The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported today that in the month of November 112,000 new payroll jobs were created and the unemployment rate fell to 5.4 percent.

Based on the payroll survey and benchmark revision, "2.4 million new jobs have been created since August 2003, and over 2 million new jobs have been created thus far in 2004."

In case you missed it, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) announced yesterday that "that real gross domestic product (GDP) grew at a seasonally-adjusted annual rate of 3.9 percent during the 3rd quarter of 2004."

According to the BEA, the revision "was driven by stronger growth in consumer spending and business investment."

The economy saw strong growth through 2004:

Highlights of the BEA news release include

• Strong growth in the 3rd quarter was primarily driven by consumer spending and business investment in equipment and software. Consumer spending grew at an annual rate of 5.1 percent in the 3rd quarter, its fastest pace in three years.
• The upward revision to overall GDP growth was driven by stronger growth in consumer spending and business investment. Consumer spending growth was revised up to 5.1 percent from 4.6 percent, while business investment growth was revised up to 12.9 percent from 11.7 percent.
• During the 3rd quarter, exports and imports grew at seasonally-adjusted annual rates of 6.3 percent and 6.0 percent, respectively.

Tough break for Democrats and liberals who think the economy is bad.

Even Clinton new the Kyoto Protocol was not a good idea... Yet today, even though Bush stood his ground, we're still going to pay a price for other countries signing on to the Kyoto Protocol. With Russia signing onto the treaty, it has enough votes to become "global law" on February 16, 2005.

Even without U.S. participation in the treaty, American firms face extra costs. Plants in Europe, Japan and Canada that are owned by U.S. firms will have to cut their global-warming emissions. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that Kyoto will cost American businesses with overseas operations billions of dollars.

Countries that have signed onto the Kyoto pact might decide to subsidize their own products or slap penalties on U.S. imports, says Tom Richichi, a lawyer at Beveridge & Diamond who advises companies and industries on the treaty.

The pact "may create economic distortion, and that distortion may work to the detriment of this country," Richichi says.

I'm sure the left is very proud that they once again can contribute negatively to our economy. They essentially still get a victory, even if it's not the one they had originally hoped for. If the Kyoto Protocol hurts our economy, Democrats can blame Bush, regardless of the fact that liberals/Democrats are the ones who blast Bush for getting us officially out of the flawed treaty. If our economy will be hurt just because of our plants in countries abiding by Kyoto regulations, imagine how bad things would be if we had ratified it and implemented the regulations here in our country.

I kid you not, I found this on the AP wires...

THE PROBLEM? There are 371,000 fewer jobs since Bush took office in 2001.

THE BRIGHT SIDE? Employers hired 1.8 million new workers this year.

BUSH'S PLAN? Extend tax cuts, make health care more affordable by limiting jury awards in malpractice lawsuits, increase domestic energy production to create conditions favorable to job growth.

PROGNOSIS? "We can expect to see a mediocre job market for the next year from the perspective of workers," one economist said.

And that's all the article/story is. It appears as if the AP is trying to script the economic debate for the media. That being said, their information is somewhat inaccurate. An economist on Capitol Hill tells me that "AP is not taking into account the 'benchmark revision' that was issued by BLS/DOL in October. Adding in the estimated +236,000 revision from the BLS benchmark, the deficit is roughly 135,000 jobs since Bush took office."

More on this soon...

The election is behind us, but our economy continues to get stronger, and there's plenty of reason to look forward with optimism:

The number of people filing new applications for unemployment benefits dipped by 3,000 last week, offering a hopeful sign for the nation's labor market.

The Labor Department said Thursday that new claims for unemployment insurance dropped to a seasonally adjusted 334,000 the week ended Nov. 13, lowest level since the end of October.

During the campaign season, it was certainly expected that liberals and Democrats would paint the bleakest pictures of the economy. However, they are going to find it increasingly difficult in the weeks and months ahead to continue labeling the economy weak. If you were to ask some today they'd still it is a "crappy economy."

The article reports that businesses are no longer feeling cautious about hiring. Today, there are 2.8 million people collecting unemployment... A year ago, it was 3.5 million.

Things are looking good everyone... Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that 337,000 new payroll jobs were created in the month of October... This exceeded market expectations!

Highlights of the BLS Report include:

• During the month of October, 337,000 new payroll jobs were created. Since August 2003, 2.3 million new payroll jobs have been created. Payroll employment has now increased for 14 consecutive months.
  
• Employment gains for August and September were revised upward by a total of 113,000 jobs.
  
• The unemployment rate edged up to 5.5 percent in October. However, the unemployment rate is well below last year's peak of 6.3 percent, and below the average unemployment rates of the 1970s, 1980s,and 1990s.
  
• On average this year, roughly 200,000 new jobs have been created each month.

Here are some charts:

• 2.3 Million New Jobs Since August 2003
• Unemployment Rate Declining
• How Many New Jobs?

Reuters also notes that October saw the strongest job gains in seven months...

New U.S. jobs soared at the sharpest rate in seven months in October, the government reported on Friday, helped by a surge in construction activity as hurricane-battered areas in the Southeast were rebuilt.

A surprisingly strong 337,000 jobs were added to payrolls last month -- twice the 169,000-job growth that Wall Street economists had forecast and the strongest since March when 353,000 jobs were created, the Labor Department said.

Still, the unemployment rate edged up to 5.5 percent from 5.4 percent in September, but that was because more people joined the search for employment, a potentially hopeful sign.

The next four years are going to be great!

This is where you Democrats get to blame President Bush's tax cuts once again for our "terrible" economy. I know I do.

U.S. employers probably added 175,000 workers to payrolls in October, the most in five months, while the unemployment rate held at a three-year low of 5.4 percent, the median forecast in a Bloomberg News survey of economists shows.

Robust growth in the economy continues despite media spin, Wall Street estimates, and John Kerry talking down anything that is good in America today. And don't forget that for the last few months ALL revisons to reported numbers have been substantial improvements in economic performance.

Wall Street seems to initailly agree as markets are up as of 10:08am (and that is far more telling than any "futures" speculation -- Maybe we can get Hillary to give us some tips on the futures markets! lol)

So how has life been the last year and a half?

Today President George W. Bush signed the JOBS Act, which according to Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), "reduces corporate tax rates for domestic manufacturers, allows American companies to repatriate their foreign profits back into America at a lower tax rate, and most importantly, remove tariffs being placed on American companies by the European Union"

In a release by ATR they stated that "the importance of this legislation to American taxpayers, workers, and economy cannot be underestimated."

The legislation signed by President Bush today removes tariffs being placed on American companies, which is the equivalent of a $4 billion tax cut per year for American businesses and workers. The previous Foreign Sales Corporations (FSCs) and the extraterritorial income exclusion (ETI) export subsidies were found to be in violation of World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements. As a result, the EU was imposing tariffs on American companies at 12 percent, which were acting like a tax on American businesses and workers. These tariffs were obviously inflicting damage on the U.S. economy.

According to Grover Norquist, the president of ATR, "These provisions will boost jobs and growth in America, but today's signing also leaves Sen. John Kerry with no economic plan."

With just 11 days to go until the presidential election, Democratic presidential candidate Kerry has no economic plan left. The Kerry plan for 10 million jobs relied on cutting the corporate tax rate for domestic manufacturers by 5 percent and allowing companies to repatriate their foreign profits back into America at a 10 percent tax rate. The legislation signed by President Bush today cuts the corporate tax rate by 9 percent and allows companies to repatriate their foreign profits back into America at a 5.25 percent rate. So not only has this legislation removed the Kerry team from having an economic plan, the legislation signed by Bush is superior in economic growth.

"The only two provisions left in the Kerry economic plan are raising taxes on America's small businesses and a 1970's era job tax credit that did not work then and definitely will not work now," continued Norquist. "I find it quite ironic after all of Kerry's complaining about jobs and his "plan" for these jobs, he has absolutely no plan 11 days before election other than to damage the American economy."

Of course, not only was John Kerry not around to vote on this bill, through a spokesman, Kerry came out against the bill.

That's right... John Kerry won't like to hear this...

Edward Prescott, who picked up the Nobel Prize for Economics, said President George W. Bush's tax rate cuts were "pretty small" and should have been bigger.

"What Bush has done has been not very big, it's pretty small," Prescott told CNBC financial news television.

"Tax rates were not cut enough," he said.

Lower tax rates provided an incentive to work, Prescott said.

Prescott and Norwegian Finn Kydland won the 2004 Nobel Economics Prize for research into the forces behind business cycles.

Anyone familiar with the study of economics understands that increasing prosperity is dependent upon greater productivity. And this productivity results, as Adam Smith noted, from specialization and, as David Ricardo added, from comparative advantage. While these truths are well known among the economically literate, they don't make for nearly as good campaign sound bites as "Benedict Arnold CEO's" or "outsourcing American jobs."

So it is quite refreshing to hear a John Kerry advisor tell the truth, that outsourcing and trade in general are simply an extension of the productivity-boosting commercial activity that we engage in on a daily basis domestically and that artificially placing national boundaries on that activity is counterproductive. The Washington Post reports:

U.S. businesses understand the benefits and values of outsourcing, the [Indian Finance] minister said, "For every dollar outsourced by the US business, it gets back five to ten dollars." This view was tacitly encouraged by none other than Strobe Talbott, a Kerry adviser and former top State Department official in the Clinton administration, who paid a visit to New Delhi last month.

According to the New Kerala news site, Talbott said that India need not worry about the controversy over business process outsourcing "getting out of hand" if Kerry was elected. Talbott said "Kerry understood 'the economic good reason of trading through outsourcing as a necessity despite his political opposition,' and, added, that on the advice of his economists, he had left enough room to change his policy."

That condescending mantra ("do as I say, not as I do") would be an apt slogan for John Kerry's tax plan. As the indispensable Club for Growth's Stephen Moore points out in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece today (subscription required), while Kerry has been badmouthing President Bush's growth-oriented tax cuts as a giveaway to the "rich" (as if allowing people to keep what belongs to them is giving them something), Kerry has been doing everything he can to avoid paying his "fair share."

2003 EFFECTIVE TAX RATE

George & Laura Bush: 30.4%

Typical Middle Class Family: 20%

John & Teresa Kerry: 12.8%

Note: According to a Congressional Budget Office study (last panel of Table 4) requested by Democrats, the burden of federal income taxes falls more heavily on the wealthy after President Bush's tax cut than before. So if the Democrats want to undo the President's tax cut, they will be making the system less progressive.

UPDATE: Drudge picks up the story, notes Kerry is paying less of his income in taxes than the middle class.
UPDATE: John Kerry's off-shore tax shelter...

The Heritage Foundation has a great articlethat everyone must read to get an understanding of the state of the econmy. I am told "It should be valuable anti-spin for anyone watching the debate tonight."

From understanding payroll vs. household durveys, the unemployment rate, real earnings, economic growth, and the tax cuts, you'll find this analysis indispensable material when talking about the economy before, during, and after the debate tonight.

One of John Kerry's major arguments on the economy has been obliterated by a recent study released today that states, "Fears that an exodus of white-collar jobs to India and other low-wage economies will lead to massive employment losses in rich countries such as the United States and Britain are not backed up by the facts."

In a working paper for the U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research, two International Monetary Fund staffers discover no evidence that job growth in Britain is slower in those sectors with a quicker pace of service outsourcing.

They also find no link between job losses and outsourcing in the United States because outsourcing, by boosting firms' efficiency, creates enough new jobs to offset the initial losses.

IMF researchers Mary Amiti and Shang-Jin Wei say that "the risk of service outsourcing dramatically reducing job growth in the advanced economies has been greatly exaggerated." The findings of this latest study concur with other assesments by analysts, "including Diana Farrell of McKinsey Global Institute in San Francisco and Catherine Mann of the Institute for International Economics in Washington."

In fact, the report also says that the United States benefits from jobs that insourced into the country:

In balance-of-payments statistics, outsourced services count as imports. In the United States, such imports of computing and business services have roughly doubled since 1993 thanks to the growth of fast, cheap telecommunications but were still only 0.4 percent of gross domestic product in 2003. ... "In sum, the notion that large industrialized countries outsource more intensely than other economies is not supported by the trade data," Amiti and Wei write.

Amit and Wei also say that "the presumption that global service trade is dominated by lopsided one-way outsourcing from developed countries to developing countries is not supported by the data."

This report absolutely destroys Kerry's claims that outsourcing has hurt our economy.

But will John Kerry stop telling his lies? Doubtful. Last month when Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao tried to bring out the facts on outsourcing, John Kerry said, "I have no idea how they [the Bush Administration] could say that."

Maybe because the facts all prove that John Kerry's position on outsourcing is erroneous. The only outsourcing that has been bad for America has been John Kerry's outsourcing of the truth. Kerry continually lies to the American people about our economy, and he is sure to continue to ignore the facts.

Good news on the economy came out today, with September seeing companies adding 96,000 jobs. This is fewer than expected, but explainable:

The four hurricanes striking Florida and other coastal states the past two months "appears to have held down employment growth, but not enough to change materially," the Labor Department said Friday in assessing September's national employment situation.

The unemployment rate has held at the low 5.4 percent.

UPDATE: An economist on Capitol Hill tells me the annual revision is at +236,000. This means our economy has added 1.9 million new jobs since last April. We've also had 13 straight months of job growth.

...According to The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), severe weather in September “appears to have held down employment growth.” The unemployment rate remained at 5.4 percent, well below its peak of 6.3 percent last June, and below the average unemployment rates of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. BLS also announced today that employment growth between April 2003 and March 2004 was underestimated by approximately 236,000 jobs, or an average of 20,000 jobs per month. If this revision is taken into account, 1.9 million new payroll jobs have been created since April 2003.

Some commentators and journalists have recently stated that job growth has failed to keep up with population growth. This is false. Since the unemployment rate peaked at 6.3 percent last June, total employment has increased by 2.2 million, the labor force has increased by 949,000, and unemployment has fallen by 1.2 million. Due to the large increase in employment and large decrease in unemployment, the unemployment rate has fallen significantly, despite population growth.

Highlights of the BLS Report:

• During September, 96,000 new payroll jobs were created. The unemployment rate remained at 5.4 percent.
• According to a preliminary estimate of annual revisions to the payroll survey, employment growth between April 2003 and March 2004 was underestimated by approximately 236,000 jobs, or an average of 20,000 jobs per month.
• Approximately 1.9 million new jobs have been created since last April once this benchmark estimate is taken into account.
• The strong growth of payroll employment, however, does not tell the whole story because it does not include self-employment. According to the household survey, which includes self employment, total employment has increased by more than 2.2 million since last April.

UPDATE: So much for Kerry's 3 million jobs lost meme: "After including the projected change, it appears that about 585,000 jobs have been lost since President Bush took office in January 2001."

UPDATE: The Heritage Foundation has a great analysis of this morning's job numbers, including the benchmark revision.

More info to come later...

Kerry & Co. delight in attacking President Bush's tax cuts as harmful to America and as the cause of the return of deficits. Since President Bush took office and enacted multiple tax cuts, let's look at the impact on federal revenues, also called tax receipts (CBO's 2000-2003 actuals here and 2004 estimate here):

2000: $2.025 trillion
2001: $1.991 trillion
2002: $1.853 trillion
2003: $1.782 trillion
2004: $1.871 trillion

*Note that the federal fiscal year ends September 30

"Lastly, there is another reason [a legislative solution to the asbestos litigation crisis] won't happen. I picked up my Wall Street Journal last night...and what did I learn? 'The plaintiffs' bar is all but running the Senate.' Now, I really, strongly disagree with that, particularly the words 'all but.'"

-Fred Baron, Mealey's Asbestos Bankruptcy Conference, June 3, 2002

Why does this quote matter? Because Fred Baron's influence as a trial lawyer, co-chair of Kerry's Victory Committee and top Democratic donor is emblematic of how litigation is harmful to America's economy. Trial lawyers essentially own the DNC lock, stock and barrel, and Democrats do their economy-killing bidding. Consider a prime example: the asbestos industry.

At least 600,000 claimants have sued more than 8,400 defendant companies alleging some kind of injury caused by asbestos exposure.

Less than 45 percent of all asbestos litigation expenditures end up in the hands of plaintiffs, and 90 percent of plaintiffs are not impaired in any way.

The 67 companies bankrupted by asbestos litigation have facilities in every State except Rhode Island, Hawaii, and North Dakota. These bankruptcies have destroyed 60,000 jobs so far.

And what does Fred Baron have to do with it?

"Fred Baron has 10,000 asbestos clients - probably more than any other lawyer in the US - and he has a simple message for those lobbying Washington's lawmakers to make it harder to bring his cases to court. 'There will be a jihad,' he says. 'We will fight them with everything we've got.'" ("Special Report The Asbestos Crisis - Growing Chorus Demands Change In Law," Financial Times, September 9, 2002)

...So are John Kerry's hopes for victory:

The number of new applications filed last week for unemployment benefits fell sharply, offering a hopeful sign that the recovery in the job market may be gaining some steam.

The Labor Department reported Thursday that the number of new people signing up for unemployment insurance benefits dropped by a seasonally adjusted 37,000 to 335,000, the lowest level since the beginning of September. In the prior three weeks, claims had gone up.

The latest snapshot of the layoffs climate was better than economists were expecting. They were expecting claims to decline to around 355,000.

I like that phrase, "better than economists were expecting." It certainly gives us hope that the numbers we'll see tomorrow will be great news for the economy...

Many economists are forecasting a net gain of around 150,000 jobs for September, which would mark a bit of an improvement over the 144,000 jobs added in August. The nation's unemployment rate is expected to hold steady at 5.4 percent.

Even though payrolls have grown by 1.7 million in the last 12 months, the economy is still down by a net 913,000 jobs since Bush took office.

And, as I said earlier this week, there's great potential for a major dent to be made into that 913,000 job deficit tomorrow. Regardless, we've seen undeniable evidence that Bush took a recession he inherited and turned it around.

Those darn tax cuts....

This Friday, we will get a new glimpse into the state of our economy. September's unemployment figures will be released. Also, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) will put out its revised employment figures for the past year.

To put the pending revisions in perspective, an economist on Capital Hill explained to me that the "current available payroll data over the past year is just an estimate, based on a survey of employers, of actual employment. Each year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) pores through very detailed (and less timely) data on claims for state unemployment insurance. They then conduct what is called a “benchmark revision” – they actually bring their old estimates in line with the actual data as confirmed by the state claims data. On Friday, BLS will announce its estimate of what that final revision will be. The official revision will be made early next year."

Why is this important? If we see an upward revision, that tells us that for the past year, employment growth had actually been undercountered. These revisions are common, and I am informed that "In general, it appears that we see upward revisions during expansions, and downward revisions during contractions."

It just so happens; we are currently experiencing an expanding economy. History is on our side.

John Maggs of National Journal Magazine, wrote that the 2.6 million job deficit since Bush took office has fallen to 900,000 through August. According to Maggs:

"The average yearly revision since 1979 has been 257,000, and the average of all upward revisions is 308,000. In 2000, there was a positive revision of 468,000.

What this means is that a decent September for job creation, added to an average-sized revision for a recovery, could wipe out half or two-thirds of the remaining 900,000 deficit in jobs under Bush. It is conceivable that almost all of the deficit could disappear next month."

The numbers we expect to see on Friday could drastically impact the second debate that evening. Good economic numbers for the month of September, and a robust upward revision in job numbers for the past year will easily paralyze Kerry's economic stump speech. Kerry could very well lose the debate before the first question is asked.

What can we possibly expect to hear should the numbers be as good as Maggs anticipates? Perhaps the left will accuse Bush of cooking the books... Impossible, according to Maggs:

It is highly unlikely that any president could manipulate job statistics or other government-shaped economic data. The numbers are produced by thousands of career bureaucrats, any one of whom would drop a dime to Congress, the press, or the FBI at the slightest sign of monkey business. Any politician who attempted to manipulate the data would also be blamed for the ensuing panic on Wall Street, a place that depends on honest numbers

We'll just have to wait and see what the numbers say...

Another great day for Americans...

President Bush signed his fourth tax cut in four years on Monday, extending three tax breaks popular with middle-class voters and reviving other tax incentives for businesses.

Bush held the bill signing ceremony at a YMCA in Iowa, one of the most contested states in this year's presidential election with Democrat John Kerry and a state Bush lost by a razor-thin margin in 2000.

Bush said, "The law I sign this morning comes at just the right time for America." The $145.9 billion tax package signed by the President today will do the following:

• Keep the per-child tax credit at $1,000 for five years.
• Continue to allow more of taxpayers' income to be taxed at 10 percent, the lowest rate, for six years.
• Retain for four years a provision giving married couples relief from the so-called marriage penalty.

"Unless we acted, a family of four earning $40,000 would have seen their federal income taxes rise by more than $900," Bush said. "That would have been a burden for hardworking families across America. And it would have been a setback for our economy."

More good news on the economy was announced by the Bureau of Economic Analysis today, with GDP growth during the 2nd quarter being larger than expected.

The Joint Economic Committee (JEC) notes:

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) announced today that GDP grew at a seasonally-adjusted annual rate of 3.3 percent during the 2nd quarter, up from a previous estimate of 2.8 percent growth. Major contributors to the growth in GDP were business investment, consumer spending, and private inventory investment. Business investment, the lack of which drove the economy into recession in 2001, increased by 12.5 percent in the 2nd quarter and has now increased for five consecutive quarters. GDP has increased for eleven consecutive quarters.

Some highlights...

• During the 2nd quarter of 2004, GDP grew at a seasonally-adjusted annual rate of 3.3 percent. Over the past year, GDP has increased by 4.8 percent.
• Business investment was stronger than expected, growing at a robust 12.5 percent annualized pace in the 2nd quarter.
• Export growth was strong and the revised 2nd quarter trade deficit was slightly smaller than previously estimated.
• Residential investment, primarily home building, was also revised up and is now estimated to have grown at a very strong 16.5 percent annualized rate. This is the second strongest quarterly growth in home building in eight years.

