CREDIT WHERE NONE IS DUE
So, have you heard about the Bush Boom? After three years of pitiful economic numbers that would have gotten Bill Clinton impeached by now, the stars and – not so coincidentally (there is never a coincidence with the Bushies in charge) – statistics provided and interpreted by the Bush White House have combined in a magical way to show supposedly "strong" growth in the 3rd quarter.
You’ve noticed it, haven’t you? Your brother/cousin/wife/husband is back to work, aren’t they? No? What the hell is wrong with them?
This is the Bush Boom, brother! I read it in the paper. Heard it on the radio. Saw the graphs and talking heads on cable. In just one quarter, it’s doom and gloom to boom. Already, the writers who pretend to know have credited the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Commentators are laughing, pointing at the Democratic hopefuls, saying "what are you going to talk about now, you losers?" The Bush re-installment is all but assured now, and the ruling commentariat is going back into cruise mode, unworried about any change in the status quo. The Dems, once dangerously close to getting a word in edgewise in the national debate, are now back to the status of pesky fly, who will dutifully prop up some poor soul to be the McGovern or Mondale to be rolled by the Bush bulldozer in 2004.
The Boom Declaration is quite remarkable, given that Clinton produced better numbers and sustained them for years and got no credit for any of it. Not only that, the Clinton years brought real growth, tens of millions of new jobs, a lower poverty rate (and its attendant lower crime rate), stunning consumer confidence and real wealth. But the media never called it the Clinton Boom, the Clinton Miracle – heck, they never even called it the Clinton Economy. After predicting economic disaster that didn’t happen after the Dem-only Economic Plan of ‘93, the commentariat refused to give the brilliant Clinton economy managers any credit for the lift-all-boats success of the ‘90s, claiming, for the first time, that the economy operates completely separate from anything done in Washington and that any progress was in spite of rather than because of anything Clinton did.
The Republican owners and editors of the media products we all consume relentlessly pushed the absurdly re-distributive (bottom-to-top) Bush tax cuts and have been holding their collective breath for two years, waiting for any good economic news that they could credit to the giveaways to the rich. With an audible sigh of relief, they are now trumpeting the incredible "success" of the Bushies, who strongly "stayed the course". Now, it’s just a matter of time for the "big payoff".
When the next two quarters or so show continued sluggishness and a continued loss of jobs, it will be interesting to see how the Bush Apologists explain their Boom Declaration of recent days. But, wait. They never have to explain what they do or say; who they credit or who they don’t; when they are wrong or why. These people prey on the short memories and attention spans and on the intellectual laziness of their target demographics.
In the meantime, the Associated Press had the temerity this morning to put on its wire something about the fact that "more and more American families are hungry or unsure whether they can afford to buy food." My god, how did that get in the papers? Well, it was a short story; the only comment in it belonging to some apologist in the Census Bureau, who brushed it off as a result of the fact that – surprise – more people are poor.
Thank goodness this was mercifully short story was released over a weekend. It’s not like anyone might want to, you know, look into it. There’s simply no telling what you might find. And, increasingly, US media managers are uninterested in any information they didn’t know already, that they can twist into a sensationalist loop in the 24-hour news cycle. Now, if Elizabeth Smart ever misses a meal...then, we’ve got something.
5:13:44 PM 
|
|
