anyone in the room. Rather, my comments, as they relate to 'white men,' were aimed at the policies of the Bush administration as they pertain to Haiti, which I do consider to be racist," Brown said in a statement on Thursday.

Coulter Skewers Sweeney of the AFL-CIO

Coulter Skewers Sweeney of the AFL-CIO

AFL-CIO motto: Kick me again!

It's not particularly surprising that the party of trial lawyers, environmentalists and Hollywood actresses keeps voting against blue collar workers. What's strange is that the AFL-CIO keeps voting against blue-collar workers, too.

Quick Thought

Quick Thought

I thought of this a while back but I forgot to post it: if Kerry defended his support of Affirmative Action by pointing to the African-American members of his staff, does this mean that they were AA hires? That he could have had more talented/qualified people in those spots but chose these individuals instead? Or does it mean that there are black people who are worthy of these position without the help of AA?

Morris on Election Strategy

Morris on Election Strategy

DUBYA'S DILEMMA

So the key is for Bush to heighten the saliency of terrorism as an issue.

After all, Americans are wrong to see terrorism as a fourth-place issue. Education or the economy or health care won't knock down buildings and kill 3,000 people. Terrorism will. It is the result of Bush's vigilance that we are all fat and happy enough to see optional issues as more important than the national preservation that terrorism places at risk. . . .

The more Americans think he has succeeded in mitigating the terrorist threat, the more they vote for Kerry. The more they feel that terrorism is still at our doorstep - as it is - the more they back Bush as the better wartime leader.

The traditional incumbent recipe of claiming success backfires here. Bush must make clear to us all the threats that remain, not try to take credit for the end of the terror danger. He must make the most of what he has yet to achieve, rather than try to sell his successes.

Success extinguishes his mandate. Tasks that remain before us rekindle it.

Predictions I

Predictions I

1. At some point in the coming months before the election, a tape of a high-level Al Qaeda type will be "intercepted" which says that they hope that John Kerry will not be elected because they fear him more.
2. If a terrorist attack does happen between now and the election, the Dems will says that Bush knew about it and let it happen to support his candidacy.

Junk Science: Antibiotic Cancer Scare is Off-base

Junk Science: Antibiotic Cancer Scare is Off-base

Antibiotic Link Is Cancer Baloney

Antibiotic use increases breast cancer risk, according to a new study. But after scrutinizing the study, I’m leaning toward linking grant-hungry researchers and a publicity-hungry medical journal with reprehensible sensationalism.

CIA Knew of 9-11 Individual 1.5 Years Prior

CIA Knew of 9-11 Individual 1.5 Years Prior

I am curious . . . who says that they "considered the information . . . valuable" and when did they feel that way?

Maybe they let the CIA know immediately that this was a HOT tip and should be followed up on. Then again, maybe they simply handed over the info, among the other bits of info shared between the agencies, and only now cliam that they felt then that it was "valuable".

C.I.A. Was Given Data on Hijacker Long Before 9/11

WASHINGTON, Feb. 23 — American investigators were given the first name and telephone number of one of the Sept. 11 hijackers two and a half years before the attacks on New York and Washington, but the United States appears to have failed to pursue the lead aggressively, American and German officials say. . . .

The Germans considered the information on Mr. Shehhi particularly valuable, and the commission is keenly interested in why it apparently did not lead to greater scrutiny of him.

Sowell on the "Working Poor"

Sowell on the "Working Poor"

Big lie of the year

The thesis of both media liberals and political liberals is that there are vast millions of people who work hard all their lives and still remain poor. The next chorus of this song is that only the government can save the day for such people. The grand finale is that politicians need to take more money out of your paycheck to buy the votes of those to whom they give it.

They don't express it like that, of course, but that is what it amounts to.

Are there genuinely poor people who stay poor? Yes. However grossly exaggerated the numbers, there are such people. But studies that follow the same individuals over time find that most of those in the bottom 20 percent of income earners are also in the top 20 percent at some other time in their careers.