I blame the Bush tax cuts...

UPDATE: An economist on Capitol Hill tells Blogs For Bush in response to the media bias on this news:

During the 1990s, average quarterly GDP growth was 3.3 percent. What has it been over the past year? 4.9 percent. That ought to put our recent growth context. Last quarter's growth was the same as the average growth throughout the 1990s. Is the media going to suggest that economic growth was subpar during the 1990s?

John Kerry was to tell you that everything is wrong with the US's foreign policy, domestic agenda and its economy. However, the ever increasing evidence points in a very different direction than John Kerry sees:

Claims rose by 16,000 to 333,000, the Labor Department said in Washington. In the prior week, initial applications plunged to a two-month low because of a decline in the number of Floridians filing in the aftermath of Hurricane Charley. So far this year, initial filings have averaged almost 344,000, down from 402,000 in 2003.

``This is completely consistent with what we've expected at this stage of the economic recovery,'' Timothy Rogers, chief economist at Briefing.com in Boston, said before the report. ``That is, layoffs have died off and demand for labor certainly has increased.''

The numbers reinforce expectations that the economy is pulling out of the mid-year lull, helped by gains in factory production and consumer spending. Increased employment will help take the place of tax breaks and mortgage refinancing as sources of income to sustain the recovery.

As John Kerry parades around the country talking down the economy to his supporters, the Bush-Cheney campaign has noted that the "same statistics Kerry campaigned on in 1996 are the same he rails against in 2004."

Read up on the statistics here...

The Bush Recovery keeps rolling. Manpower, a world leader in employment services, released results of a survey showing strong hiring plans for the months ahead.

"The employment picture is notably improved from a year ago in most countries," said Jeffrey A. Joerres, chairman and CEO of Manpower Inc.

"In the U.S., employers are optimistic when compared to one year ago, however, companies are taking a measured approach when looking forward," said Joerres. "The seasonally adjusted data reported for the Durable and Non-Durable Manufacturing sectors is the strongest of the year and comparable to levels reported during the late-'90s boom. Coupled with optimistic outlooks reported by employers in the Wholesale & Retail Trade and Finance/Insurance/Real Estate sectors, these results indicate that hiring activity in the U.S. labor market will continue to be solid through the end of the year."

This could be another reason the Kerry campaign is floundering. It has a muddled message on foreign policy and the Senator's statements about U.S. economic weakness ring hollow because they do not reflect reality. The Bush economic plan has helped us to rebound from the corporate scandals and stock market collapse of the Clinton years, and from the devastation of Septbember 11, 2001. But we're back on track - 4 More Years!

About the survey:

It is the only forward-looking survey of its kind, unparalleled in its size, scope, longevity and area of focus. The Survey has been running for more than 40 years and is one of the most trusted surveys of employment activity in the world. The Manpower Employment Outlook Survey is based on interviews with more than 35,000 public and private employers worldwide and is considered a highly respected economic indicator.

The economy continues to recover, with initial unemployment claims taking another dive last week.

The number of Americans filing for unemployment assistance tumbled by 44,000 last week, the government reported Thursday, coming in well below estimates as the backlog of filings from Hurricane Charley subsided.

Initial claims for unemployment insurance fell to 319,000 in the week ended Sept. 4, down from a revised 363,000 the previous week. Wall Street had expected a reading of 345,000, according to Briefing.com. ...

The four-week moving average of jobless claims, which smoothes out weekly fluctuations, came in at 339,250, down from 343,000 the previous week.

Those darn tax cuts... they keep hurting John Kerry's chances...

Here's some news from the presidential campaign that indicates that John Kerry has no clue what he is talking about. The story says Kerry pointed to the "record" $422-billion-dollar budget deficit predicted by the Congressional Budget Office as a new sign of Bush's inability to run the economy.

Memo to Sen. Kerry: The federal budget is not the economy. Repeat: "the budget" is not a synonym for "the economy."

The budget is how the government's annual spending plan. The economy, on the other hand, is the country's system of production and distribution and consumption. The health of the economy is determined by trillions of little economic decisions made by millions upon millions of people every day. A person buys a candy bar or a car or a house? That's the economy. A person decides to go back to school to prepare for a different career? That's the economy. An entrepreneur decides to start a new business and hire a few people to work for her? That's the economy.

The federal budget is not the economy, it is a tax on the economy. John Kerry knows something about taxes - in the Senate he voted to raise taxes 98 times.

The media is telling America today that the projected $422 billion budget deficit is the largest in history. They are misleading the American public in a number of ways.

First, they fail to mention that the $422 billion projection is actually down $55 billion from January 2004, when the fiscal 2004 deficit was projected at $477 billion. Second, they fail to credit the declining deficit projection to stronger-than-expected economic growth. Third, they fail to credit the stronger economy to President Bush and his tax cuts, light regulatory hand and overall economic policies.

And, fourth, they fail to tell the whole truth about the deficit - that, as a percentage of GDP, a $442 billion deficit will be only the 17th largest of all time.

It goes without saying that a smaller deficit is better than a larger deficit - but only if it is achieved via economic growth rather than tax increases. A tax increases to fill a deficit is a short-sighted economic policy that only causes worse fiscal problems down the road. A tax increase slows the economy, reducing its growth and reducing the future growth of tax revenues, making future deficits worse. Tax cuts, on the other hand, fuel economic growth, reducing future deficits.

It's happening right now, as a matter of fact. Because of the three big tax cuts pushed into law by President Bush, the economy is growing faster - and generating more revenue - than was previously expected.

The projected deficit for fiscal 2004 is just 3.6 percent of gross domestic product - that's down from a projected 4.1 percent just six months ago. The deficit in fiscal 2005 is projected at just 2.8 percent of GDP.

Let's put that in perspective. If you owe $5,000 on your Visa, and make $20,000, you have a sizeable financial problem as a large chunk of your take-home pay must go to pay the minimum payment on your Visa. If, two years later, your credit card debt has reached a new personal high of $10,000, but your income has increased to $80,000, it is both true and false to say your debt has set a new "record" high. In pure dollar terms, yes, but as a percentage of your income your debt has actually declined significantly.

Your income is your ability to finance the debt or pay it off. If you are faced with a debt, you can address it one of two ways. You can "tax" yourself by diverting more of your income to pay the debt, thus reducing your consumer spending or your investing or your saving for the future. Reducing your spending means reducing your current lifestyle, while reducing your investing or saving for the future means reducing your future lifestyle. The other alternative is to focus on increasing your income, enabling you to both pay down your debt faster and build a more prosperous future.

The national GDP, likewise, represents the nation's ability to finance its debt or pay it off. Thus, the proper policy focus is on growing the economy, not on reducing the nation's deficit or debt. President Bush understands this. You and I understand this.

But John Kerry - who doesn't even understand that the federal budget is not a synonym for "the economy" - is going to flit around American prattling on about the "record" budget deficit and how it shows Bush can't manage "the economy." And the media, either out of ignorance or partisan complicity, is going to help Kerry spread the meme.

Arm yourself with the facts. The American economy has never been healthier. James Glassman:

We just set a record for yearly production: a GDP of nearly $12 trillion, or $120,000 per family. As for what really counts, personal well-being: A record 69 percent of Americans own their own homes, and the account balance in the average 401(k) plan is $77,000, up 22 percent in three years. ... Bush can be proud of the U.S. economy and what he's done to keep it growing. He was dealt an extremely miserable hand by his predecessor. As Bill and Hillary Clinton were leaving the White House, the tech-stock bubble was deflating, and GDP and employment growth were slowing sharply. A recession began two months later. The fraud at Enron, WorldCom and other companies, which would bloom into historic scandal in the fall of 2001, also occurred under Clinton's watch. And, then, of course, there was 9/11.

But the U.S. economy will never perform as strongly as it otherwise could as long as the threat of mass-casualty terror attacks remains a real and present danger. That's why the number one economic issue we face today is not taxes or outsourcing or the price of oil, but selecting the right leader and the right strategy to win the global war on terror.

UPDATE: Steve Verdon has more on the media's innaccurate reports on the size of the deficit. Verdon:

We have idiots reporting on economic matters. It took me maybe 30 to 45 minutes to find all this data and compose this posts and I'm not a journalist. These guys should be fired.

The economic cherry on top of the convention sundae is the latest jobs report.

U.S job growth snapped back in August after two disappointing months, rising an as-expected 144,000, the Labor Department estimated Friday. The unemployment rate fell by a tenth percentage point to 5.4 percent, the lowest since October 2001. Job growth in June and July was revised higher by a cumulative 59,000. Average hourly earnings rose by 5 cents, or 0.3 percent, to $15.77 an hour. Wages are up 2.3 percent year-over-year. The average workweek was unchanged at 33.8 hours. Aggregate hours worked in the economy increased 0.2 percent. Goods-producing industries created 36,000 jobs in August, including 22,000 in manufacturing. Service-producing industries created 108,000 jobs, including 42,000 in health-care.

After a highly successful convention that focused on President Bush's national security credentials, the Kerry campaign has been struggling to shift the debate to the economy. That's a playing field on which we are prepared to compete as well.

President Bush's administration has imposed lower regulatory cost burdens on the economy than any president since the government began keeping records back in 1987, according to the New York Times. This is a story best told with a graphic, which you can click to see a larger, more legible version:

I often blame the Bush tax cuts for the economy's strong growth over the last year or so. Of course, not burdening the economy with billions of dollars in added costs for new regulations is helping too. As you study the graphic you might notice that the level of regulatory burden on industry began to rise sharply toward the end of the first President Bush's term, and also at the end of Clinton's second term. In both cases, a recession soon befell the economy. The current President Bush leads more wisely, and the economy is responding positively.

If you're an entrepreneur, a mid-sized business owner or a corporate executive - or even if you simply work for an entrepreneur or a mid-sized business or a big corporation or own stock in a business - keep in mind as you vote on November 2 that John Kerry is much more apt to regulate, regulate, regulate than is President Bush. [Hat tip: Chris Alden]

This being an election year, it is no surprise that all data will be spun and contorted into political ammunition. So it goes for the Census Bureau's poverty data. While it was widely reported that the poverty rate was up, the Wall Street Journal editorial page points out (subscription required), this is normal given the economic cycle:

Coming out of a slowdown, the poverty rate is always a lagging economic indicator, and experience teaches that it hits a peak roughly three years after a recession ends. Seen in this light, 2003's jump to 12.5% is right on schedule...

In any event, the latest figures mirror what happened in the last two slowdowns. In 1991, at the height of the recession, the poverty rate was 14.2% and peaked at 15.1% in 1993. Three years after the 1980 recession, the poverty rate also climbed - to 15.2% in 1983 from 13% in 1980.

Notably missing from much news coverage was another aspect of poverty statistics, the diminishing gap between races. A study by Manchester College found that this disparity has decreased by a startling 19%. While the ivory tower inhabitants caveated their report with a lamentation on an increase in income inequality (which is inevitable in a free society), they estimate that parity among the races could be reached within 14 years. Given all America has endured and the extent to which liberals use the race card to divide the nation, it will be a fine day when we can focus on helping people based on their economic circumstances, as opposed to the amount of melanin in their skin. As Abigail Fuller, Associate Professor of Sociology at Manchester College states:

We could conceivably end up with a society in which everyone has an equal chance of being rich, regardless of racial-ethnic background or gender or age–but in which everyone also has an equal chance of being poor, and there are a lot of poor people. In fact, while Whites have a lower poverty rate, about 68 percent of all poor people are White. While affirmative action is important, these people will not be helped by poverty eradication efforts that focus only on racial or gender discrimination.

Aside from the fact that the real world fall short of Professor Fuller's utopian dreams, the increasing equality among the races is to be applauded.

Jeff Cornwall points to evidence of the entrepreneurial economic boom. Here's an excerpt - there's more details and links on his blog.

The Young Entrepreneurs Organization (YEO) is a group of "business professionals, all of whom are under 40 years of age and are the owners, founders, co-founders, or controlling shareholders of a company with annual sales of $1 million or more." In many cities, this group represents the leading edge of high growth entrepreneurs. This group is clearly an economic bell-weather. In a recent poll of their membership, they found that 84 percent were planning on hiring in the next few months, and 11 percent indicated that they plan to hire at least 10 employees this year. Even more see growth in their companies over the next year, with 92 percent expecting sales to grow this year compared to last year.

With President Bush's stimulative tax cuts an issue in this election, it seems wise to remind voters of exactly how taxes work and how tax cuts are distributed. Because the topic is somewhat esoteric and the numbers almost incomprehensible due to their size, this is an apt situation for an analogy. And the esteemed William F. Buckley has the parable to end all parables in order to help people understand tax cuts and why the cry that they "favor the rich" is absurd. Here it is:

Every night, ten men met at a restaurant for dinner. At the end of the meal, the bill would arrive. They owed $100 for the food that they shared. Every night they lined up in the same order at the cash register. The first four men paid nothing at all. The fifth, though he grumbled about the unfairness of the situation, paid $1. The sixth man, feeling generous, paid $3. The next three men paid $7, $12, and $18, respectively. The last man was required to pay the remaining balance of $59.

The ten men were quite settled into their routine when the restaurant threw them into chaos. It announced that it was cutting its prices: Now it would charge only $80 for dinner for the ten men. This reduction wouldn't affect the first four men — they would continue to eat for free. The fifth person decided to forgo his $1 contribution to the pool, and the sixth contributed $2. The seventh man deducted $2 from his usual payment and now paid $5. The eighth man paid $9, the ninth, $12, leaving the last man with a bill of $52. Outside of the restaurant, the men compared their savings, and angry outbursts began to erupt. The sixth man yelled, "I got only $1 out of the total reduction of $20, and he" — pointing to the last man — "got $7." The fifth man joined in the protest. "Yeah! I got only $1 too. It is unfair that he got seven times more than me." The seventh man cried, "Why should he get a $7 reduction when I got only $2?" The first four men followed the lead of the others: "We didn't get any of the $20 reduction. Where is our share?"

The nine men formed an outraged mob, surrounding the tenth man. The nine angry men carried the tenth man up to the top of a hill and lynched him. The next night, the nine remaining men met at the restaurant for dinner. But when the bill came, there was no one to pay it.

If only Johns Kerry and Edwards were as intelligent as President Bush and able to comprehend the nuances of tax policy they would understand that a tax cut for ALL Americans means that those who pay the MOST TAXES will receive the MOST TAX CUTS. They would also realize, if they were learned and wise (or if they read the UPI article a week ago), that the tax system now is more progressive than it was before President Bush's tax cuts (the more regressive Clinton tax system):

U.S. taxpayers face lower effective federal income tax rates than they would have without the tax cuts, the CBO said. The CBO also said the tax cuts did not shift the burden of taxation to the middle class, but instead made the tax system more progressive.

The highest 20 percent of earners now pay a larger share of federal income taxes than they would have without the tax cuts, while the share of income taxes paid by all other income groups fell.

One can debate how progressive or regressive or unbiased the tax system ought to be, but one cannot claim that President Bush's tax cut was a sop to the rich. So next time somebody laments "tax cuts for the rich," you can explain how: (i) the rich are taxpayers and if all taxpayers get a cut then, by definition, those who are rich will get a cut; and (ii) President Bush made the tax system more tilted in favor of the poor and middle classes. So if the Johns want to repeal President Bush's tax cut, they are, in actuality, seeking to make the system more regressive.

Jeff Cornwall notes the good news in this report from vFinance Investments, Inc. (press release). vFinance says it's Entrepreneurial Confidence Index increased 13 percent in the second quarter of 2004 as compared to the first quarter of 2004 and is up "an impressive 33 percent from the same quarter a year ago."

Entrepreneurial confidence - the willingness to take a risk and start a business - is the essential building block of an economic boom. I think you're already seeing it in the strong growth in employment over the past year or so as shown by the government's Household Survey, which captures the growth of the small-business/home-based business/independent-contractor segment of the economy that the government's Payroll Survey of large employers misses. That's why the media reports sluggish job growth (based on the Payroll Survey) while the Bush Boom has lead America to the highest total employment in its history. Here's an excerpt from the vFinance report:

Analysis of the relationship between the ECI and the general economy indicates that this surge in entrepreneurial confidence reflects the strong increase in employment that began in the first quarter of 2004. When employment increases, confidence in the economy rises. Confident entrepreneurs are more willing to take the risk of starting a new business secure in the knowledge that if they fail they will be able to find employment. Thus, the climb in the ECI in the second quarter reflects the acceleration of employment growth seen in the first and second quarters. To the extent that this increase in interest is turned into actual new businesses, this process should become self-reinforcing. The new businesses that are created will hire more employees helping to generate healthy employment growth that will create an environment in which more potential entrepreneurs feel confident enough to strike out on their own.

Good economic news this morning as July housing starts rebound and inflation evaporates with a significant decline in the CPI that exceeded consensus forecasts. Pre-market stock futures surge on the news, coupled with declining oil prices. Statements by government officials that the recent signals of inflationary pressure were temporary appear to be true. Importantly, average weekly earnings for workers rose by 0.7%. The recovery is clearly not over yet. With the re-election of President Bush, we can ensure that the growth-oriented tax cuts will remain in place and the recovery can continue.

The Kerry camp jumped on the Congressional Budget Office report which was released on Friday, saying that the tax cuts "lowered taxes for the wealthy."

Wow, did Kerry figure that out all by himself? Bush made no effort to hide the fact that any American who paid taxes would get a tax cut.

"Over the last four years, the burden of taxes has shifted from the wealthy to the middle class," [John Kerry] said at a front-porch event. "The middle class is paying more taxes."

Perhaps the Kerry campaign should read Blogs For Bush more often, because, as we've already mentioned here, the CBO report found that the tax burden on the middle class actually decreased.

Kerry's economic advisors ought to actually read the report before they start making false claims over what is contained in it. Because, according to the Congressional Joint Economic Committee:

While many characterize the CBO report as evidence that the tax cuts shifted the burden of taxation to the middle class, CBO data show precisely the opposite effect. The tax cuts actually made the tax system more progressive. The highest 20 percent of earners now pay a larger share of federal income taxes than they would have without the tax cuts, while the share of income taxes paid by all other income groups fell.

I'm guessing the media will give John Kerry a pass on this blunder.

John Kerry is also the last person who should be talking about wealthy Americans not paying "their fair share" when Kerry himself had the opportunity to put his tax money where his mouth is and pay an optional higher tax rate - but didn't.

But hey, that's John Kerry for ya.

Business blogger Jeff Cornwall points to Congressional Budget Office data showing that, because President Bush's tax cuts in 2001, 2002 and 2003, the rich are paying a larger portion of all federal income taxes than before. That's right. The Bush tax cuts shifted more of the burden of paying for government off the backs of the poor and middle class and on to the backs of the well-off.

The Congressional Joint Economic Committee reports that

A new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report produced at the request of Congressional Democrats confirms that tax cuts since 2001 increased the share of federal income taxes paid by the highest earners while decreasing the tax share of lower- and middle-income groups. The CBO analysis, Effective Tax Rates Under Current Law, 2001 to 2014, shows that the income tax remains highly progressive, with the top 5 percent of earners paying more than half of all federal income taxes.

The highest 20 percent of earners now pay a larger share of federal income taxes than they would have without the tax cuts, while the share of income taxes paid by all other income groups fell.

Also, the overwhelming majority of federal income taxes are paid by the very highest income earners. The top 1 percent of income earners pays 31.6 percent of all income taxes, the top 5 percent pays 51.4 percent, the top 10 percent pays 63.5 percent, and the top 20 percent of income earners pays 78.4 percent of all federal income taxes. The bottom four-fifths of income earners pay just over one-fifth of all federal income taxes.

But expect the Left to continue to bray and prattle on about "tax cuts for the rich." It's easy to make that accusation when it is the rich who have been paying - and continue to pay - the lion's share of the lion's share of federal income taxes.

The Joint Economic Committee (JEC) released its latest update on the state of the economy today, titled "Recent Economic Developments - Soft Patch Appears Temporary."

"The economic expansion continues to be vibrant, but growth in employment and gross domestic product (GDP) moderated this summer. Much of the moderation in GDP growth was from slower consumer spending after rapid spending earlier this year. The recent economic soft patch is attributed by the Federal Reserve (Fed) 'importantly to the substantial rise in energy prices.' Many, including the Fed, believe that the economy is poised to resume sustained robust growth in jobs and output. Consistent with that belief, recent indicators show rising consumer confidence, vigorous activity in manufacturing and service industries, still-vibrant housing markets, strong business investment, and continued low inflation." [emphasis added]

Looks like the tax cuts are continuing to do what Bush told us they would do...

According to the Media Tenor Institute, an independent and non-partisan organization which is analyzing presidential campaign coverage, TV news broadcasts are ignoring the economy even though for 26% of Americans, the economy is the most important issue of this campaign:

The network evening news programs are not providing the public with the information voters find most important during the election year, such as the economy, healthcare and education. ... [T]he share of the coverage dealing with these issues remains small on the three major networks' evening news broadcasts.

In the first week of August, reports on the economy made up merely 3.1% of the analyzed media coverage. The average share of the coverage in the past three months was 3.7%.

This is quite interesting when you look at a previous finding of the Media Tenor Institute, which found that coverage of the economy actually lifts consumer confidence:

Media coverage of the overall economic development in U.S. TV news has been strongly positive in June, consequently resulting in increasing consumer confidence ratings. The positive news predominantly concerned the strong economic growth and the creation of new jobs, even in the manufacturing sector, softening concerns about outsourcing.

Putting these two together, one has to wonder. Why is one of the most important issues to American voters being virtually ignored when reports on the improving economy contribute to increase consumer confidence?

It must be that darn right-wing media.

President Bush has long cast his economic policies as being good for small business, good for the entrepreneur. Now, even the New York Times has admitted there is data to support the claim, in Floyd Norris' very good article exploring the difference between the government's two surveys on employment and job growth and explains why the payroll survey has not produced data showing the same high level of job growth as the household survey. The story also contains this nugget:

The household survey includes the self-employed as well as agricultural workers, who would not be counted in the establishment survey, and the establishment survey counts each job so that a worker with two jobs could be counted twice.

But over time the two surveys have been roughly similar, although with an interesting political difference. Republican administrations tend to produce better household numbers than establishment ones - perhaps reflecting a better environment for the self-employed. Democratic administrations tend to show better establishment figures.

The household survey showed a gain of 629,000 jobs in July. It's not a mirage - entrepreneurs, not Big Business, are powering this economic recovery. I blame the Bush tax cuts.

UPDATE: Perhaps this explains why small business owners favor Bush over Kerry by a wide margin.

If the NYT link above stops working, try this one.

This week the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released their Monthly Budget Review, and it offers some information regarding the deficit:

• Consistent with the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Mid-Session Review, the non-partisan CBO is now projecting a smaller budget deficit for this fiscal year. At $422 billion, the budget deficit is expected to be $56 billion less than what CBO projected in March. OMB is now projecting a deficit of $445 billion, which is $76 billion less than it originally estimated.
• The decrease in the deficit projection is due almost entirely to higher-than-expected revenues, helped by a stronger-than-anticipated economy.
• At 3.6% of gross domestic product (GDP), the budget deficit will be well below the peak levels of the 1980s. Measuring deficits relative to the size of the economy (GDP) is the only proper way to compare them across years and to assess the economy’s ability to absorb them.

"Higher-than-expected revenues" and a "stronger-than-anticipated economy" contirbuted to the reduction in the deficit, and we all know what cause the increase in revenues and the stronger economy... That's right, George W. Bush's tax cuts!

John Kerry on the other hand has no plans to make the tax cuts permanent, and in fact will raise taxes - and that's just to pay for all of his lofty promises. Somehow he thinks he'll simultaneously reduce the deficit, as said on his website:

John Kerry will dedicate additional resources to deficit reduction as part of his overall plan to cut the deficit in half in his first term as President.

Of course, John Kerry's "plan" doesn't offer much specifics on how he plans to do anything, let alone reduce the deficit. But it doesn't matter anyways, because with George W. Bush's tax cuts in place, we are already on schedule to reduce the deficit in half by the end of Bush's second term, according to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Mid-Session Review:

The February Budget set out a goal of cutting the deficit in half within five years. With improvements in the budget outlook since February, this Mid-Session Review continues to project that this goal will be met. The estimated deficit for 2004 is now 3.8 percent of GDP, down from 4.5 percent of GDP projected in February. By 2009, the deficit is reduced to 1.5 percent of GDP, less than half of the current estimate for 2004 and a reduction of two-thirds from the estimate in the February Budget. In nominal terms, the current deficit is also reduced by more than half, from the $521 billion deficit for 2004 estimated in February to the current estimate of $229 billion for 2009.

The July jobs report is out and it's being spun as bad news for the President by people who don't understand how the data is collected and calculated. The media is reporting that only 32,000 jobs were created in July. But that's not true, for a number of reasons.

First, the 32,000 figure has a statistical quirk in it: July is one of two months, the other being January, that the government statisticians simply assume that a certain percentages of businesses fail, and they reduce the jobs-growth estimate by tens of thousands of jobs to account for it. According to the New York Post's John Crudele, a year ago that lead to the job-growth number being slashed by 83,000 jobs in July.

Second, the 32,000 figure reflects only "nonfarm payroll jobs," which means, roughly, jobs created by employers. This data come from the government's monthly "Payroll Survey," which generally misses small businesses, especially newer small businesses, and always misses self-employed people.

The real number you should focus on is this one: Total employment in America rose by 629,000 to 139.66 million people in July, based on the government's Household Survey, which is also the data on which the official unemployment rate is based. Unemployment dropped a tenth of a percent in July.

A few months ago I published numerous posts on my blog documenting the surge nationwide in the growth of the number of limited-liability corporations, one of the most popular forms of incorporation for the self-employed and for new entrepreneurs just launching their ventures. (My most recent post on the LLC surge is here.) And more recently I linked from my blog to Jeff Cornwall's commentary on a Kauffman Foundation report that shows a resurgence of entrepreneurship among Americans, especially minorities but also among whites. As Dr. Cornwall noted, the Kauffman report showed that most entrepreneurs are starting businesses because they see an unfilled need in the marketplace, not because they are discouraged job-seekers.

The American economy is, more than ever, being driven by entrepreneurs, not by big corporations. That's why, more then ever, the jobs number that matters is the total employment number, not just the number of "nonfarm payroll jobs."

Here are some basic facts you need to know about the American economy under President George W. Bush:

The unemployment rate has fallen from 6.2 percent in July 2003 to 5.5 percent now.

The number of unemployed people has fallen from 9.1 million in july 2003 to 8.2 million now.

In Jaunary 2001, the month that George W. Bush took office, 135,999,000 Americans had jobs. By October of that year, the number of Americans with jobs had slumped to 134,562,000 - as the sudden negative economic impact of the 9/11 attacks combined with the economic slowdown that began almost a year before Bush took office (with the stock market collapse in April 2000) to cause unemployment to surge.

Today, 139,660,000 Americans have jobs, more than at any time in our nation's history.

Things continue to look good for our economy with the report that weekly jobless claims are down.

The number of people filing for initial jobless aid fell 11,000 last week, the government said on Thursday, as the pace of layoffs slowed and the job market brightened.

Initial jobless claims dropped to 336,000 in the week ended July 31 from a revised 347,000 in the prior week, the Labor Department said. The drop was slightly larger than economists' expectations for a fall to 340,000 from the originally reported 345,000 for the previous week.

While John Kerry is going around the country dismissing our booming economy saying, "We can do better," we can proudly say "Yes, we can - thanks to George W. Bush!"

Thanks to the Bush tax cuts, our economy is improving. Now we have to do our part to make sure the tax cuts become permanant and keep the economy strong.

National Review Online brings us some interesting economic news:

New orders at U.S. factories rose by more than expected in June and May's fall was revised to show a gain, government data showed on Wednesday, while a jump in a key service sector poll added to the upbeat outlook....

U.S. auto sales heated up again in July, after a surprising slowdown a month earlier...

The American manufacturing sector sped up activity in July, cementing the longest stretch of rapid growth in more than 30 years, a survey showed...It was the 14th consecutive reading above 50 points, which indicates an expansion in activity...

"The manufacturing sector continues to grow at a rapid rate as the PMI has now been above 60 percent for nine consecutive months," survey chief Norbert Ore said in a statement.

"This is the longest period of growth above 60 percent since the 12-month period of July 1972 through June 1973," he said.

The Labor Department reported Thursday that the 0.9 percent rise in wages and benefits in the second quarter followed a 1.1 percent increase in the January-March quarter...

Anyone remember how John Kerry's "misery index" was supposed to work? Something like if the moon rises over your left shoulder in March, then consumer confidence is down...

Jeff Cornwall notes that the media has ignored a new initiative from the Bush administration aimed at boosting minority entrepreneurshp.

President Bush unveiled a new initiative to support minority entrepreneurship at his address to the National Urban League. Sadly, it appears that this announcement got lost in the politics of the day by a media uninterested in any of the real substantial public policy differences in this race.

Imagine that. The media ignored a major substantive initiative introduced by the Bush administration. What makes this particularly troublesome is that this is a program that tackles the problems of minority economic development with a self-sustaining approach, bringing together existing non-profits with the private sector. It creates a network to provide education, training, and access to key resources for minority entrepreneurs. These are the key elements that have proven to work for entrepreneurial economic development.

Professor Jeff Cornwall comments on new data about the entrepreneurs at the core of the American economic recovery:

Almost one out of every eight Americans (11.9%) is engaged in entrepreneurial activity. This is one of the highest rates in the world and the highest rate of the largest, most developed economies. Our culture remains the strongest force driving entrepreneurial activity that differentiates us from other nations studied. America outranks the rest of the world in all of the key entrepreneurial indexes.

One myth that the cynics like to perpetuate is that these are mostly people out of work who cannot find a job. This study found that 76% of new start-ups were created to pursue opportunities their founders saw in the market, while only 24% were folks looking to create some income between jobs, typically as self-employed consultants.

Who are these American entrepreneurs? They tend to be young, as the study found the highest rate of entrepreneurship (17.3%) in 25-34 year olds. African Americans and Hispanics have the highest rates overall.

There are many voices, especially in Boston this week, that are still looking to the old economy to move us ahead. This report offers more evidence that this is a new economic age. The new economy will require leadership that understands that the old strategies of duplicity between big government and big corporations no longer will create growth or progress. An age of entrepreneurship requires a strategy of truly free markets, and not a managed economy using tax policy and governmental corporate largess to pick winners and losers.

So, entrepreneurs are both powering the growing economy and benefiting from it. And just why are both growing? Anyone care to blame the Bush tax cuts?

Too bad for the Democrats that more people aren't watching the DNC, because they might find out about this great piece of news.

Consumer confidence rose for the fourth straight month in July thanks to steady improvements in the job market, the Conference Board reported Tuesday, putting the indicator at a two-year high.

The New York-based research group reported that its index for consumer confidence rose to 106.1 in July, up from 102.8 in June and well ahead of the figure of 102.0 that investors had been expecting. It was the highest level for the indicator since June 2002.

Lynn Franco, director of the Conference Board's Consumer Research Center, said the gains were fueled by a better outlook for jobs, "and unless the job market sours, consumer confidence should continue to post solid numbers."

The survey is based on a sample of 5,000 U.S. households.

I wonder if this was in John Kerry's Misery Index?

Knowledge@Wharton, from the business school at the University of Pennsylvania, has just released a survey of some UPenn business professors about the differences in John Kerry's and President Bush's policies and proposals on taxes, healthcare, Social Security and the overall economy. The comments of finance professor Jeremy Siegel are quite interesting.

According to Siegel, however, Kerry's focus on middle-class economic woes is tough to reconcile with economic reality. "When you have a little bit more than 6% unemployment, that means you have more than 93% employment. With job losses now quite rare, the fear that employees will lose their jobs has diminished rapidly … I don't think I see a big squeeze [on the middle class]," Siegel adds. "It's a hard theme to play for. It played a lot better six months to a year ago when job losses were the fear, when people thought they would be next. That subject today is not as potent as it was."

In general, Siegel believes the country's economic situation bodes well for Bush's reelection. "He's a year ahead of his father in terms of economic recovery, in terms of job creation," Siegel notes, alluding to the 1992 reelection campaign of President George H.W. Bush, who lost to Bill Clinton because the country had not entirely emerged from a recession. "We do seem to be hitting a soft spot in the economy [right now]. But I don't think it's going to be worse. My feeling is it won't be a roaring economy. It won't be a '90s boom, not at least before the election. But the economy is not going to be decisive in favor of the Kerry team."

The Democrats also have criticized Bush for the government's burgeoning budget deficit. Kerry has said that he wants to cut the deficit in half over the course of his four years in office. Siegel, too, is upset that Bush has not done more to control spending, but says that voters, by and large, do not see the deficit as a major issue.

"The truth of the matter is that until Americans see some concrete disadvantages of deficit spending - which means inflation and sharply higher interest rates, not the tiny rate increases we see now - it's hard to make that an issue," Siegel says. "You look at the economy and things are going well. People ask, 'Why are the markets doing pretty well if [the deficit] is such a bad thing? Why has my home price done well if this is such a bad thing?' If the economy starts recovering strongly, the deficit can actually be reduced. During the Clinton administration, deficits disappeared because of strong economic growth, not because of cuts in spending."

Question of the year: John Kerry, if the economy is adding mostly bad jobs, why are average earnings rising?

John Kerry and his friends like Moveon.org have been saying that the quality of those jobs is much lower than the quality of jobs that have been lost.

Yeah right.

Factcheck.org , a nonpartisan and nonprofit consumer advocate for voters, has a lengthy article out disputing with facts what the Democrats have been saying. Factcheck.org has totally destroyed the home grown falsehoods that John Kerry and Moveon.org desperately needs to be true for the Democrats to have a chance in November.

Employment has recently increased by more than 1 million in categories that on average paid above the median earnings of $541 per week, while employment was virtually unchanged in categories paying below the median. That's comparing the most recent 12 months with the same period a year earlier. By that measure, the jobs gained are overwhelmingly good jobs -- the very opposite of the claim made by Kerry and his allies.

As Glenn is fond of saying - Read it all.

Arnold Kling comments on the astonishing rise of productivity in the American economy during the first 13 quarters of the Bush administration, and why it gets little mention by the press:

The 17 percent productivity growth from the first quarter of 2000 to the first quarter of 2004 stands head and shoulders above the growth rate for any comparable period. In fact, it is better than any eight-year period since 1976. In the first 13 quarters of the Bush Administration, the basic determinant of our standard of living increased by almost as much as during the entire 32 quarters of the Clinton Administration.

As far as I know, President Bush has not claimed credit for the phenomenal productivity growth that has occurred during his Administration. Nor should he. As Dick Cheney said when asked during the Vice-Presidential debate whether he was better off in 2000 than he was four years ago, "Yes, but government had nothing to do with it." Productivity growth in any given Presidential term is affected much more by private sector trends and by policies of previous Administrations than it is by current policies. I think it will be years before we know how much, if any, the Bush Administration's economic policies affected productivity.

The most likely explanation for the faster productivity growth of recent years is the gradual diffusion and exploitation of computer technology.

One reason is that the productivity trend is positive. The media always prefer economic stories which show America going to hell in a hand basket. In the 1970's, we were supposedly running out of oil. In the 1980's, we were being beaten by Japan. More recently, the media have tried to make the outsourcing phenomenon carry the narrative for the story of gloom and despair.

The other reason that the productivity story is not big news is that the current Administration is unpopular with the media. As much as the media is averse to reporting good news, I think that productivity would receive greater coverage if the big gains were taking place on a Democratic President's watch. The upbeat productivity data would "fit" the story of competent Democratic stewardship of the economy. But it would spoil the narrative of the Bush Administration as bumbling and Hoover-sequel to point out that the most fundamental measure of our economic strength is shooting through the roof. It's not that I think that high productivity growth is a partisan story that reflects well on President Bush. But the failure to report on the phenomenon is a partisan story that reflects poorly on the ability of the press to rise above its biases and keep the public informed.

I wonder how John Kerry is going to tell us how bad this really is:

The economy appears headed for a banner year despite a springtime spike in energy prices and a recent increase in interest rates. In fact, many analysts are forecasting that the overall economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, will grow by 4.6 percent or better this year, the fastest in two decades. There were strong 4.5 percent growth rates in 1997 and 1999, when Bill Clinton was president and the country was in the midst of a record 10-year expansion. But if this year's growth ends up a bit faster than that, it will be the best since the economy roared ahead at a 7.2 percent rate in 1984, a year when another Republican president - Ronald Reagan - was running for re-election.

With 1.5 million new jobs created since last August, things still continue to look better and better for our economy, with many analysts anticipating 200,000 jobs added per month over the next 6 months, erasing the loss of jobs resulting from the Clinton Recession.

Also predicted is a gradual decline in the unemployment rate, which is expected to move from 5.6 percent to 5.3 by December.

I blame the Bush tax cuts.

The latest job numbers are out and they are good - 112,000 new payroll jobs were created in June - even though the press is telling you they are bad because analysts had expected double that.

So why is lower-than-expected job creation not bad news? Because it's only part of the story - and the media is ignoring lots of good news on the jobs-growth front.

The Payroll Survey tells only part of the employment story. The media generally ignores the data from the Household Survey, which shows a more robust economy than the Payroll Survey. The Household Survey is widely believed to captures thousands of small-business and independent-contractor jobs that the Payroll Survey misses, and is in fact the data the government uses to calculate the unemployment rate.

The media routinely reports the unemployment rate but doesn't dig deeper than the press release, and misses the bigger story.

Here it is: total employment in America was 139,031,000 in June, according to the Household Survey. That includes employees on a big company payrolls, small-business entrepreneurs and employees, and independent-contractors who make a living without showing up on any payroll.

That's up 259,000 more people working just since the May report and 733,000 more since March.

The Payroll Survey, on the other hand, shows only 131,301,000 people working in June, up only 671,000 from March. The news media, by focusing only on half of the data, is under-reporting June's job growth by 62,000 jobs – and is ignoring more than 8.7 million working people.

President Bush's economic policies are fueling an economic recovery powered by small businesses, entrepreneurs and self-reliant independent contractors - the kind of people who have always been the backbone of the American economy. The kind of people who would be most harmed by John Kerry's plan to raise taxes.

UPDATE: Via Pejman, I found this commentary on the jobs data from economist Tim Kane, Ph.D.

The payroll survey simply ignores the growth in self-employed workers and microbusinesses. ... The Congressional Budget Office notably shifted its attention from payroll data to household data with this year's published Economic Outlook. The growing consensus of economists is that the payroll survey won’t be an equivalent gauge of labor markets until after its benchmark revision, which will occur in January 2005.

Jeff Cornwall has a really excellent summary of a ground breaking study on the power of tax policy to effect entrepreneurial behavior. The study, by William M. Gentry, assistant professor of economics in the Department of Economics at Williams College and R. Glenn Hubbard, Dean and professor of finance and economics in the Graduate School of Business at Columbia University, found that progressive marginal tax rates (rates that increase at higher levels of income) "discourage entry into self-employment and business ownership."

Cornwall says the study has political implications given Sen. John Kerry's promise to raise marginal tax rates if he is elected president:

The implications of this study cannot be overstated. We face the possibility of a shift of policy at the national level that could result in higher marginal progressive tax rates. Sen. Kerry has made it clear he plans to raise the tax rates of what he calls "the rich". Many of them are entrepreneurs who pay personal taxes on their businesses due to their S-corp, LLC, or partnership status.

Why does tax policy have such an impact? Entrepreneurs who are considering expanding an existing business or starting another may think twice. Each expansion or new business carries risk. And if the rewards are reduced with each new initiative the entrepreneur undertakes, there comes a point when it just isn't worth the risk. So progressive marginal taxes create the most significant disincentives for the very entrepreneurs we want to encourage - those who have already succeeded with other ventures.

The changes being planned by the Democrats could act like a cold, wet blanket on our economic future.

Cornwall, by the way, in addition to being a blogger, is director of the Center for Entrepreneurship in the Jack C. Massey Graduate School of Business at Belmont University.

Reuters reports:

U.S. employment likely surged again in June, taking gains this year to some 1.4 million jobs and bolstering President George W. Bush's economic record ahead of the November election, analysts said on Wednesday. Economists believe 250,000 jobs were created this month, virtually matching May's jump of 248,000...

Incidentally, that means job creation over the last four months is clicking along at an annualized pace of nearly 3.6 million jobs. John Kerry has promised his economic policies would create 10 million jobs over four years - or more than four million fewer jobs than the current pace of job-growth generated by the Bush Boom.

These words were written by Thomas Jefferson and they are just as valid now as they were back in the late 1700's.

Now Liberal Senator Hillary Clinton request that we change that to the her new purposed motto:We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good

Great the party of the wild-eyed wants to take away the results of our hard work and then turn it over to those who seem to know better than us what to do with our own money.

The bolding is mine.

Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters -- some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend -- to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress

This is just another reason why Democrats cannot win the White house or control of congress. It is repugnant to have leadership who has nothing but contempt for those of us in the middle class.

The media tends to separate the president's handling of the economy and the War on Terror as separate and distinct issues - polling voters, for example, for their opinions separately on those issues. But the two are inextricably linked, explains Jeff Cornwall, a university professor who teaches entrepreneurship and also blogs about it.

The current expansion has seen an unusually slow employment recovery. Why? In large part it is because we are still waiting for the other shoe to drop. Entrepreneurs remember that after the 9/11 attack, those businesses that were already running lean and tight were the most likely to survive the dramatic shock on the economy that followed. There is a general, yet usually unspoken fear that there will be another “event”. So they are being very cautious. They don’t want to be caught with large inventories and bloated payrolls if the terrorists strike again. Entrepreneurs have a general sense of confidence in the economy, but they just don't trust that events will allow it to continue.

Things are no longer as predictable and simple as they once were. The attacks of 9/11 were aimed directly at our economic system. And they got a direct hit. We are at war. The war has come to our shores, and the enemy intends on attacking the very foundations of free enterprise and our way of life. In many ways, entrepreneurs are the economic foot soldiers of this part of the war. And much more is at stake than simply their businesses.

The alternative, a tax-raising cut-and-run appeaser, is simply unthinkable, unless you enjoy thinking about America dealing with return of Carterism - a stagnant economy and a dispirited foreign policy that leaves America at the mercy of Islamofacist hostage-takers and killers.

For the soldiers at the combat front of the War on Terror to the business entrepreneurs at the economic front, to you and me at the political front, pray we don't lose nerve now. The future of America, the civilized world, and half a billion people in the Middle East who would prefer to live in freedom and prosperity rather than in fear and tyranny, depends on it.

Some politicians and special-interest groups are telling you we need to do something about the rising cost of college tuition. Presidential wannabe John Kerry, for example, says you should vote for him so he can fix the problem of rising college tuition. On his campaign website (economy issues link), Kerry claims that, "Over the past two years, the cost to attend a public four-year college has increased by 10 percent, and the cost to attend a public two-year college has increased by 8 percent." Er. Um. That's not true!

What students pay on average for tuition at public universities has fallen by nearly one-third since 1998, thanks to new federal tax breaks and a massive increase in state and federal grants to most students and their families. Contrary to the widespread perception that tuition is soaring out of control, a USA TODAY analysis found that what students actually pay in tuition and fees - rather than the published tuition price - has declined for a vast majority of students attending four-year public universities. In fact, today's students have enjoyed the greatest improvement in college affordability since the GI bill provided benefits for returning World War II veterans.

What made the difference: a $22 billion annual increase in grants and tax breaks since 1998.

That 80% jump in financial aid - targeting middle-class families earning $40,000 to $100,000 a year - has more than offset dramatic increases in tuition prices.

"College still takes a big chunk out of most families' income. But the average student is much better off today than headlines would have you believe," says Sandy Baum, an economist who co-authors an annual report on college costs for the College Board, which oversees college entrance exams.

USA TODAY analyzed what students paid for tuition and fees after grants, discounts, tax credits and deductions. Other studies focus on the listed price of tuition. But listed college tuition is like the sticker price on a new car: Few people actually pay it. In 2003, students paid an average of just 27% of the official tuition price at four-year public universities when grants and tax breaks are counted. Students at private universities paid an average of 57%.

UPDATE: The more I thought about the story in USA Today about how college has become more affordable for the middle class in the last few years, the more my memory kept telling me I ought to check college enrollment stats. If John Kerry is right that college is becoming less affordable for many middle class Americans, then college enrollment would be down. But if USA Today is right, and college is becoming more affordable for the middle class, then college enrollment would be up or at least steady.

Here's what I found: "The college enrollment rate of recent high school graduates was little changed over the year and remains near historically high rates," according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics in a news release dated April 27, 2004. According to the BLS, almost sixty-four percent of high school graduates from the class of 2003 were enrolled in colleges or universities in the fall.

Now, how can that be? John Kerry says college has become simply unaffordable for the middle class, yet college enrollment "remains near historically high rates." Huh. I guess John Kerry must be wrong. Or lying - and unaware of the existence of the Internet and Google and BlogsForBush so his claims and assertions can be fact-checked and the truth published online.

Is the U.S. economy suddenly facing a "supply shock"? Russell Sheldon, senior economist at BMO Nesbitt Burns in Toronto, thinks so:

In a neat 360-degree turn, the basic theme in the U.S. economy has swung from excess capacity to shortages. The shortage situation is extreme by any standards. Inventories at all stages of production plunged relative to sales in the initial months of this year. All three levels - manufacturing, wholesalers and retailers - are very short on inventories. ... Viewing the "moon shot" economic numbers for ISM and construction, I think the shortages story is lighting a fire under the economy that will last a while.

"Outsourcing" is the Left's latest economic bugaboo, the trend they hail as proof of the failure of President Bush's economic policies, or even of the evils of globalization. And so it warrants a closer look. The Boston Business Journal, in John Kerry's hometown, took a closer look - and says Kerry is wrong about "outsourcing." (free reg. req.)

The United States is on the winning side of outsourcing, gaining far more jobs from the process than it loses. A McKinsey study says the money saved from the lowered costs of outsourcing and redeployed labor produces a net gain in the United States. ... The Democratic national leadership is advancing a plan to repeal tax breaks to U.S. companies that deploy foreign outsourcing as a way to protect jobs. But such reactionary economic policy seems to ignore the facts and may induce the aura of temporary protection at the risk of forfeiting genuine growth opportunities.

Larry Wright, district representative for the Performance Metalformers Association, says his views of outsourcing and free trade haev evolved over the last decade.

"If you had asked me five years ago, my opinion would have been different," he says. Now, Wright firmly believes the globalization of the marketplace has boosted the U.S. economy and manufacturing in particular.

Although John Kerry says we are re-living the Great Depression:

It was the start of a two-week tour through battleground states such as Ohio, Michigan and Colorado to talk about "the worst job recovery since the Great Depression" and promise voters health care coverage as a "right."
-- John Kerry, June 21, 2004

Sales of new, single-family homes soared in May, despite higher mortgage rates that are expected to slow the housing market eventually. Separately, the manufacturing sector hit a speed bump as durable-goods orders slipped, and jobless claims ticked up slightly.

Economists pointed to rising employment, increasing personal income and continued low interest rates as strong contributing factors to the new-home sales data, as well as a rush by fence-sitters to buy before mortgage rates rose more.

Americans gave an average of $182.09 billion to charity per year during the eight years President Bill Clinton was in office, but have increased that to $239.35 billion per year in the three years President George W. Bush has been in office - an increase of 31.4 percent.

Charitable giving averaged 1.925 percent of GDP during the Clinton era, and has averaged 2.233 percent of GDP during the first three years of Bush's administration.

Compassionate conservatism? The impact of the Bush tax cuts? A strengthening economy? I blame all three.

That data comes from the Giving USA 2004 report that I posted about yesterday and earlier today.The report uses Gross Domestic Product released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis on March 25, 2004, and all numbers are adjusted for inflation based on the Consumer Price Index values found for 1963-2002 at www.bls.gov, based on the value of $100 in 2003.

ABC News has more on yesterday's report of an increase in charitable giving by Americans last year:

Charities had been worried that recent tax reforms, included phasing out the estate tax, might hurt donations, but gifts by bequest showed the greatest increase in 2003. With support from higher household net worth, estate giving rose 12.8 percent to $21.6 billion, from $19.5 billion in 2002.

Of the ten charitable categories documented by Giving USA, religious organizations received the most contributions, with an estimated $86.4 billion, or 35.9 percent of the total.

The increase in charitable giving by Americans is, undeniably, an achievement of the policies of President Bush.

USA Today slams John Kerry for "talking down the economy," and says his claims are belied by the facts of a now-booming economy. Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal's front page has a story, Recovery Forces Democrats to Refocus (sub. req.), that starts with this:

With the economy now growing at a rapid clip, Democrats are losing a pillar of their 2004 campaign argument: that a weak recovery is making it unusually hard for Americans to find work.

Speaking of the election campaign, Newsday has a very interesting story about the "religion gap" in American politics, which hints at a surge in support for Bush among religious conservatives, millions of whom simply didn't vote in the 2000 election.

Americans' charitable giving rose in 2003 over 2002, and marks only the fifth time since 1971 that charitable giving in America topped 2 percent of gross domestic product, reports today's New York Times:

Americans gave an estimated $240.72 billion in 2003, a slight increase from the previous year, according to Giving U.S.A., an annual survey of charitable contributions published by the A.A.F.R.C. Trust for Philanthropy, a unit of the American Association of Fundraising Counsel, and compiled by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.

Estimated giving in 2003 equaled roughly 2.2 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, the fifth year since 1971 that charitable contributions exceeded 2 percent of the total output of goods and services.

"This occurs despite rather unsettling times," said Henry Goldstein, chairman of the Giving U.S.A. Foundation, which released the survey. "The economy is in what I would call partial recovery; there's a war, there's a threat of violence, there's a political campaign that is nasty, and yet philanthropy is really quite robust."

Think about it. Reduced taxes not only helps the economy grow, it puts more money in people's pockets that they can give to charities and good causes. Charitable giving soared during the 1980s, the last time the economy enjoyed a boom fueled by broad tax cuts.

According to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, giving to charitable causes more than doubled from $48.7 billion in 1980, the final year of the President Carter-induced national "malaise," to $99.3 billion in 1988, Reagan's last year in the White House. Factoring in inflation, that's an increase of more than 25 percent in charitable giving during the Reagan years - twice the growth rate in the 1970s - and during an era liberals widely derided as an era of greed.

As Leslie Lenkowsky writes in a commentary in that same publication:

Tax rates were reduced and loopholes closed as well, but in the Reagan years, charitable giving rose by more than 25 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars, twice the rate of the previous decade. During the 1980s, after a period of stagnation, new foundations began to be created again, and corporate giving, as a percentage of pretax profits, reached an all-time high. In the 1990s, tax rates - despite a small increase early in the decade - remained below their pre-Reagan levels, and philanthropy grew even more rapidly as the economy picked up speed.

As the economy continues to improve, and the media continues to shy away from reporting on it, John Kerry similarly takes the pessimistic route and belittles the economic recovery. In fact, John Kerry's latest position on the economy is that it's not longer about jobs.

On John Kerry's website has a page on his position(s) on the issues. His issue page on the economy is dominantly about jobs, jobs, jobs:

Under the headline "Restoring Jobs and Rebuilding Our Economy":

"The first thing John Kerry will do is fight his heart out to bring back the three million jobs that have been lost under George W. Bush..."

"He will fight to restore the jobs..."

"Kerry has proposed creating jobs through..."

Under the headline "John Kerry's Plan to Create 10 Million Jobs":

"John Kerry is unveiling a comprehensive economic agenda ... help [the economy] create 10 million jobs in his first term as President."

"Kerry will unveil a series of proposals that will restore confidence in the economy and spur job creation."

Under the headline "John Kerry: Protecting America's Jobs":

"Outline Places to Address Outsourcing - Part of Comprehensive Plan for American Jobs"

Under the headline "John Kerry Jobs Tour":

"While President Bush continues to send jobs overseas..."

So what does Kerry say now?

"What will not go away as an issue, no matter how many jobs we create in the next four months, is the reality of day-to-day life for most Americans, who are having trouble paying their health-care bills, paying the gasoline bills, paying their tuitions, all of which have gone up while wages have gone down..."

Call it nuance, call it a flip-flop, call it whatever – John Kerry is basically saying it's no longer about jobs.

Gee, I wonder why...

Bush addressed the growing economy in his radio address this morning, saying:

Time and again, our economy has defied the gloomy predictions of pessimists. Because of the hard work of so many Americans, and because of the good policies in Washington, D.C., our economy is strong, and it is getting stronger. America has added more than 1.4 million new jobs since last August. Our economy has grown at the fastest pace in almost two decades. And the recession was one of the shortest and shallowest in modern American history.

Americans are earning more, and because of tax relief, they're keeping more of what they earn. Real after-tax incomes have increased by 11 percent since the start of 2001. Those are important gains for our entire economy because they go to the taxpayers and not to the government. And we have seen that the taxpayers know best how to drive our economy forward. Moms and dads have used their child tax credit checks and other tax relief to boost demand throughout our economy. The home ownership rate is at an all-time high. And because of greater demand, businesses are making more purchases of equipment. Business investment is up more than 9 percent in the last year. And we know that when businesses invest, that makes it more likely someone will find a job.

John Kerry thinks we're living in the Great Depression and is still fighting the Vietnam War. His pessimism is taking his campaign nowhere.

Industrial production surged in May, posting its largest gain in six years:

Output at U.S. factories, mines and utilities surged in May, posting its biggest gain in almost six years, the Federal Reserve reported Wednesday. The Fed said industrial production rose a larger-than-expected 1.1 percent in May after a 0.8 percent gain in April. The May increase was the biggest since a 2.0 percent rise in August 1998.

New claims for unemployment fell last week; with first time applications dropping by 15,000:

"We're in the early stages of a long expansion," said Douglas Lee, president of Economics From Washington, a research firm in Potomac, Maryland, before the report.

Chris Rupkey, an economist at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi in New York, said, "We're in the middle of a red hot labor market."

We here at Blogs for Bush, as usual, blame the tax cuts.

Man, the Bush economy sucks. At the current rate of job creation, 238,000 per month so far this year, the Bush economy would create only 11.424 million jobs over four years. That's fewer than the 10 million Kerry's policies would create in his first term. Er, um. Never mind.

The fact is, the Bush Boom is now creating jobs at a faster clip than the job growth John Kerry promises if he is elected president and allowed to enact his policies of higher taxes and higher government spending.

In fact, at a rate of 238,000 new jobs per month this year, the economy would create 11,424,000 jobs over four years. John Kerry is promising his economic policies would create only 10 million jobs during his first term.

The U.S. economy has kicked in to high gear, generating another 248,000 new nonfarm payroll jobs last month, according to the Labor Department. That's higher than economists were expecting. Meanwhile, the Labor Department also revised the data for job growth in March and April by a total of 74,000 jobs.

Labor says, "Job growth in May again was widespread, as increases continued in construction, manufacturing, and several service-providing industries."

The economy has created 947,000 jobs in the past three months - the best three-month gain since the summer of 2000. The economy has created 1.2 million jobs so far this year, an average of 238,000 jobs a month. At that rate, the economy will add another 1.19 million jobs before election day.

The economy lost 2.7 million jobs, an average of 90,000 per month, from March 2001 through August 2003 as the economic slowdown that began in the final year of the Clinton administration turned into a recession and then the economy struggled to shake off the impact of the 9/11 terror attacks.

As I mentioned yesterday, the Bush Boom jobs are sustainable.

Vincent Fiore on Kerry's energy policy:

Kerry's policy on energy is typical: present none, but demagogue current gas prices. It was Senator Kerry who led the filibuster to stop drilling for oil in ANWR, thereby eliminating the creation of as many as 500,000 high paying jobs.

Seems like we've been saying this a lot recently, but once again things continue to look great for the economy:

The Labor Department may report Friday that U.S. companies added 225,000 workers to their payrolls last month, fueled by an economy that's raced ahead at the fastest clip since 1984, economists said.

The projected increase would bring to almost 850,000 the number of jobs created since March, for the best three months of job creation since the year 2000. The Labor Department may also report the unemployment rate held at 5.6 percent.

Separate reports from the Institute for Supply Management are forecast to show manufacturing and the service industry expanded this month. A report from the Commerce Department is projected to show that construction spending rose in April.

"It's hard to say the economy is slowing if you get payrolls growing more than 200,000 and an ISM index above 60,'' Robert Mellman, an economist at J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. in New York, said. "The economy is doing just fine.''

Other reports expected to come out this week may show that productivity is up, from an estimated 3.5 percent. First-time claims for unemployment insurance probably fell to 335,000 from 344,000 the previous week.

I blame the Bush tax cuts.

Once again, we have more good news on our economy:

The economy grew at a 4.4 percent annual rate in the first quarter of this year, slightly faster than previously thought and fresh evidence that the recovery possessed good momentum as it headed into the current quarter.
The increase in gross domestic product from January through March reported by the Commerce Department on Thursday marked an improvement from both the 4.2 percent pace first estimated for the quarter a month ago and the 4.1 percent growth rate registered in the final quarter of 2003.

New applications for unemployment benefits also dropped, another piece of evidence of the economy's recovery.

Although consumers and the federal government did their part to support the economy in the first quarter, the better reading on GDP for the period in large part reflected stronger investment by businesses to build up inventories, a good sign that companies are more confident about the economy's prospects. From April to June, the economy is expected to grow at a rate in the range of 4.5 percent to 5 percent, according to some analysts.

Consumers, whose spending accounts for roughly two-thirds of all economic activity in the United States, increased their spending in the first quarter at a 3.9 percent rate. That was slightly stronger than previously estimated and up from a 3.2 percent growth rate in the fourth quarter.

Of course, I blame the Bush tax cuts.

With the economy being a key issue in this presidential election, the good news for the economy is bad news for Kerry and the Democrats.

Via Dane Carlson's blog, I bring you more evidence of the robust economic recovery underway in North America: Applications for enrollment in university MBA programs is down between 15 percent and 25 percent compared to this time last year, according to Economist magazine.

Kenneth Dunn, dean of Carnegie Mellon's Tepper School of Business, says that applications for the full-time MBA programme, one of the country's best, are about 30% lower than this time last year. Allan Conway of the University of Calgary, and programme director of the MBA Roundtable, an industry body, estimates that applications this year for MBA programmes in America are down by between 15% and 25% on 2003.

Does that spell disaster? Not for top schools such as Tepper, which turn away far more applicants than they accept. Applications for MBA courses are counter-cyclical: they tend to rise when executive jobs are scarce and shrink when they are plentiful. This year's decline is a sign of the current economic boom, just as the 40% rise in applications to Tepper two years ago partly reflected hard times in the managerial job market.

From USA Today:

Employment has picked up significantly this year in a number of closely contested states that could decide the outcome of the 2004 presidential election. The latest Labor Department figures on state jobs show that 10 of the 17 states expected to be the most tightly contested this campaign season were among the fastest-growing job markets in the country in April.

The report, out Friday, showed a marked acceleration in job gains in industrial states in and around the Midwest defying the expectations of economists who predicted last year that those states would lag the national recovery.

"The hemorrhaging is over," said Sophia Koropeckyj, an analyst at the consulting firm Economy.com. "These states are bouncing back."

Tech blogger Steven Forrest points out that a group of high-tech executives are set to endorse President Bush for re-election, because "his administration's policies are pro-technology industry, pro-growth and pro-innovation." Given the importance of the tech sector to the overall economy, the endorsement of Bush by many of the nation's most important technology executives is an important event.

Americas Holding Inc. needs 75,000 new employees earning $45,000 to $75,000 a year. They are so desperate for employees that they are offering full scholarships at vocational schools. Let's say that together FULL SCOLARSHIPS TO EARN $1000 A WEEK

Nissan cannot find bilingual engineers, Nissan is also finding it difficult to attract experienced financial analysts to vet the company's benefits, projects and processes. Computer-assisted drafters or CAD operators is also going unfilled. Nursing is another area that is going in search of qualified applicants.

Part of the problem is that kids are coming out of public High Schools without the proper math needed to be able to tackle today's complex technology.

Yet to hear John Kerry and the rest of the Democrats, Jobs are only available if you can flip a hamburger. The jobs mentioned above is from one area, Nashville Tennessee. If I was a betting man, I would bet that they are not the only city in the U.S. that cannot fill high paying jobs.

Maybe it is because our schools only teach basic hamburger flipping instead of basic math. We all know who controls our schools and who they donate time and dollars to elect.

Massachussetts job-seeker John Kerry today said he laments that latest data showing strong jobs growth last month, saying it makes it harder for people like him to advance to the next level in their careers.

"I'm auditioning for a job right now, and this news means my job quest is just going to be that much tougher," said Kerry, who currently is forced to commute to his job in Washington D.C. from his homes in the Beacon Hill section of Boston, Mass.; Fox Chapel, Pa.; Ketchum, Idaho; and Nantucket, Mass.

Over 1.1 million payroll jobs have been created in the past 8 months, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.

"When my prospective employer learns that U.S. employment surged for a second straight month during April and jobs were created in nearly every sector at a pace that handily outstripped expectations, according to the Labor Department, well... my prospective employer isn't going to be as interested in hiring me, Kerry said. "I mean, the news that the the economy added 288,000 new jobs in April - and probably more than that when the data is revised, just like the March data was revised to show 337,000 new jobs that month, not the 308,000 the lying Bush administration initially claimed compared to the previous month - is going to make it difficult for me to convince my prospective employer to hire me."

But Kerry soon brightened. "On the other hand, the 288,000 new jobs in April is a 15 percent decline over jobs-growth in March. I can tell my prospective employer that, under the guy who holds the job right now, jobs growth fell 15 percent in one month," he said. "So even this bad news is good news for me!"

Another story from the "News John Kerry and the Democrats Don't Want You Know" Department:

America's employment outlook brightened on Thursday after the government said jobless claims dropped last week to their lowest since 2000, bolstering expectations for strong numbers in the April jobs report.

U.S. Treasury bond yields hit a two-year high on the unexpectedly rosy number and the dollar climbed 1 percent against the yen as markets bet heavily the Federal Reserve will hike interest rates this summer as the economy warms.

The picture of a better jobs climate was also backed by an unexpected increase in unit labor costs in the first quarter, alongside respectable productivity growth of 3.5 percent.

First-time claims for state unemployment benefits shrank 25,000 to 315,000 in the week ended May 1, the Labor Department said. It was the third straight week of declines.

Wall Street analysts had forecast a slight fall in claims to 335,000 from a revised 340,000 the previous week.

I blame the Bush tax cuts.

The U.S. economy grew at a 4.2 percent seasonally adjusted annual rate in the first quarter, according to a Commerce Department estimate released today. That's the third straight quarter of growth above 4 percent, the first time in 10 years the economy grew faster than 4 percent for three straight quarters. And GDP growth over the last year, 4.9 percent, is the best since 1984.

The last time the economy was this good, an incumbent Republican president who was strong on national defense issues defeated a weak-on-defense tax-raising liberal Democrat from Minnesota.

GDP grew 8.2 percent in the third quarter of 2003 and by 4.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2003.

Over the past year, GDP is up 4.9 percent - the biggest yearly gain in 20 years.

According to the Commerce Department news release, the biggest contributors to the increase in GDP in the first quarter were personal consumption expenditures, equipment and software, government spending, exports, and private inventory investment. The first two - consumer spending remaining strong, and businesses investing more in equipment and software - are very important indicators of a strengthening economy.

Watch for the media and the Kerry campaign to spin the 4.2 percent GDP growth as bad news by pointing out that some economists had predicted GDP would grow 5 percent in the first quarter. Ignore the spin because the American economy is on a roll - and when the Commerce Department releases its final GDP figure for the third quarter in about a month (today's figures are merely the initial estimates) you likely will see the 4.2 percent figure revised higher.

In another display of the continuing strength of the Bush economy, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) measures came in at 4.2%. GDP is the sum of all final sales of goods and services produced in the United States. This is the first time in 10 years the economy had 3 straight quarters of better than 4% growth and the best annual GDP in 20 years. Also labor statistics revealed that unemployment claims keep dropping as companies continue to staff up to meet the needs of this booming economy:

The U.S. economy grew at a 4.2 percent seasonally adjusted annual rate in the first quarter, marking the third straight quarter of strong growth, the Commerce Department estimated Thursday.

The nation's real gross domestic product increased by 4.1 percent in the fourth quarter and by 8.2 percent in the third quarter. It's the first time in 10 years that the economy grew faster than 4 percent for three quarters in a row.

GDP is up 4.9 percent in the past year, the biggest gain in 20 years.

In separate releases Thursday, the Labor Department said employment costs increased 1.1 percent in the first quarter as benefit costs soared 2.4 percent. Meanwhile, the four-week average for first-time jobless claims slipped to 346,500 as weekly claims fell by 18,000 to 338,000.

Sales of new homes soared to a new record high in March. Man, the Bush tax cuts are absolutely killing the homebuilding industry. Hah.

In related news, CBS Marketwatch reported late last week that economists they surveyed expect strong economic growth when first-quarter GDP is reported on Thursday. The economists "expect, on average, annualized growth of 5 percent in the first quarter after 4.1 percent growth in the fourth quarter and 8.2 percent in the third. It would be the first time in 10 years that growth exceeded 4 percent for three straight quarters." John Kerry has three days to figure out how to explain why this is bad news.

Jeff Cornwall a blogger and director of the Center for Entrepreneurship at Belmont University, slams the tax industry as a multi-billion-dollar drag on the economy:

The tax system has become a huge industry. In the state of Tennessee there will be 943,679 tax returns prepared by professionals in 2004. Assuming each return costs the tax payer $100 (a figure that is very conservative), and that Tennessee is an average sized state (which is about the case), that results in a $5 billion industry just for the preparation of individual returns. Add to that the billions of dollars spent on corporate tax work and compliance, to say nothing about tax audits, and you have one very large, very powerful industry.

The tax industry is quite duplicitous with the source of all of their business: the government. Whenever “tax reform” or “tax simplification” legislation is proposed, hold on to your wallets. Most of this legislation is written by the very professions, accountants and lawyers, who run the tax industry. Tax law is purposely vague. Audits, and the tax law they create through IRS court cases, creates billions of dollars more for this industry. We pay this industry to create new tax law by defending us when faced with audits that are the result of ambiguous tax code they helped to draft.

We scream bloody murder when the defense industry charges us $250 for a toilet seat. But, we rejoice when we pay at least that much to a tax preparer who gets us a few hundred dollars of our own money back from the government.

This is an industry that produces no goods that we consume, and no services that we can enjoy.

According to Tax Foundation calculations, Tax Freedom Day in 2004 was celebrated on Sunday, April 11th. This is the earliest Tax Freedom Day in 37 years. Most of you reading this post wasn't even close to being born then. There is a chart at the bottom of the link that shows how each State is effected compared to the others.

What I found interesting in looking at the rankings ( far right column ) 80% of the top 10 latest dated States went for the Democrats in 2000 and 90% of the last 10 states with the earliest Tax Freedom date voted for the Republicans.

To help you understand, look at the #1 ranked State of Connecticut. Those poor folks Tax Freedom day is April 28, they still have to work 16 more days as of this posting to meet their tax obligations for the this year. Then look at the State ranked the best, #50, Alaska. Those lucky folks' Tax Freedom Day was on March 26th. The workers in Connecticut have to work more than a month longer than the workers in Alaska before they quit paying taxes for the year.

My State of Ohio is ranked pretty much near the middle of the pack along with other key battleground States. Us Buckeyes lost 16 days in having to pay taxes from the year 2000 to now, I of course blame the Bush tax cuts. I can pretty much speak for nearly all tax payers. We want to be more like Alaska than Connecticut when it comes to how many days we have to work to satisfy our tax obligations. We do not want to go back to the year 2000 ( middle column ) when nearly all of the States Tax Freedom days in 2000 is where Connecticut is right now - Late April. Of course Connecticut, who went for Al Gore is still bringing up the rear in 2000 when their Tax Freedom day was May 21st, 2000 - this is almost a month more than it is currently

This blows John Kerry's stump speech "tax cut for the rich" right out of the water, but then you already knew that.

Economist Larry Kudlow on the latest job numbers:

This is beginning to look more like a traditional post-recession employment recovery. The March jump marks the seventh consecutive payroll jobs gain, for a total of 759,000 new hires, with 61 percent of U.S. industries reporting payroll increases - the highest percentage since July 2000.

Even the gap between the lagging business payroll survey and the stronger household survey of all people working is beginning to narrow. The household survey appears to be more sensitive to self-employed workers who have started their own Subchapter S or LLC (limited-liability corporation) businesses. Responding to lower income-tax rates, these entrepreneurs have registered 1.8 million new jobs since the end of 2002.

The "jobless recovery" isn't jobless. I suggest John Kerry keep his day job.

The Democrats just lost the jobs issue - U.S. nonfarm payrolls added 308,000 jobs in March, the largest gain since April 2000, the Labor Department estimated Friday. April 2000 is when the Clinton-era boom economy begun a sudden and rapid slide toward recession.

The gain in payrolls far exceeded the 122,000 expected by economists surveyed by CBS MarketWatch. Economists had been waiting in vain for months for hiring to pick up to match the explosive growth in U.S. gross domestic product over the past nine months. ... Payroll growth in previous months was also revised higher, by a total of 86,000 jobs. January's gain was revised from 97,000 to 159,000 while February's was revised to 46,000 from 21,000.

As we have said ad naseum, job growth is a lagging indicator and with the blistering pace of the economy these last few quarters it was only a matter of time before payrolls caught up. Well the chicken has come home to roost and with the Kerry Campaign's prospects inversely related to these numbers, Kerry et al have to be none too pleased:

U.S. nonfarm payrolls grew by a surprising 308,000 in March, the largest gain since April 2000, the Labor Department estimated Friday.

The gain in payrolls far exceeded the 122,000 expected by economists surveyed by CBS MarketWatch. Economists had been waiting in vain for months for hiring to pick up to match the explosive growth in U.S. gross domestic product over the past nine months.

Payroll growth in previous months was also revised higher, by a total of 86,000 jobs. January's gain was revised from 97,000 to 159,000 while February's was revised to 46,000 from 21,000.

Over the past eight months, payrolls have grown by 759,000, about 95,000 a month.

For the first time in 44 months, employment in the manufacturing sector did not fall; it was unchanged. Construction added 71,000 jobs, likely a partial rebound from bad weather in February.

Payrolls in services rose by 230,000 jobs, including 47,000 in retail. Temporary help services jobs fell by 2,000.

Private payrolls rose by 277,000, as 31,000 government jobs were added, most in education.

Of 278 industries, 61 percent reported higher payrolls in March, the largest percentage since July 2000.

The economy's manufacturing sector grew for the 10th straight month as the Bush economic recovery continues to build depth, momentum and longevity.

American manufacturers boosted activity for the 10th straight month in March and factory jobs growth accelerated, cementing a key pillar in the recovery, a survey showed.

"It looks like the factory sector is really ramping up and is now in the midst of a strong, broad-based recovery," Wachovia senior economist Mark Vitner said.

The survey showed factory jobs growth picked up, with the employment index rising 0.7 point to 57.0. It was the fifth month of expanding manufacturing employment in the survey following a 37-month contraction.

Interesting news from Silicon Valley Biz Ink on outsourcing. It's not the dreaded sucking sound of jobs being whisked off to India that we thought.

The in-depth Study found that global sourcing of computer software and services, while displacing some IT workers, actually benefits the U.S. economy and increases the number of U.S. jobs. According to Study findings, the U.S. economy has much to gain from global sourcing and an environment of free trade, open markets and robust competition. Benefits include job creation, higher real wages, higher real GDP growth, contained inflation and expanded exports resulting in increased economic activity.

According to the Study, U.S. spending for offshore outsourcing of computer software and services is expected to grow at a compound annual rate of almost 26%, increasing from approximately $10 billion in 2003 to $31 billion in 2008. During the same period, total savings from the use of offshore resources will grow from $6.7 billion to $20.9 billion. Using offshore resources lowers costs and boosts productivity. As a result, inflation is lower, interest rates are lower, and economic activity is higher. The increased economic activity creates a wide range of new jobs, both in IT and other industries. While there are some dislocations that affect both industries and regions, the overall economy adjusts so that offshore IT outsourcing actually creates new jobs. Over 90,000 net new jobs were created in the U.S. through 2003. The number of net new jobs is projected to grow by 317,000 in 2008. The impact on U.S. jobs does vary by industry sector, with the major beneficiaries for the next five years being construction, transportation and utilities, education and health services, wholesale trade, and financial services.

While our Democratic friends talk down the economy and try to convince everyone that they are miserable failures, President Bush today in his radio address gives lie to such a notion:

This week brought good news about homeownership in America. The Census Bureau reported that new home sales in February rose to an annual pace of 1.16 million homes, a 24 percent increase over the past year. This success follows one of the most impressive years in America's housing industry. More homes were sold in 2003 than ever before. Housing starts last year were at their highest level in a quarter century. Rising home values have helped take the wealth of American households to a new record level.

Seems that, just perhaps, things aren't all misery out there and that just maybe we don't need a "new direction" because we're already headed where we need to be. Its also telling that while the Democrats are spending their time and effort on the politics of personal destruction, President Bush and the GOP are actually trying to do things to help people:

I have signed into law the American Dream Down Payment Act, which will help low-income Americans to afford the down payment and closing costs on their first home. I'm asking Congress to provide an annual $200 million for this program. That additional money would help an estimated 40,000 low-income families every year become first-time homeowners. I'm proposing that we make zero down payment loans available to first-time buyers whose mortgages are guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration. And this will help about 150,000 families buy homes in the first year alone.

The Democrats, as far as I'm concerned, can keep right at it - hoping that accusation after accusation will eventually do the President in. My bet is that on November 2nd the people will not vote on the accusations, but on the accomplishments.

Gross domestic product (GDP) increased at a 4.1% annual rate. For the uninitiated, GDP is a measure of all the goods and services produced in the U.S. This has been the standard to measure economic growth in the US for the last few decades (when they switched from GNP to GDP).

The biggest underlying trend that makes these numbers so good is the contrast of which components of GDP are higher than original estimates and which numbers are lower than original estimates:

Main Components whose actual #s are lower than previously thought:
First, federal government spending increased by 0.7% (less than half the 1.6% earlier estimated).
Initial jobless claims climbed by 1,000 last week (economists had expected claims to rise by 4,000)

Main Components that are higher:
This contrasts business spending which advanced by 10.9% (higher than previous estimates of a 9.6% increase).
Spending by consumers rose at a 3.2% annual rate (higher than an earlier estimate of 2.7%).
Consumers' spending on durable goods increased 0.7% (versus previous reports of a 0.1% drop).

So basically the private sector has briskly outpaced the government spending moreso than economists had predicted. This contrasts the necessary deficit spending of the Bush Administration in 2002 and early 2003 when the government outspent the private sector keeping the economy afloat while the private sector washed-out the remnants of the 2001 recession and the economic shocks of 9/11. With this type of private sector investment, in any economic model, the next thing to pick up at an almost equally (if not surpassingly) rapid of a rate would be hiring in the private sector.

This underlying trend should give us confidence that the strength of the economy is being driven by the right levers and the out-of-work who are looking for jobs should be receiving great news in the months to come!

NB: "the economy's performance in the second half of 2003 marked the fastest back-to-back quarterly increases since the first two quarters of 1984" -- and how did that election year turn out???

Glen Reynolds notes that the size of his tax refund was much larger than expected:

STIMULATING THE ECONOMY: We got our tax refund recently -- much larger than it would have been, thanks to the tax cuts and particularly the abolition of the marriage penalty -- and while some of the money has gone to the college account, it has also funded some home improvements: a new gas grill (not as fancy as these luxury models advertised on Bill Hobbs' site but it has 6 burners!), new blinds for the upstairs, etc. The Insta-Wife remains quite enthusiastic about President Bush. I wonder if this effect is widespread?

As for me, personally, my tax refund in 2003 was about $1,200, while this year it was $1,900. Given that I made more money in 2003 than I did in 2002, I think this is a remarkable testament to the actual effects of President Bush's tax cuts. Our liberal friends might suppose that I'm one of "the rich", but let me assure you that I'm not; Kerry probably thinks I'm rich, however and that makes me worried - 'cause it means that if Kerry managed to win, then Uncle Sam might come calling for the extra $700.

How about the rest of you? Got your tax refunds yet? Larger, smaller or just the same as last year? And what political effect do you think this might have on voting attitudes in November?

Some 78 million Americans own shares of corporate stock or equity mutual funds, and 55 million Americans that have a 401 (k) plan, so it's worth noting that Sen. John Kerry's record as a legislator has been unrelentingly hostile to investors, according to a new report from the American Shareholders Association, which says that two out of every three people who vote in the November 2004 election will be investors.

The report is online here in a 23-page PDF file. Here's the press release.

"The best way to sum up Kerry's record on investor issues - all talk and no action," said Daniel Clifton executive director of ASA. "Despite his pro-investor rhetoric, not once has Kerry voted to reduce the capital gains tax, not once has Kerry voted to index capital gains to inflation, and not once has Kerry voted to reduce the double tax on dividends. Even more disturbing has been his consistent opposition to Individual Retirement Accounts, which currently provides retirement savings for millions of American families. His votes against shareholders have real consequences and this report documents the effects of these votes."

Download the report and share it with every investor you know. A vote for Kerry is a vote to harm the 78 million American investors.

It must have absolutely killed them to do it, but The New York Times is reporting today on the declining welfare rolls across America "despite the sluggish economy." Better they should have said "because of the Bush economic recovery," perhaps, as welfare rolls have declined to pre-recession levels. Among the reasons the NYT gives for declining welfare rolls: "People work harder to find jobs before seeking public assistance. Welfare recipients have learned job skills and a work ethic...."

But the NYT can't resist quoting liberals who bemoan the declining number of people stuck on welfare. The Left wants more people on welfare because the Left needs dependents to survive.

But stricter welfare rules seem to be giving folks more incentive to take care of themselves instead of relying on the public dole.

That appears to be the case in Texas. Michael A. Jones, a spokesman for the state's Department of Human Services, said: "Our welfare program has a very strong pro-work message. People are more reluctant to rely on public assistance if they can find other means to support themselves. They're more likely to rely on family and friends to get by temporarily if they lose their jobs after leaving the rolls."

In past recessions, newly hired welfare recipients and other low-skilled workers were among the first to lose their jobs. But that was apparently not the case with the most recent recession.

"Former welfare recipients were entrenched in the work force," said Marva Arnold, a senior official at the Human Services Department in Illinois, where the number of families on welfare has plunged 45 percent since January 2001, to 38,276. "They have gained real work experience, including the skills needed to maintain employment."

The 1996 welfare law contributed to a big increase in the proportion of single mothers in paid jobs outside the home. Robert L. Doar, commissioner of the New York State welfare agency, said, "Their attachment to the work force has proved stronger than many people expected."

From Reuters:

U.S. Seen Adding Nearly 3 Million Jobs
The U.S. economy is gearing up to add nearly 3 million jobs by the end of next year and unemployment will drop below 5 percent by the start of 2006, a team of University of Michigan economists said on Thursday.

"We expect to see a strengthening of the jobs picture, with monthly gains in payroll employment exceeding 100,000 over the next several months and moving up from there through the summer months," Saul Hymans, one of the university's leading economic professors, said in a statement.

"Over the next two years, strong output growth and more moderate productivity increases create an improving labor market, with the payroll count finally reaching its previous peak in spring 2005," he said.

The statement was released after Hymans and colleagues Joan Crary and Janet Wolfe issued their annual spring forecast update of the U.S. economy. In the forecast, they predict employment growth of 900,000 jobs this year and 2 million more in 2005. They also said unemployment, which has cast a pall over America's economic recovery for the last two years, was seen falling from last year's 6 percent average to 5.4 percent in 2004 and 5.1 percent next year.

By the start of 2006 the jobless rate will be below 5 percent, the university economists predicted.

Here's the statement from the University of Michigan economists - it's got more good economic forecast information that didn't make it into the Reuters story. One thing that caught my eye: mortgage rates are expected to stay low, and housing starts are expected to remain strong, through at least 2005 - and inflation is also expected to remain low. Low mortgage rates are one reason homeownership has reached a record level during the Bush Boom, and low mortgage rates are helping fuel the new-home construction industry.

I can't wait to hear what John Kerry says about this:

The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits dropped for the third consecutive week last week, pushing jobless claims to the lowest level in more than three years.

The Labor Department reported Thursday that the number of laid-off workers seeking jobless benefits fell by 6,000 last week to 336,000, a level that was last seen the week of Jan. 13, 2001, just before Bill Clinton relinquished the White House to George W. Bush. [emphasis added]

Things are looking good - well atleast for President Bush and working Americans -- things aren't looking so good for John Kerry and the Democrats.

The third straight weekly decline in jobless benefits raised hopes that a lengthy stretch of layoffs is coming to a close, setting the stage for businesses to finally begin rehiring laid-off workers.

This is s surprise for analysts, who were expecting a slight increase after two weeks straight of declines...

It's a good thing we got those tax cuts...

I've posted a series of posts examining the surge in formation of limited liability companies, or LLCs, a form of business incorporation favored by small businesses and solo entrepreneurs, on my blog (here is the latest post). The LLC data, which indicates a nationwide trend, is indicative of the small-business/entrepreneurial base of the Bush Boom economic recovery, and may help explain why the government's "Household Survey" shows significant employment growth but the "Employer Survey" does not. The media fixates on the Employer Survey - it's your job as a Bush supporter to help spread the word about the strong employment growth evidenced by the Household Survey and the LLC data I've been compiling. Start here.

(I deleted the first part of this post, about the 4Q GDP growth rate, because I misread the report I mentioned. GDP growth in the 4Q was 4.1 percent, not 5.3 percent. 4.1 percent is still very strong GDP growth. - Bill Hobbs)

Click here for a lot of good news about the Bush economic recovery and the job-growth outlook.

The Heritage Foundation has published a new study that explores the difference between the federal government's Employer Survey, which shows stagnant job growth, with the Household Survey, which shows a surge in employment.

Heritage concludes that the Household Survey is more right than its critics give it credit for, and far from losing jobs the U.S. economy has added 2.2 million jobs since the end in late 2001 of the short, shallow recession that greeeted President Bush when he took office. The study, authored by Tim Kane, Ph.D., a Research Fellow in Macroeconomics in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation, explains the reasons the Employer Survey is systematically unde`rcounting job creation, and concludes that "analysts can now point with confidence to the employment of a record number of Americans as of January 2004 and the employment of an additional 2.2 million workers since the recession ended." More details here. By the way, you can't expect the press will take the time to read and digest the Heritage study - they will continue to pound the data from the Employer Survey (for as long as it shows bad news) and ignore the Household Survey, in order to portray the Bush Boom as a failure. It's your job to arm yourself with the truth and tell it to as many people you can, and encourage them to tell others.

And Kerry thinks this is going to help job creation?

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Wednesday he will ask Americans earning more than $200,000 a year to pay the taxes they paid under President Clinton and pledged to retain the Bush tax cuts for the middle class and even add to them.

Kerry, defending his "plan" said, "Under George Bush's policies, middle-class families are paying more. America's middle class can't afford a tax increase."

Excuse me? I got a tax cut, courtesy of George W. Bush... I don't call that a tax increase... Kerry's plan on the otherhand will simply put the middle class out work by penalizing the people who employ them.. Not exactly the best strategy...

Kerry also spewed, "George Bush is running on the same old Republican tactics of fear - and they're already getting tired ... It's clear that this president will fight like hell to keep his own job, but he won't lift a finger to help Americans keep theirs."

That is almost as ridiculous as claiming a virus was to blame for the profanities on his website. Is George W. Bush telling the country that putting more of taxpayers' money in their pockets will help the economy a scare tactic?

John Kerry is clearly a few tomatoes short of a bottle of ketchup.

Has John Kerry been paying attention to the unemployment rates since his tax cuts have gone through? Has he been oblivious to the strong growth rate our economy has been experiencing and the high productivity?

If that is because Bush hasn't lifted his finger to help Americans keep their jobs, then Bush must clearly be an economics genius with even more tricks up his sleeve waiting to be used.

The latest weekly report on the state of the nation's economy from the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, was released today, and it says, in a nutshell, that the economy is growing rapidly and laying the foundation for rapid job growth. The summary:

The economy continues to strengthen, but payroll employment continues to lag. Business activity in manufacturing and service industries remains very strong as profits and cash flow continue to improve, but the recent pace of job growth has been sluggish. Households continue to benefit from recent tax relief and healthy gains in housing and stock-market wealth. Inflation remains benign, helping keep interest rates at historic lows. Last year’s GDP growth averaged 4.3%, the strongest in four years and well above the average of 3.7% in the expansion of the 1990s. Forecasters expect sustained and robust growth, low inflation, and accelerating job gains.

The Tennessee blogger who blogged a private meeting with President Bush is the news again, in a very good story in this week's Nashville Business Journal about the positive impact on the economy of some tax law changes advocated by President Bush. The Jobs and Growth Act signed into law last May raised small business expensing limits and lowered capital gains and dividend taxes, changes that expire in a few years. Bush wants to make his tax cuts permanent. The Democrats don't. More information, commentary and excerpts here.

John Kerry has been on a tear lately over "outsourcing" of jobs. This, for those who don't know (and you really should crawl out from under that rock there, old buddy) is when a company puts all or part of its production/service facility outside the United States, but still provides the United States withs goods and/or services. Its the latest bugbear of the ossified unions and, therefore, the big economic issue of the Democratic Party.

In Democratic/Union mythology, what you've got is heartless, greedy corporations firing Americans who were making $12 an hour in order to hire foreigners in the Third World who make $1.20 an hour. You can almost hear the mournful violen music as John Kerry (or some other Donk talking head) carry on about how no American can compete with a denizen of the Third World who will work for 1/10th the wage an American needs. This is a really sick and cynical ploy, when you get down to it - it plays to fear and hatred; fear of the foreigner, hatred for "the rich" who are out to screw everyone.

The Washington Times has an appropriate editorial on this subject here. The guts of it is this:

As a native of New England, where the standard of living inexorably increased after its textile mills moved South in search of cheaper labor, and as one of the Democratic Party's most distinguished advocates of free trade over the past two decades (until he began running for president), Sen. John Kerry has to know that he is playing a dangerous game stoking the passions and grievances of protectionism. Regrettably, Mr. Kerry doesn't seem to care.

and this:

Since 1976, nonfarm employment in America has increased from fewer than 80 million workers to more than 130 million, rising by nearly two-thirds. Adjusted for inflation and measured in the purchasing power of today's dollar, per capita GDP (the economy's total output divided by the U.S. population) has soared from $22,000 in 1976 to $37,750 today, reflecting an increase of nearly 75 percent.

John Kerry lives in what used to be the manufacturing center of the United States and what once upon a time was one of the two or three premier manufacturing regions of the entire world. The United States by and large won the Civil War on the goods provided by Massachusetts factories - of course, as time went on and cheap labor became scarce in Massachusettes, the manufacturers looked elsewhere - first to the American South (the textile industry of the South was largely built with Massachusettes capital), then to outside of the United States. Funny thing is, with Massachusetts' manufacturing almost entirely a thing of the past, Massachusetts has managed to become one of the richest States in the Union - right there in front of him (and us) is the proof that free trade is the magic bullet for economic prosperity, but John Kerry and the Donks would like us please to ignore this while they stoke up our fears and hatreds in the name of getting elected.

The second quote is the killer of all protectist arguments - somehow or another while we've "lost" jobs to Third World nations, we've managed to employ 50 million more people than we did 25 years ago; trust me, good people, these 50 million jobs are not all flipping burgers for minimum wage (the stock answer when protectionists are challenged is to say that the new jobs, if any, are all low paid). What our protectionist friends fail to mention - deliberately because no one can be this stupid - is the massive amount of "insourcing" which has also occured. BMW and Toyota didn't manufacture cars in the United States 25 years ago - today a huge proportion of their American sales come from cars they manufactured in the United States (in some cases, a Toyota might have more actually American made parts than some GM models - since a lot of GM parts are made in Canada). And this is just one example - there are literally millions of Americans working at companies built up by foreign capital; foreign capital which flows into the United States because of our free-trade policies and our business friendly environment.

John Kerry is hoping that a good bit of old-fashioned xenophobia will help him; specifically, he's hopeful that Ohio and Pennsylvania will drop into his electoral collumn on the strength of anti-foreigner sentiment. As I said, its a sick and cynical move. In the end, however, truth always will out - and the truth of the matter is that free trade makes everyone better off.

The American economy is healthier now than during much of the Clinton era - and stronger than the economy was when Bill Clinton was running for re-election in 1996. Economist J. Edward Carter lays out the facts in an amazing compare-and-contrast piece at NRO.

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

Most private-sector forecasters expect the U.S. economy will grow faster this year (on an average annual basis) than in any year since 1984. ... Since the Bush administration began, non-farm productivity has increased at a 4.1 percent annual rate - the fastest pace for the start of any presidency since Harry S. Truman occupied the White House. ... More single-family homes were sold in 2003 than in any other year on record. And the homeownership rate is at a record-high of 68.5 percent - a full percentage point higher than during the fourth quarter of 2000. ... At 5.6 percent, the national unemployment rate is now lower than the average unemployment rate of the 1970s, 1980s, and the 1990s. ... According to the Labor Department's household survey - the survey used to calculate the monthly unemployment rate - more Americans are working now than ever before. The payroll survey is also showing improvement: 112,000 new jobs were created in January and 366,000 jobs have been added over the last five months.

Ok, so our Democrats are acting like the economy is in the pits - endlessly harping upon a "jobless" recovery and the fact that things aren't perfect everywhere. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

Rich Lowry over at National Review Online has this interesting bit today about President Bush's economic numbers - and why he should be touting them to the skies. In the end, I expect the ad campaigns and President Bush's speeches will do this - just one part of the article shows the excellent position the President is in:

The numbers even like George Bush more than Bill Clinton. According to J. Edward Carter's calculation, during the first three years of the Bush administration compared with the first three years of the Clinton administration, the inflation rate is lower (1.9 percent versus 2.6 percent), the unemployment rate is lower (5.5 percent versus 6.2 percent), annual productivity growth is higher (4.1 percent versus .5 percent), and the increase in nonfarm real compensation per hour is higher (+0.8 percent versus -0.3 percent).

President Bush has already touched upon these themes; and in spite of his critics insistence that he's not "in charge" on the issue, his speech on February 22nd shows that he has a grasp of economics far superior to any of his Democratic critics:

My view of government is to create an environment that is good for the entrepreneur; that encourages capital formation, particularly among small businesses. The tax relief we passed not only has put more money into the pockets of individuals, which I believe is good when you're trying to come out of a recession, but it also helps small businesses. Remember, most small businesses in your states are sole proprietorships or subchapter S corporations. That's a fact. And when you cut income taxes, all taxes -- not a few, but all -- you're providing additional capital for subchapter S and sole proprietorships.

What do our Democrats say? Not much - they say we must create more jobs, must improve economic performance; but they are short on details. This lack of details is evidence of either not knowing the first thing about economics (things which any MBA - like President Bush - knows), or they do know them but can't say because their purblind base doesn't want to hear such things. After all is said and done, the election of 2004 will be a referendum on the performance of President Bush in office - and I think we can all rest secure on that. It'll be a hard fight, but from the War on Terrorism to the economy, President Bush has a solid record of achievement to point to.

Treasury Secretary John Snow was on "Your World with Neil Cavuto" yesterday. He had some interesting things to say regarding the economy:

CAVUTO: The fact that the president came out swinging last night, to respond to all these Democratic critics on everything from Iraq to the economy, Mr. Secretary, raises at least the question that you folks are worried that this president is in danger this November. Are you?

SNOW: You know, I'm not involved in the politics. I'm involved in economic policy. But on economic policy, let me say that our critics have all the wrong answers. Raising taxes, gosh, that would be a disaster. That would be devastating for the economy.

CAVUTO: Senator Kerry says he only wants to raise the taxes for the upper income folks.

SNOW: Right.

CAVUTO: Why do you argue that would be disastrous?

SNOW: Well, because those top categories of the income category include millions of small business owners, who are the engine of growth in this country. When you look at where the economy is really moving forward, it is small business. They create 75, 80 percent of all the jobs. It would be devastating to hit the job-creating sector with a big tax increase.

I don't recall John Kerry saying that in his last speech. Snow later defended Bush's economic policies because of the real results they have shown:

SNOW: ...These realities are awful good. The president deserves an awful lot of credit for taking the steps. The tax reductions that he put into effect last year, have really made a phenomenal change in the course of this economy. Think where we were a year ago and think where we are today.

CAVUTO: So you argue the tax cuts did that.

SNOW: Absolutely.

CAVUTO: OK.

SNOW: Absolutely. There can't be any other question about that.

Unless of course you are a Democrat running for President – you don't just question it, you outright deny it when it is happening right under your nose!

Don't miss Virginia Postrel's New York Times column on the changing economy, and why official government employment and job-creation stats are missing a lot of jobs.

The official job counters at the Bureau of Labor Statistics don't do much to overcome our blind spots. The bureau is good at counting people who work for large organizations in well-defined, long-established occupations. It is much less adept at counting employees in small businesses, simply because there are too many small enterprises to representatively sample them. The bureau's occupational survey, which might suggest which jobs are growing, doesn't count self-employed people or partners in unincorporated businesses at all. And many of today's growing industries, the ones adding jobs even amid the recession, are comprised largely of small companies and self-employed individuals.

Business professor and blogger Jeff Cornwall notes a Miami Herald article that indicates a key Bush administration figure may finally "get" what's really happening in the economy - an entrepreneurial boom that is missed by the major data surveys, but is fueling the economy's growth.

The Miami Herald ran an interview this week with Treasury Secretary John Snow (thanks to RM Cornwall for the heads up on this fascinating article). In this interview, Snow gave me hope that maybe, just maybe, someone in the federal government actually is beginning to understand that our hope for the future lies in the entrepreneurial economy that has emerged over the past twenty years. This economic transformation has created the first entrepreneurial recovery we have experienced in modern American history.

Stories like these give you hope that - no matter how badly the other side trashes the economy and tries to discourage entrepreneurship by punishing the entrepreneurial class with high taxes and onerous regulations - the entrepreneurial spirit in America is stronger than ever.

USA Today buried this story, but at least they published it a few days ago, complete with a headline sure to give Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards heartburn:

Most economists credit Bush's tax cuts in rebound

As I've noted before on my blog, top national Democrats have openly longed for a sluggish economy in order to boost their chances of retaking the White House. It looks as if they're not getting their wish. And having worked mightily all of last year to link the sluggish economy with Bush's tax cuts in voters' minds, they may now find voters crediting Bush's tax cuts with the growing economic boom.

Democrats are abuzz over recent statements from the White House that what matters isn't the prediction of job growth, but actual signs of economic improvement - some bloggers are rather taken with the notion that the White House "backtracked" on its prediction of 2.6 million new jobs this year, although it's actually the Associated Press that used that phrase. What the White House did was refuse to get drawn into a debate over a prediction, knowing that if they affirmed the number it would become not a prediction but a promise and if a mere 2.5999 million jobs were created, the press and the opposition would hammer them for breaking a promise.

As presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said, it's reality that matters - actual people getting real jobs and earning real incomes - not some prediction in a book.

"People can debate the numbers all they want," McClellan said. "The President is interested in the actual number of jobs being created, and the President is interested in making sure that everybody who is looking for a job can find one."

The Democrats want to debate predictions - because they don't want to talk about the various actual signs that the economic recovery is getting ever stronger.

Let me remind you of what the Joint Economic Committee of Congress said just 10 days ago about the economy - that it is posed for "strong and sustainable growth":

The recovery continues at a strong pace. Payrolls increased by over 100,000 jobs in January, as activity in manufacturing and services industries accelerated. Last year closed with the economy growing at a 4% annual rate and productivity growing at a 2.7% annual rate, well above long-run averages. Inflation remains benign, allowing the Federal Reserve to maintain short-term interest rates at historical lows, and recent tax relief continues to benefit consumers and businesses. Forecasters see continued robust growth, low inflation, and accelerating job gains throughout the year.

More on this on my blog.

...The economy is still improving. According to Bloomberg, unemployment claims fell much lower than expected, work weeks are being expanded as companies try to keep up with rising demand, consumer confidence is up and the economy performed in the last half of 2003 better than any time since 1984...need we remind our Democrats the electoral results of 1984? Nah - that'd be too cruel.

As usual, we here at Blogs for Bush blame the tax cuts....

So much for that whole "jobless recovery" thing. The latest numbers show we're on track for a fruitful recovery:

The nation's unemployment rate dropped to 5.6 percent in January to the lowest level in more than two years as companies added just 112,000 new jobs — fewer than expected but enough to keep alive hope for a turnaround in the struggling job market. The jobless rate fell 0.1 percentage point last month to the lowest level since October 2001, when it was 5.4 percent, the Labor Department said Friday. January's rate matched the 5.6 percent posted in January 2002.

Employers added new jobs last month at a pace not seen in three years. The last time payrolls expanded more than 112,000 was in December 2000, when companies added 124,000 positions.

While not meeting the expectations of some economists, the numbers are extremely promising.

The revised numbers for December showed that 16,000 jobs were created – not the initially reported 1,000. The economy has been creating jobs for 5 straight months.

Perhaps the 112,000 number will be revised upward too.

Some economists think hiring really is occurring in the economy, but it is not being reflected in the Labor Department's monthly survey of business payrolls. In the separate survey of households, employment jumped by 496,000 last month.

The household survey counts self-employed workers and contract workers, which are increasing. The survey of businesses does not.

Perhaps the Democrats would say these aren't "true jobs" or "legitimate employment."

It's hard to ignore the fact that the economy is improving. We can expect the anti-Bush crowd to believe that 5.6% unemployment is too high.

Of course they weren't complaining eight years ago when the unemployment rate was 5.6%? The unemployment rate also has not been as high under Bush as it was the first six months of 1993 (under Clinton) when it was 7.0% or higher.

It's amazing how standards change depending on who's in the White House.

The jobs are coming – and all I want to do is blame the Bush tax cuts.

We have more good news on the economy today, with the Associated Press reporting that consumer spending rose "by a healthy 0.4 percent in a fresh sign that the economy's recovery has legs."

The over-the-month increase reported by the Commerce Department Monday followed a brisk 0.5 percent rise in consumer spending for November — even better than the government previously estimated.

The latest snapshot of consumers' spending appetite showed that 2003 ended on a good note. Consumers spent at a solid clip in both November and December — an improvement from the prior two months when their spending was flat.

According to the article, consumer spending accounts for approximately two-thirds of all economic activity in the United States, and American consumers "have been buying at a sufficient pace to keep the economic recovery rolling along." Americans' incomes also rose by another 0.2 in December.

In Q4 of 2003, the economy grew a 4 percent annual rate – as was expected by economists.

As the economy continues to recover and get stronger, all we can do is blame the Bush tax cuts and enjoy it.

The Commerce Department's initial estimate of the economy's growth rate in the fourth quarter: 4 percent. In anyone's book that's solid economic growth if not an outright economic boom.

The CBS headline on the CBS/AP story: U.S. Economy Downshifts.

Meanwhile, USA Today explores why different government surveys on the labor market "increasingly tell different stories."

A survey by the Labor Department of businesses showed there were 62,000 fewer jobs in December 2003 from a year ago. But a door-to-door survey of households showed there were 1.957 million more jobs in December from the prior year. Other data from private surveys only increase the confusion.

Not surprisingly, CBS' story about the economic growth rate includes only the employer-survey data, not the household data. No matter. The Bush Boom is rolling along, even if CBS News wants you to think otherwise.

Accelerated job creation is imminent. That's the nutshell version of today's report from the Joint Economic Committee of Congress. The JEC says "Job markets are strengthening" as initial claims for unemployment benefits "have fallen repeatedly and substantially over the last eight months to levels not seen since before the recession." Indeed, initial claims have recently averaged less than 350,000, which the JEC says indicates "labor markets are improving and ... job growth should accelerate."

Last week, the JEC said an array of economic data indicated the economy had strong momentum.

It's all good news for consumers, whose confidence is soaring, though they remain concerned about the labor market.

"Consumer confidence is now at its highest level since July 2002, when the Index registered 97.4," says Lynn Franco, Director of The Conference Board's Consumer Research Center. "Growing optimism about the overall health of the economy continues to bolster consumers' short-term outlook. But consumers' assessment of current conditions, which strongly hinges on improvements in the labor market, remains both weak and volatile."

More good news for the economy:

Encouraging words from Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan sent stocks soaring Monday as investors looked forward with renewed enthusiasm to upcoming earnings reports. The Dow Jones industrials reached a new 31-month high, rising more than 130 points.

The markets got a late-day boost from Greenspan, who told an economic conference in London he was confident that jobs lost during the recent recession could be replaced.

Encouraging indeed. Things are looking good for 2004. Really good.

"I think Mr. Greenspan has given us some hope," said Peter Cardillo, president and chief strategist of Global Partner Securities Inc. "He's confident there will be creation of new jobs and that was what the market wanted to hear."

It's just not what the Democrats want to hear.

The press is trumpeting the latest Congressional Budget Office deficit forecast, claiming the U.S. faces a "record" budget deficit this year because of the Bush tax cuts. Only problem: it isn't true. To be a record in the modern era (since 1940) the federal budget deficit for this year would have to top $3.49 trillion.

That's right, $3.49 trillion - or more than seven times larger than the deficit now projected.

Now, I'm no fan of deficits. $477 billion in red ink is not good. I'd prefer Congress just slash $477 billion from the budget balance that sucker in one year. But I can't sit by and listen to the media and the Democrats lie to the American people by presenting half-truth and meaningless comparisons about the deficit. So, here is the truth: The deficit, as a percentage of GDP, is not a record. Not even close. And the federal debt, as a percentage of GDP, has been falling for eight years since peaking most recently in the middle of the Clinton administration. I've got the details, data and documentation here .

As anyone with half a brain knows, even if the latest recession actually began in March 2001, it is not President Bush's fault since he had only been in office 40 days as of March 2001. But at the same time, it is common knowledge that even if it is not your fault, if it happens during your watch, you are scape-goated by many. That's just the facts of life. But what if the recession DIDN'T fall on W's watch? What if it actually began in November 2000? They guys who make bi-partisan determinations on these things may be changing their minds on when this recession began (WSJ: subscription required):

The National Bureau of Economic Research declared more than two years ago that the last recession began in March 2001, meaning that it fell on President Bush's watch. But the NBER committee that determines recession dates is considering whether to make the date as early as November 2000, when Bill Clinton was president.

Such a change would be a stroke of good fortune for the Bush administration, which has long argued that the financial bubble of the late 1990s burst on President Clinton's watch and has therefore pointed to him for the blame. Mr. Bush's opponents, on the other hand, have fired back that the substantial job losses of the recession have occurred while Mr. Bush has been president.

Of course, countless factors outside a president's power influence the $10 trillion U.S. economy.

The NBER is a private, nonprofit economic research group that is considered the official arbiter of recession timing. The NBER's business-cycle dating committee is made up of academics who consider themselves divorced from the political calculations that are likely to greet any change in the date.

Unfortunately for whomever is the frontrunner-of-the-week in the Democratic primary, the Bush tax cuts continue to lead this country out of the recession and economic malaise started before George Bush took office:

U.S. leading indicators point to 'strong growth' By Rex Nutting WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -- Leading U.S. economic indicators rose 0.2 percent in December as expected, pointing to continued "strong growth," the Conference Board said Thursday. Seven of the 10 leading indicators increased in December, led by vender performance, stock prices and building permits. The money supply and manufacturing hours declined. "All indicators point to continued economic growth," said Ken Goldstein, economist for the board, who predicted stronger job growth, more consumer spending and healthy business investment in coming months.

Forbes has an interesting report on another anecdotal indicator of the growing strength of the economic recovery: rising demand for temporary workers.

Demand for temps - particularly in the manufacturing sector - has long been considered an economic bellwether. The theory is that once manufacturers sell the inventory they accumulated during the downturn, they tap additional manpower to make more products, and then hire people to market and sell them.

Research by Daniel Sullivan, a senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, and others shows that an uptick in temp jobs precedes an increase in overall employment by three to six months. And with temp jobs beginning to grow last May, sure enough, total nonfarm payrolls began to inch up in September.

The fact that temp employment has picked up since bodes well for more jobs overall in 2004. The temp-job total rose nearly 8% from April through November, when it hit 2.3 million, and could rise 6% to 7% in 2004, estimates the Harris Nesbitt Gerard brokerage firm. Forecasters at Economy.com say that overall payrolls could grow at a rate of 150,000 to 175,000 a month by summer, vs. an average of roughly 100,000 in recent months. "We're on the right track," says Brian Nottage, a senior economist at the West Chester (Pa.) consulting firm.

In related economic news, regular readers of my blog know I've written a few times about the discrepancy between two different government jobs data - the employer (establishment) survey and the household survey. Well, thanks to the Econopundit, I bring you what may be the definitive look at the data. Warning: if you're a Democrat banking on the 'jobless recovery' boosting your party's chances at having its nominee living in government-subsidized housing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue next year, you won't like this analysis from economists at Bear Stearns. Here are some excerpts:

- In both nominal and real terms, U.S. GDP has hit a new record in each quarter of 2002 and 2003, reaching over $11 trillion in current dollars. In the fourth quarter of 2003, the economy grew fast, probably well over 5%, defying the bearish expectations about the temporary nature of the U.S. expansion.

- The government's survey of household employment showed an all-time record 136.2 million non-agricultural workers in December, up over 1.5 million in 2003.

- On January 14, the Federal Reserve released data showing a record $51.6 trillion of household assets on September 30. In the first three quarters of 2003, household net worth rose by $2.35 trillion to $42 trillion.

The missing part of the strong picture is a rise in the establishment survey of employment. According to this survey, the number of jobs in U.S. non-farm establishments fell 74,000 in 2003 (versus the 1.5 million increase in the household survey).

We think there are several explanations for the current weakness in the establishment survey at a time of notable strength in almost all other indicators.

- Employment in establishments rose to a very high level in the late 1990s, in part at the expense of self-employment. Some part of the current weakness in establishment jobs and strength in the household survey is a reversion to normal after the boom of the late 1990s.

- The establishment survey is routinely revised upward at turning points in the economy. Looking back to the 1992-1993 period of weak growth in the establishment survey, payrolls were upwardly revised by 1.88 million jobs in the ensuing year, validating the household survey view of the labor market.

Also, don't miss a related relevant must-read commentary here from the EconoPundit.

Also, Daniel Weintraub, who blogs about California politics for the Sacramento Bee, notes a similar discrepancy in the employer and household data in the Golden State.

California’s latest employment figures illustrate the widening gap between the two survey methods, one of employer payrolls and the other of households. The payroll survey shows employment dropped in December as companies shed 8,400 jobs during the month. The household survey, on the other hand, shows an increase in the number of people reporting they hold jobs, up 39,000 over November’s figure.

The Labor Department says today that jobless claims fell last week to their lowest level since February 2001 in a better-than-expected report on the labor market. The decline in initial claims and the drop in the number of people collecting unemployment insurance are two solid indicators of a strengthening labor market and economy.

Reuters says the "unexpectedly upbeat claims numbers" follow disappointing data on new-job creation released last week in which non-farm payrolls for December rose just 1,000. I'd say that's more evidence the December jobs numbers are likely to be revised sharply upward.

Meanwhile, economic commentator - and self-identified Democrat - James Cramer, co host of CNBC’s Kudlow & Cramer, calls Bush's economic policies "a stunning empirical success" in an op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal. Just in case you don't have a paid subscription to the WSJ online, I've posted key excerpts of Cramer's op-ed in a longer version of this post on my blog.

You read the headline right - but hold on, there's a good explanation of how this is true, and why it is good news.

Steven Antler, who teaches economics at Roosevelt University, and also publishes a fine blog on economics, posted a teaser graphic on Monday offering up the tantalizing proposition that the Bush tax cut has increased the official unemployment rate by attracting more people to the ranks of the job-seekers. Says Antler:

In effect, the tax cut has created its own apparent unemployment problem by raising real wages. The impact on the main labor force (males 25-54) is relatively small, but for all others, the tax cut effectively raises the value of take home pay enough to bring more workers into the labor force seeking jobs. By now the effect approaches one million.

I emailed Antler seeking more information and source data, and he replied that the chart represents speculative calculations based on the economic models of Yale economist Ray Fair. If Antler's suggestion has merit, it does NOT mean tax cuts increase actual unemployment - cutting taxes doesn't cause businesses to fire workers. What Antler is saying is, tax cuts increase the government's official unemployment rate, which is calculated by counting the number of work-aged people who are looking for jobs.

If Antler's right, what it means is the tax cuts make work more appealing to people who weren't looking for work - i.e, people who don't necessarily need a job. Example: a non-working spouse who decides the extra money would be nice to have, although it isn't necessary. The tax cuts, by increasing the take-home pay a job would offer, make working more attractive. So when these kind of would-be workers tell government survey reps they are looking for work, they get counted as "unemployed."

Today, Antler today has posted a fuller discussion of this.

We have persuasive quantitative evidence from 500,000 to one million US residents have been sufficiently affected by the Bush tax cuts to significantly change their behavior - in a positive direction and in a manner strongly suggesting support for the tax cuts. These people are either employed or looking for work whereas, in the absence of the tax cut, they would not be part of the labor force.

The evidence was obtained very simply: by running Yale University's FAIRMODEL under the counterfactual assumption of no tax cut, and comparing the results with the same model's conclusions given the presence of the tax cut. The model shows a growing "extra" component of the labor force - by now a number approaching one million - responding to all the supply-side incentives offered by higher take home pay.

Some may object or even sneer, claiming the tax cut impact on take home pay must be too small to make a difference.

We can think of three responses. (1) The reliability of FAIRMODEL is a matter of public record. (2) One's own intuitive response to a change in incentives is a poor indicator of how other people may respond. (3) Finally, the numbers say exactly what the numbers say.

Soon EconoPundit will post a tutorial on how to run FAIRMODEL so you can verify these results for yourself.

Meanwhile, keep thinking positively. An "extra" one million employed or seeking work is only a negative if you think the economy's in the business of producing not goods, but "bads."

The Bush Boom keeps booming...

Stocks ended higher on Monday, with technology shares posting a fresh 2 1/2-year high, as investors bet that the impending flood of earnings reports will reinforce expectations that corporate profits are improving.

The technology-focused Nasdaq Composite Index rose 25.19 points, or 1.21 percent, to 2,112.11, its highest close since early July 2001.

The Dow Jones industrial average closed up 31.33 points, or 0.3 percent, at 10,490.22. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index ended up 5.42 points, or 0.48 percent, at 1,127.26.

Here are four charts that, I think, illustrate the impact of the Bush Boom economic recovery on the upcoming campaign...

Dow Jones Industrial Average, Last 12 Months, as of 1-8-2004:

NASDAQ Composite Index, Last 12 Months, as of 1-8-2004:

S&P 500 Index, Last 12 Months, as of 1-8-2004:

Summary Chart

The Washington Post buried this near the end of a long story about holiday retail sales data: The November-December holiday shopping season is likely to show the biggest growth since 1999.

Meanwhile, This report from the AP indicates retail sales rose about 4 percent over last year:

The International Council of Shopping Centers-UBS sales tally of 77 retailers was up 4.2 percent. ... The tally is based on what the industry calls same-store sales, those from stores open at least a year. Same-store sales are considered the best measure of a retailer's health.

Treasury Secretary John Snow says the Bush administration is confident that a rebounding economy will help cut the deficit in half by 2005, reports the AP. Snow also rejected calls by many of the Democratic presidential candidates to roll back some or all of the president's massive tax cuts, noting that would amount to a large tax increase on 109 million Americans.

Snow rejected calls by many of the Democratic presidential candidates to roll back some or all of the president's massive tax cuts, which they blame as a major factor in the exploding federal deficits. Snow said that instead of rolling back the tax reductions, which Democrats contend have gone overwhelmingly to the wealthy, they should be made permanent. He said if the 2001 and 2003 tax cut bills had not been passed, 109 million taxpayers would face tax bills this April 15 that would be on average $1,544 higher.

Snow says "Failure to make the tax relief permanent would be a huge mistake and would put our recovery in jeopardy."

He's right.

The latest political poll results from USA Today:

President Bush begins the election year with the Republican nomination assured, the national mood brightening and higher ratings for the way he is handling the economy and Iraq. Overall, 60% of those surveyed Friday through Monday approve of the job Bush is doing. And 55% say they are satisfied with the way things are going in the country, the highest level in nearly nine months.

In the poll, Bush beat Dean by 22 percentage points among likely voters. Against an unnamed Democrat, Bush won by 17 percentage points.

The Bush economic boom is lifting the world economy, according to the International Monetary Fund. From U.S. News:

True to the old adage about rising tides, the U.S. recovery appears to be lifting economic boats worldwide. Indeed, stateside success, according to the International Monetary Fund, should spur the planet to enjoy over 4 percent growth in 2004, a rate not seen since before the 2001 recession.

I blame the Bush tax cuts.

Larry Kudlow says the economic recovery makes President Bush's re-election all-but-certain - and he's predicting a landslide with House and Senate coattails.

President Bush should win re-election handily if history is any guide.

In the post-World War II era, nine other presidents have asked voters to return them to office. Of these, six won voter approval (Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan and Clinton), and three were kicked out (Ford, Carter and Papa Bush).

The six victors had at least this much in common: They were all re-elected during times of economic growth, and when inflation and unemployment were relatively low. With only one exception, no president in the modern era has been turned out of office during economic expansion.

...

Democrats are hoping now that 2004 will be a repeat of the election of 1992. But a review of the historical record suggests that the closest parallels to next year's ballot are Richard Nixon's re-election in 1972, when he trounced ultraliberal George McGovern, and Reagan's impressive win over another unabashed liberal, Walter Mondale, in 1984. On both occasions, the country was newly emerged from a recession, and confidence in the economy was growing.

The economic recovery has now reached the manufacturing sector , as the Bush Boom rolls on. The Institute for Supply Management says U.S. factory activity expanded at the fastest pace in 20 years in December. The ISM said its barometer of manufacturing activity jumped to 66.2 in December from 62.8 in November, much higher than the 61.0 level forecast by Wall Street economists. A reading above 50 signals growth in the industrial sector.

Does this mean more manufacturing jobs are on the way? Yes, says the ISM - the jobs component of their index was at 55.5, up from 51.0 in November, the second month above 50 after 37 months below the line. That "could have implications for the December payrolls report due on Jan. 9," says Reuters. Ian Shepherdson, chief U.S. economist with High Frequency Economists, toild Reuters the current pace of factory expansion "cannot possibly be achieved with the existing manufacturing work force."

I blame the Bush tax cuts.

Jerry Bowyer has a great article on the benefits of George W. Bush's tax cuts.
"The tax cut, " Bowyer said, "did not just benefit the economy; it benefited economics, too. That is, it created the conditions for an experiment which would test rival theories of how the economy works." Bowyer calls this "The Great Supply-Side Experiment of 2003"

Liberals on the blogosphere go crazy whenever supply-side economics is brought up. These hypnotized Krugman-ites, always have some "facts" as to why supply-side economics doesn't work, however, too their dismay and to my pleasure, Jerry Bowyer explains just how supply-side economics worked with the Bush tax cuts.

The concept is very simple, when rates go down, receipts go up. The more of their own money the people have to spend, the more they spend. As the Laffer Curve attempts to explain this - and Bush's tax cuts have justified it. While the idea a controversial one, Bowyer tells us that it "should not be controversial; in fact it is nearly geometric in its certainty."

This year’s [2003] economic experiment indicates that in fact rates were indeed too high. The evidence for this is that the beginning of FY 2004 is showing higher tax revenues than the comparable period for FY 2003. It appears that the tax cut of 2003 has created higher tax receipts for 2004. For October and November of this year (which are the first two months of FY 2004 and the only two months available so far) Federal tax receipts were $254.03 billion which is $9.5 billion higher than last year’s revenues of the same two months. In fact the Bush tax cut last spring seems to have even had a positive impact on FY 2003 despite the fact that it happened late in the fiscal year: The Congressional Budget Office had forecasted a deficit of $401 billion and The Office of Management and Budget had forecasted a deficit of $455 billion. When the actual numbers came out recently it turned out that OMB had been $81 billion too pessimistic; the deficit turned out to be a much lower than expected $374 billion.

The Krugman-ites have been fighting a losing battle. However, George W. Bush's battle to get his tax cuts passed were not only a victory for him, but now they are also a victory for our economy.

The typical Krugman-ite clichés include "irresponsible tax cuts," "deficit causing tax cuts" and my personal favorite: "tax cuts for the rich." The silly idea that the wealthier you are the less deserving you are of your own money is a popular belief among these people - even though they don't come right out and say it most of the time. The bottom line is this: if not for tax cuts for "the rich" the tax cuts wouldn't work at all:

Some opponents of tax cuts have questioned whether there ought to be large tax cuts for “the rich.” Some Democrats say that they’re all in favor of tax cuts but that they should be for the poor and middle class only since the rich don’t need them. Well if you believe that, you must have been very happy with the year 2001. It was the perfect demand-side tax cut: the rich were excluded and the poor and middle class received their cuts in the form of a consumer-demand-stimulating rebate check. Bush critics derided the results as “the worst economy since Herbert Hoover.” That was of course a grotesque overstatement. What 2001 gave us was a rather sluggish recovery which is exactly what you get when you leave rich people out of the tax cut equation.

It wasn't until May 2003, when the tax cuts included the wealthy taxpayers that our economic recovery turned into a boom. The wealthy consist largely of small business owners, and once they got their tax cut, the unemployment rate started to drop. The unemeployment was at a slightly high rate of 6.4% when Bush signed the tax cut into law earlier this year. Now it stands 5.9% and continues to drop.

It's time for the Krugman-ites to look on the bright supply-side of life... Because things are looking brighter for 2004 and that is a good thing for our country – even though it disproves their line of thinking.

The Bush Boom rolls on, with a sharp plunge in new applications for unemployment compensation hitting their lowest level in nearly three years last week. Reuters says the data is "boosting hopes that employment is finally beginning to show sustained growth."

The level of new claims was the lowest since President Bush's inauguration on Jan. 20, 2001. First-time jobless claims were much lower than Wall Street economists' forecast for 355,000 claims. The department originally reported new claims for the week ended Dec. 20 at 353,000.

"At 339,000 new claims, you're well within the range that you'd expecting a growing economy, even in a briskly growing economy," said Patrick Fearon, an economist for A.G. Edwards and Sons. "Seasonality around the holidays can have an impact, but when claims are down that low and when you had a pretty good downtrend I think you can be pretty confident that at the very least the labor market is strengthening," Fearon said.

The latest economic forecast is good news for President Bush, bad news for the Democrats who hoped the economy would remain sluggish in order to make it easier to oust Bush from the White House.

The US economy is poised for its best performance in five years. Economists describe an economy that will be "solid," "sustainable," and "entering the new year with a wonderful head of steam."

If the optimistic forecasts are accurate, it will mean more Americans find jobs in 2004 - something that has been more difficult this year. A stronger economy could also help lower the federal budget deficit, as government coffers grow from stronger tax collections and fewer unemployment payments. Altogether, it could help President Bush in his reelection bid.

The Democratic candidates have now made the "growing deficit" a campaign issue, so how big of a problem is it? A report from the American Enterprise Institute says:

The loudest cries of criticism have been reserved for the sharp transition from a U.S. budget surplus of over $200 billion in the 2000 fiscal year to a $380 billion deficit in 2003. Conservatives and liberals alike are already decrying an expected budget deficit of $500 billion in the current fiscal year. Criticism of rising budget deficits, an old habit among would-be policy wonks trying to sound profound and prudent, is just silly at this point. It would be like criticizing firefighters for pumping half the water out of a pond to put out a fire. Sure, there is less water in reserve for another fire, but why have the water there in the first place if you don't intend to use it to put out fires? Going from a budget surplus of 2 percent of GDP to a deficit, still below 4 percent of GDP, is appropriate in an economy with excess capacity, especially when much of the swing comes from two rounds of demand-boosting tax cuts that simultaneously improve resource allocation. [...]

Rather than complaining about large budget deficits, it would be more appropriate to view them as the byproduct of the extraordinary demand stimulus required to keep the U.S. economy from slipping back into recession and thereby throwing the world economy into a nasty recession. In fact, by next fall, after an election season filled with hand-wringing by Democratic candidates about rising budget deficits, we shall probably discover, again, that tax cuts stimulate enough economic activity to pay for themselves, at least in part. The budget deficit in this fiscal year will probably be closer to $400 billion than the currently touted $500 billion total, provided that no policy reversals interfere with sustained growth. [...]

Those decrying the U.S. current account deficit today are thinking of a world like that of the 1970s, where excess demand was an issue, unlike today's world of chronic excess capacity. Given U.S. overheating, dissaving would boost U.S. inflation and interest rates and weaken the dollar. But as we have already noted, today U.S. interest rates and inflation are actually falling, while the dollar is weakening--all a reflection of substantial U.S. excess capacity.

The booming economy is bad news, writes Alison Fraser of the Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation...

Bad news, that is, for those who have continued to insist, in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary, that the tax cuts approved earlier this year aren't working. The critics are running out of negative spin.

For example, when the news came last month that economic growth in the third quarter of the year had surged to 8.2 percent - the best growth we've seen in nearly 20 years - they had a ready retort: It's a "jobless recovery."

Not anymore. Are we where we should be? No. But we're moving there at a remarkable pace. More jobs are available, and fewer people are in the unemployment lines. And the evidence indicates that this crop of good news promises solid economic growth throughout next year and likely the year after that. The recession is finally behind us. And now, fortunately, so is the slow growth that has marked the recent recovery.

Job growth has increased over the last four months, and we've added 328,000 new jobs to the economy. In related good news, the unemployment rate has slipped to 5.9 percent, erasing the poor performance of the last year.

What's significant about these figures is their signal that the economy is not merely poised for recovery, but in the midst of it. Job growth is usually the last patch in the economic recovery quilt. These patches now all appear to be in place. With few exceptions, economic indicators are up across the board.

Indeed, the stellar growth of last quarter outpaced the expectations of even the most optimistic forecasters. Three sources of growth in particular show why the recovery is structurally sound and why we can expect continued growth. ... Many factors are involved, of course, but critics cannot ignore the fact that the tax cuts are working. They built a foundation for bringing the recovery full swing by providing incentives for businesses to expand and invest. Tax relief has lowered the cost of capital and made existing enterprises more profitable and investment and expansion more attractive.

As we have been regularly reporting the economy has been booming and recent polls are giving credit where credit is due:

Amid rising consumer confidence, President Bush gets good marks for his handling of the economy from a clear majority of voters...

In all, 55 percent of registered voters said they approve of Bush's handling of the economy...

In the new survey, 23 percent said they strongly approve of Bush's handling of the economy, 19 percent said they somewhat approve, and 13 percent initially reported mixed feelings but leaned toward approval...

There are projections of rapid growth for 2004, signs of an improving job picture and a rebound in the stock market...

The Bush Boom is rolling along. Today's good economic news:

More good news for the U.S. economy emerged on Thursday with a trio of reports showing a fall in claims for jobless benefits and a climb in two broad indexes of economic health.

And economist Larry Kudlow is praising the non-inflationary Bush Boom today, saying:

It's a business-led scenario this country hasn't seen in many years, and it could mean another 8-to-10-year prosperity cycle is on the way.

In effect, America's businesses are producing at a torrid 8 percent rate without generating any inflation. Keynesian demand-siders who believe that growth causes inflation should take their models out behind the barn and shoot them. As profits and production continue to rise, more jobs and higher worker incomes will spur a new round of consumer spending this winter and spring. Supply creates its own demand. Bush administration supply-siders who argued in favor of permanent tax incentives to grow the investment side of the economy are being proven exactly right.

Here's how USA Today reported the latest economic data (which I also mentioned on the blog yesterday):

A trio of economic reports out Tuesday, including one showing an unexpected drop in inflation, indicate the economy is rushing ahead with little threat of overheating. Housing starts hit another peak last month, while industrial production surged at the fastest pace in four years and retail prices fell.

USA Today notes that housing starts rose 4.5 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual 2.1 million rate, the highest level since 1984. Hmm. 1984. Lessee. That year keeps coming up in coverage of the economy, with various pieces of surging economic data described as being the "best" since that year.

There was this report about the Conference Board forecasting the economy next year will turn in its best performance since 1984. And of course there was this report about how the economy's 7.2 percent 8.2 percent growth in the third quarter was the best performance since 1984. And there was this report from a group of University of Michigan economists predicting the U.S. economy will see its strongest growth since 1984 next year, with GDP growing by 5.1 percent.

As I mentioned here, all this good news. The best economy since 1984 is causing Democrats to rethink their campaign rhetoric now that the campaign climate reminds many of, well, of 1984, when a rapidly reviving economy helped Ronald Reagan win re-election in a landslide.

I doubt it will work for the Democrats. I think we're going to see the best result of a Republican presidential re-election campaign since ... 1984.

More good economic news today as the Bush Boom gathers momentum. Among the positive data: a report that showed a bigger-than-expected rise in industrial output; another that showed lower-than-expected consumer price inflation as the cost of energy, clothing lodging and furniture all fell, pushing inflation to a nearly 38-year low; and a strong rise in housing starts.

The U.S. stock market as well as the U.S. dollar is expected to surge this later this morning following the news of the capture of Saddam. However, it's already happening around the world in foriegn markets (though, no word on the markets for the Axis of Weasles):

• Tokyo's Nikkei average rose more than THREE PERCENT to close at a five-week high on Monday as the capture of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein soothed security concerns and pushed Toshiba Corp and other exporters higher.
• The Tel Aviv stock market went up THREE POINT FIVE PERCENT within minutes.

The Conference Board forecasts that the economy will turn in its best performance since 1984.

Revising its year-end economic forecast sharply upward, The Conference Board today projected that real GDP growth will hit 5.7% next year, making 2004 the best year economically in the last 20 years.

The forecast, by Conference Board Chief Economist Gail Fosler, expects worker productivity, which set a 20-year record in the third quarter, to rise at a healthy 3.6% next year. That would follow a gain of 4.3% this year. The economic forecast is prepared for more than 2,500 corporate members of The Conference Board's global business network, based in 66 nations.

"Growing business spending and continued strength in consumer spending are generating growth throughout the U.S. economy," says Fosler. "This burgeoning strength is reflected in The Conference Board's widely-watched Leading Economic Indicators, the Consumer Confidence Index and the Help-Wanted Advertising Index. While the labor market, a critical factor in sustaining growth, is growing slowly, a pick-up in hiring may already have begun."

The recent recession was longer than first thought - and it started during the final year of the Clinton administration - says the U.S. Department of Commerce.

The U.S. economy shrank in the third quarter of 2000, the government said on Wednesday in revisions to official figures that showed America was on the brink of recession months earlier than previously thought. The sweeping changes by the Commerce Department also downgraded the expansion that followed the 2001 slump, albeit only slightly. ... Until now, statisticians at Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis believed the economy did not start shrinking until early 2001. But extensive revisions dating back to 1929, incorporating both improved statistics and changes to definitions, revealed a contraction in gross domestic product, or GDP, in the July-to-September quarter of 2000

Fact is, we're two years into the Bush Boom and the economy – including job creation – is accelerating.

And that's resulting in this next piece of good Bush Boom news: Retail sales surged unexpectedly in November.

Retail sales rose in the United States in November, the government said Thursday, beating analysts' forecasts as consumer spending rebounded from a slump in October. The Commerce Department said retail sales rose 0.9 percent to $322.4 billion after being flat in October. Excluding volatile automobile sales, retail sales rose 0.4 percent after rising a revised 0.4 percent in October. Economists, on average, expected sales to rise 0.7 percent and sales excluding autos to rise 0.3 percent, according to Briefing.com.

...

Wall Street pays close attention to consumer spending, which makes up more than two-thirds of the total U.S. economy. Consumer spending exploded in the third quarter, fueled by tax rebate checks and proceeds from mortgage refinancing, and pushed total economic growth to an 8.2-percent rate, the fastest in nearly 20 years.

That spending has slowed down in the fourth quarter, as the effects of the rebate checks and refinancing have faded, but a slowly improving labor market has helped keep consumers shopping during the holiday season, critical to retailers.

(From Oregon Magazine December 10, 2003)

Tonight, right on this PBS program, he said that the policies he and Bubba initiated created “the longest economic boom in American history.” He said that those miraculous policies included a tax hike which brought down the deficit, thus restoring the confidence of our business community, which subsequently became engaged in growth activities that generated those wondrous years.

That cannot be left to stand without challenge. Here we go.

Three presidents

JFK inherited an economy in recession from Dwight Eisenhower. He immediately called for a large tax cut. After his death, congress did what he had asked. After a pause, the economy came back.

Ronald Reagan inherited an economy in historic and bizarre condition from Jimmy Carter. The name they gave it at the time was “stagflation," as I recall. You had to be there to appreciate it. Mile long waiting lines at gas stations, half the stuff you bought shot up in price every week and a totally stagnant economy. Nobody had ever heard of such a thing, which is why they had to invent a name for it. Perfectly aware of what was wrong, after blasting the nuclear buffoon out of the White House, Reagan demanded a large tax cut. After a pause (it’s usually about two years), holy Moses, heah come de economy back. GDP shot up to near 8%.

George Bush II inherited an economic mess from the Clilnton-Rubin team. He demanded a large tax cut. Two years later, the GDP soars to 8.2%, all the market indexes are sailing upwards and the job figures have gone from Hoover-class negative to a plateau that is tipping in the correct direction. Job gain, which is a trailing instead of a leading recovery indicator, is right around the corner. It’ll happen in the spring, summer and fall of 2004, and will make the Dems even grouchier than they already are, if that's possible. (Along with Iraqis marching in the streets demanding the end of terrorism and saying thanks to young George for pulling the plug on Sadistic Saddam, it will be a terrible year for American liberals.)

Letting people keep their hard earned money is the best way to promote a healthy economy. Small business have always been the leading jobs producer and can only remain so if we relieve business owners of heavy Federal, State and Local taxes.

It always seems the Government try’s to kill the golden goose instead of helping to create more.

Unemployment back to the magic 5-handle. Clocks in at 5.9%.

As Democrats sink further and further into denial about the Bush Boom, more encouraging economic news comes to light this Wictory Wednesday.

Productivity of U.S. companies rocketed at a 9.4 percent annual rate in the third quarter, the best showing in 20 years, offering an encouraging sign that the economic resurgence will be lasting.

This increase in productivity was even stronger than initially predicted by the Labor Department (an 8.1 percent rate), and marks "the strongest performance since the second quarter of 1983, when productivity grew at a blistering 9.7 percent rate."

A Quick Lesson for Liberals, Leftists, and Democrats:

This phenomenal gain in productivity is vital for our economy to sustain its strength. The economy can grow faster with such strong productivity without an increase in inflation. The article also states that businesses "can pay workers more without raising prices, which would eat up those wage gains. And, productivity can bolster a company's profitability."

Payrolls are expected grow for the fourth straight month in November. Economists predict a increase of 150,000, however the actual numbers will be released this Friday. The news is looking bad for Democrats, but good for America.

Economic History:

It is not mere coincidence that the impressive economic numbers that keep coming out haven't been seen since 1983. The Reagan tax cuts, which were also opposed the Democrats in 1980s, and the liberals have been distorting their positive effects for years... The numbers are impossible to refute... cutting taxes works. While the Democrats continue to hope that the economy will plunge, the rest of can enjoy this economic recovery, which history will record as "The Bush Boom." If history repeats itself, not only will our economy be incredibly strong, but George W. Bush will win landslide reelection in 2004, just as Reagan did 20 years earlier.

UPDATE:Data show US at leading edge of jobs recovery
UPDATE:Nasdaq Hovering Near New Two-Year High

Please, somebody save us from this!

Maybe Howard Dean and company can come in and save us from the torture of having the healthiest economy in 20 years, the strongest military in the world, the first changes to the Medicare system ever, and unparalled American primacy in the world...

The economy continues to expand at paces not seen since in years (WSJ subscription required). Without a doubt the tax cuts and low interest rates (both key tenets of President Bush's policies) are greatly responsible for these upturns in the economy.

Manufacturing had its best month in nearly 20 years as job growth returned to the sector after a three-year slump that erased millions of jobs.

The Institute for Supply Management reported Monday that its manufacturing index shot up to 62.8 in November, the fifth straight month of growth and the strongest report since December 1983. The index was at 57 in October. Readings above 50 point to expansion in activity, while those below indicate contraction.

Economists had expected the November index to come in at 59, according to a survey by Dow Jones and CNBC.

Strength was broad-based as gauges of new orders and production were higher.

But the real story was the return of job growth. The employment index soared to 68.3 from 47.7, after 37 consecutive months of decline. The last time the employment gauge was above 50 was September 2000.

Today, the Commerce Department released the revised gross domestic product (GDP) for the third quarter. It was not the estimated 7.2 percent given to us a month ago.

It was a full percentage point higher! This stronger performance "raises hope that a long spell of lackluster business activity is finally over."

The new estimate, based on more complete data, reflected stronger investment by business on new equipment and software, less severe cuts in companies' inventories and more brisk spending on residential projects.

The 8.2 percent growth rate is nearly two and half times the 3.3 percent growth rate of the second quarter. Economic growth has not been seen like this since 1984 when the economy grew at an astounding 9 percent rate in the first quarter. According to the article, "economists were predicting third-quarter GDP would be revised up, with estimates ranging from a 7.3 percent pace to an 8 percent pace."

Near rock-bottom short-term interest rates and President Bush's third round of tax cuts motivated businesses and consumers to spend and invest more, helping the economy to move at such a fast clip in the third quarter, economists say. The next challenge is making sure the rebound is lasting.

So is this a fluke? Or are we going to see continued economic growth? Analysts believe that the economy will continue to grow a healthy rate of 4 percent in the fourth quarter. This is even more bad news for the Democrats.

Key items from the GDP Report:

» Consumer spending is at 6.4 percent, up from 3.8 in the second quarter, which is slightly lower than the 6.6 percent rate previously predicted.

» Fewer cuts to business inventories in the third quarter resulted in a 0.16 percentage-point increase to the GDP, as opposed to the .67 decrease previously estimated.

The next time one of the nine Democrats running for President says they'd repeal Bush's tax cuts, look at these numbers and ask "Why on Earth would they want to do that?"

UPDATE: Consumer Confidence is at a 14-month high, once again exceeding the expectations of economists.
UPDATE 2: Top analysts see 20-year record US growth in 2004.

nvestment would boom next year, adding power to an economy jolted to life by huge tax cuts and super-low interest rates, said a panel of 28 economists in the National Association for Business Economics (NABE).

The world's number one economy would grow at a pace of 3.0 percent in 2003 and 4.5 percent in 2004, the speediest rate for any year since 1984, the NABE panel said Monday.

The NABE report said that the initial impact of President George W. Bush's 350-billion-dollar tax cut package appeared to be driving up sales.

"Nearly 90 percent of the NABE panel estimated that consumers spent more than 40 percent of the boost in disposable income created by reduced payroll withholding," the report said.

Thanks to Randal Robinson for bring this to my attention.

With the economy getting stronger, unemployment going down and job creation up, the Democrats are either unable to recognize the improving economy, or are just unwilling to admit that it is getting better.

Well, just when you thought that the good news wouldn't come in anymore, today it was reported that the home construction market surpassed the expectations of economists, with home construction soaring to a 17-year high.

Builders broke ground on 1.96 million homes at an annualized rate last month, the fastest level since January 1986, according to the Commerce Department. That was up 2.9 percent from the annualized 1.905 million pace in September. For the past several years, housing has propped up the economy during a time of slow growth.

Michael Carliner, an economist with the National Association of Home Builders in Washington, had predicted a drop in construction in the month of October because of gradually rising interest rates. Carliner was surprised, saying, "Normally we have a slowdown in housing construction beginning in the fall."

So what does this mean? You guessed it!

Economists said the high level of residential construction is an indication of an improving national economy.
"There's nothing fancy here," said John E. Silvia, chief economist at Wachovia Corp., one of the country's largest mortgage lenders. "It's basic economic fundamentals. Income growth is solid, mortgage rates remain relatively low, consumer confidence is up and there's been a clear improvement in the job situation."

Nothing fancy at all. The tax cuts are doing exactly what George W. Bush said they would.

Encouraging news on the economy continues to come in. Today, it was reported that last week saw fewer workers filing for unemployment benefits, "a sign that companies may be feeling better about the economic recovery's staying power and are slowing the pace of layoffs."

The Labor Department reported Thursday that for the week ending Nov. 15, new claims for jobless benefits declined by a seasonally adjusted 15,000 to 355,000. For seven straight weeks claims have been below the 400,000 mark, suggesting that the job market is turning a corner.

So much for that "jobless recovery" thing right? The article said "the more stable four-week moving average of claims, which smooths out week-to-week fluctuations, fell by 9,000 to 367,250 last week, the best showing since the week ending Feb. 24, 2001."

The economy roared ahead at a 7.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter, the fastest pace in nearly two decades. Analysts believe the economy will grow at a solid 4 percent pace in the current quarter.

So, clearly, after the 7.2 percent boom in the third quarter, no one is expecting that to repeat in the fourth quarter - however, a solid 4 percent growth is predicted. When the fourth quarter numbers come out, and growth rate doesn't match up to the third quarter Democrats will be foaming at the mouth, pointing fingers (at President Bush) for a so-called bad economy. It's coming, just wait and see.

Even economists have realistic predictions about our economic growth:

Even as the economy grows, it will still take time for the labor market to fully turn around, economists say. And, an influx of job seekers motivated by an improved economic climate could cause the unemployment rate to rise in the months ahead if job creation isn't strong enough, economists say.

So, we're not looking at an overnight economic turnaround. However, things are looking very good for a strong economy in 2004 - and it's going to happen regardless of what liberal pundits want to believe.

Daniel Gross has an article about loving Bush economic policy but hating Bush (seriously - hating? c'mon, way to elevate the rhetoric).
But he has it wrong.

Bushenfreude began in the summer of 2001, when the first Bush tax cut rebates were sent. Back then it was easy to deal with those onetime windfalls if you resented the source. You could send the check back, or sign it over to People for the American Way. Refusing to spend it—and hence refusing to stimulate the economy—was a gratifying protest against Bush's risky skewed-to-the-wealthy tax scheme. Yet in the aftermath of Sept. 11—particularly in New York—promptly spending any disposable cash seemed to be the right thing for the right-thinking to do.

Ridiculous. The rest of the article describes the odd dilemma that many on the left are having with the recovery. That is, they don't want it to happen because they know that they are weak on almost every other issue and an economic recovery would make Bush all but unbeatable.

Let me give them some free advice: Root for the recovery. Big time. I mean it. When positive numbers come out, tout them as an amazing showing of the American will to succeed and keep moving forward. When production numbers are up, talk about the wonderful nature of the American people as they are the most productive nation in history. Cheer for the stock markets to keep rising, because it means that people want to invest in this nation and it's companies even when we don't have some new new thing like ".com" behind it.

Seriously, root for the people of this nation. We don't want leaders who don't believe in us. We want leaders who can help us believe in ourselves and inspire us. People who say that Americans are amazing. That we are a great nation. Say these things while you are criticizing the President. Because if you don't, then we won't listen to you. We don't hear the rest of the message. We hear hate without love in our country. I believe it is possible to disagree with the President and still be patriotic. Indeed, it is our duty to question our leaders openly and freely. But don't root against the American people. That isn't patriotic. At all.

Stephen Moore, NRO Financial Columnist had a great column yesterday about how wrong the Democrats have always been on the economy. As most of us with open eyes can see, the recent news about the dip in the unemployment rate, 300,000 new jobs in the past three months, and the astonishing 7.2 percent economic growth in the third quarter (amongst other things), are crystal clear indicators that the economy is improving, and that the tax cuts critics have been dead wrong.

Nary a day goes by that Dean doesn't declare the Bush tax cut a miserable failure. He wants to repeal the whole tax cut. If Howard Dean is president, the capital-gains tax goes from 15 to 20 percent, the dividend tax goes from 15 to 40 percent, and the average family with two kids and a $50,000 income will pay $2,200 more in taxes. That will really jump start the economy.

The truth hurts the Democrats doesn’t it? As if the truth didn’t sting the Democrats enough, Stephen Moore tells us what the really good news is:

As I have noted many times on these pages, the GDP data is contaminated by the inclusion of government spending. When the government spends more, the official GDP grows, even though the government very rarely spends money efficiently.

In 2001, 2002, and the first half of 2003, the government was outgrowing the private sector in GDP. Bad news. But the really good news in the latest GDP report is that the private sector is finally starting to percolate. In fact, in the 3rd quarter of 2003, the private-sector growth rate was up an astonishing 8.5 percent.

This is what we've been waiting for. Here is the data:

But wait, there’s more..

The tax cut has made one very other important positive contribution to growth, perhaps the most important of all. The stock market has soared ever since the tax cut was enacted. Since May of 2003, the Dow Jones is up 16 percent and the Nasdaq nearly 20 percent. The folks at the American Shareholders Association report that this stock market adrenaline surge has increased American household wealth by more than $1.2 trillion. This is just as supply-siders on these very pages predicted, and what the anti-supply siders like Krugman and Reich insisted would not happen.

Well, Krugman and the Democrats are still wrong, but most of us already knew that.

Great news on the economy just keeps coming in. Today, it was reported that the unemployment rate has fallen to 6 percent. In the month of October, the U.S. economy added more than twice the number jobs than had been predicted.

The number of workers on U.S. payrolls outside the farm sector in October soared 126,000, the largest rise since January, after climbing 125,000 in the previous month. The number far outstripped analyst expectations for a 58,000 gain.

The unemployment rate fell to 6.0 percent, the lowest since April, from 6.1 percent in September. That also beat economist forecasts for the jobless rate to remain unchanged.

It's hard to argue with the numbers. The economy that the Democrats have been telling us was devasted by George W. Bush's policies has shown to become stronger as a result of them. The economy is improving. Jobs are being created. This is real economic recovery.

Speaking on Thursday after the Labor Department reported a surprisingly large drop in the number of Americans claiming jobless benefits, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said the chances of a job growth pick-up were rising.

If it is true that "it's the economy, stupid," than perhaps we should take a look at the stupid comments made by the Democrats running for President when they learned about the growing economy a week ago:

"The Bush administration has dug a hole so deep and so wide that it's going to take a lot more than one quarter to get back on solid ground." -John Edwards

So much for the deep hole.

President Bush has compiled the worst economic record since the Great Depression, and it is going to take a lot more than one quarter of growth to clean it up. The real measure of a strong economy is when average Americans see real benefits and the people who lost their jobs under President Bush are working again." -Howard Dean

Well, jobs are being created. What do you have to say now Dean?

"Unemployment is not down a bit. Corporate profits are up while jobs are lost because of poor competition." -Steve Murphy, spokesman for Rep. Dick Gephardt.

Scratch that, reverse it.

"This is still a jobless recovery. Three million are jobless. Fiscal mismanagement is the hallmark of this administration." - Steve Bouchard:, spokesman for Wesley Clark

Is Clark going to change his mind on the economy tomorrow? Doubt it.

"Obviously it's good news, but it does not change the fact that the president has turned Main Street into a one-way street going in the wrong direction." -Sen. Joe Lieberman's spokesman Kristen Carvell

The one-way street to economic recovery is only the wrong direction for the Democrats running for President.

The Democrats are unwilling to accept this good news for America. Their campaigns thrive on bad news and false accusations about Bush's policies - unfortunate for them, there isn't any bad news about the economy, and their false accusations are quickly exposed by the facts.

There has been a lot of economic news lately so I thought I would put a synopsis together to show how the Bush Boom is touching EVERY economic indicator out there. It has validated his tax cuts and stregthened his position as a leader domestically just as his war on terror strengthens him internationally. For the Democrats, the following can best be described as a "read 'em and weep":

Jobless Claims (11/06/03)
Initial jobless claims 348K
Takeaway: Jobless claims posted a huge decline, to 348K from 386K in the prior week. This is the lowest level since January 2001. While clearly consistent with improvement in the labor market, claims do not usually move this much in a single week. The four-week average, which smooths out weekly fluctuations, dropped by 10,000 to 380,000, the lowest level since March 2001.

Productivity/Jobless Claims (11/06/03)
Q3 nonfarm productivity growth 8.1%
Takeaway: Productivity jumped 8.1% in Q3, slightly more than consensus. Hours worked grew by 0.7%, in spite of a slight decline in overall hours worked according to the monthly payroll employment reports. In any case, the key element of the productivity report to watch here is unit labor costs, which declined by 4.6% (annualized) over the quarter. Over the long run, productivity growth increases prosperity by allowing businesses to raise wages without fanning inflation. During the past few years, however, the increasing efficiency of U.S. workers has proved to be a hazard to their own job security. It is difficult to generate significant inflation when unit labor costs have fallen 1.9% over the past year.

Non-Manufacturing ISM/Factory Orders (11/05/03)
Index at 64.7%
Takeaway: The Institute for Supply Management's monthly non-manufacturing index rose to 64.7% in October, its fifth consecutive month over 60. Readings above 50 indicate expanding activity, while those below point to contraction. Most components were in line with September values, but new orders rose significantly, to 64.4 versus 59.9 in September. Employment conditions also brightened slightly, with that sub-index up to 52.9 versus 49.1 in September. Inventories fell yet again, by -0.4%. Orders for nondefense capital goods ex aircraft +4.7% versus -0.2% in August. Manufacturing inventories are at a historically low level relative to shipments, and Q4 should see some inventory rebuilding.

ISM/Construction Spending (11/03/03)
Index at 57.0
Takeaway: Across the board strength in the October ISM manufacturing report, and a big increase in construction spending in September as presaged by large jumps in regional manufacturing surveys. The new orders and production sub-indices showed the biggest jumps, again consistent with regional surveys such as last Friday's Chicago purchasing managers' survey. The ISM composite index was the highest result since January 2000, reflecting the huge demand surge of Q3 as it flowed through the nation's manufacturing plants. The production and new orders sub-indexes reached multiyear highs: the production subindex, at 62.6, was at its highest since 1997; new orders came in at 64.3, a level not seen since 1994. Construction spending rose 1.3% in September, significantly more than expected, on strength in both residential and commercial business.

Chicago Purchasing Managers' Index (10/31/03)
Index at 55%
Takeaway: The Chicago purchasing managers' index was quite strong across the board. Although the headline jumped to 55.0 from 51.2, most components rose even faster - production was up to 62.0 from 55.8, and new orders to 59.2 from 53.2. There was also a big drop in inventories so look for more capital spending to refill those inventories. Notably, the employment sub-index rose substantially to 53.1 from 45.3, the best reading since January 2000.

Personal Income (10/31/03)
+0.3% over last month; +3.2% over last year
Takeaway: Personal income was up 0.3% in September over the prior month on a current-dollar basis. Basically people are making more money.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (10/30/03)
+7.2% over last quarter
Takeaway: Even stronger third-quarter GDP than expected, reflecting sharp gains in business investment and home building. Jobless claims continued to show improvement over past months, while ECI shows stability in wage growth and ongoing rapid benefit cost increases. Investment was a key source of strength, with business investment up 11.1% and residential investment a whopping 20.4% over Q2 (annualized rates).

Consumer Confidence (10/28/03)
Index is at 81.1
Takeaway: Consumer confidence improved in October, with the overall index rising to 81.1 from 77.0 and returning approximately to its August level. Consumers' assessment of the present situation improved markedly (to 66.8 from 59.7), and expectations about the future also rose (to 90.7 from 88.5).

Durable Goods Orders (10/28/03)
+0.8% over last month; +6.2% over last year
Takeaway: A strong durable goods report for September. Although the headline number was up only 0.8%, ex-defense orders were up 2.6%. Narrowing the perspective further, nondefense capital goods (ex-aircraft) orders increased 3.9%. A drop of 26.7% in defense capital goods spending weighed on the headline increase. Basically the private sector has picked up where the government no longer has to.

New and Existing Home Sales (10/27/03)
-0.2% over last month; +8.3% over last year
Takeaway: Housing demand remains at or near record levels despite the backup in mortgage rates over the summer.

While Democrats are talking down the economy, we're still continuing to see the positive effects of President Bush's economic agenda.

The productivity of U.S. businesses soared in the third quarter, as firms managed to raise output at a pace not seen in over 10 years with only a small increase in the number of hours workers put in on the job, the government said on Thursday.

According to the article non-farm business productivity rose to an 8.1 percent annual rate in the third quarter. As the article said later, jobs creation is well on it's way,

Economists say that over time, strong productivity growth will raise standards of living. But they say in the short-run it could prove a hurdle to job creation, a key element for a sustainable expansion.

Also reported today, new jobless claims have dropped significantly, further indicating that Bush has led us out of the 2001 Clintonian recession.

Initial claims for state unemployment aid fell 43,000 to 348,000 in the week ending Nov. 1 from a revised 391,000 in the prior week, the Labor Department said. It was the lowest claims level since late January 2001, two months before the recession began.

When Democrats look the other way from the improving economy and ask, "Well, where are jobs?" we look back at them, smile, and say, "They're coming. Thanks to President Bush."

Since Presidents take the blame when economies aren't rebounding swiftly enough for the public (see Bush 41), it is important to keep reminding the nay-sayers that day-by-day EVERY economic indicator points in favor of the impending Bush Boom -- employment is a lagging indicator and even THAT is beginning to improve! There are also Intenational indicators that show a global recovery (but that's internal Wall Street stuff I can't publish!) so read the latest and enjoy:

The services side of the U.S. economy grew for the seventh month in a row in October, the Institute for Supply Management reported Wednesday. In an unexpected development, the group's non-manufacturing index rose to 64.7 percent from 63.3 percent in September. read full report

Wall Street economists' consensus view was that the ISM index would dip to 63.2 percent.

"Members' general comments on business in October continue to indicate optimism concerning economic activity," the ISM said.

"It is a solid report, with positive indications for future strengthening in sector activity," said Mat Johnson, economist at Quantit Group.

The business gauge doesn't have the track record of the institute's better-known manufacturing index. Economists are still undecided about how much new information the index provides.

But economists said the report appeared to show the economy is gaining strength.

"The recovery appears not only to be broadening, but also accelerating," said Joel Naroff, president of Naroff Economic Advisors.

Readings over 50 percent indicate that purchasing managers at most firms surveyed said business was getting better or no worse

You're a mean one, Mr. Dean, You really are a heel.

While channel surfing recently I happened upon Jim Carey's version of "How the Grinch Stole Christmas." As I sat there watching the movie, it dawned on me that there is currently a Grinch wing in the Democratic party.

Grinch Liberals find life completely miserable. And if they have to be miserable, they make sure everyone else shares in their misery. Grinch Liberals are mystified that a Conservative who believes in strong families can earn support from African-Americans.

Grinch Liberals think we should emulate the French and the German plans of high taxes and huge government. They pounce on every crumb of tax money within reach of their paws, be it from the living or the dead .

In Grinch Dean's view, "Reclaiming the American Dream" means a massive tax increase on working families with children. Contrary to the fine print at the bottom of his tax plan, he claims his program "will strive for greater tax fairness for middle-class working families." The fine print includes a new government health-care system that would require one million workers and $100 billon to fund. How does Dean purpose we pay for this? By increasing taxes 4000% for some taxpayers. For instance, a married couple with two children making $40,000 a year, under the Bush plan, would pay $45 in federal income taxes according to Treasury data. Under Dean's plan, that same family would pay $1,978, a tax increase of over 4,000 percent.

Grinch Liberals use magnificently compensated trial lawyers to bleed working families by forcing each family member to bear around $809.00 ($3236 total for a family of 4) a year to help fund massive class-action payouts. These payouts are paid by price increases for everyday products that are passed along by the manufacturers and distributors. Need a ladder? You will pay 25% more just to cover legal expenses and the costs of liability. Need to ride the mass transit system? You will pay 17 cents of every dollar to cover legal expenses and liability costs. Every good and every service you purchase carries with it the hidden cost of these lawsuits.

Lawyers have given $500 Million to political campaigns since 1990 (that is your money they are donating) and the vast majority of those donations have gone to Democrats. The next time you hear Democrats say they are "looking out for the little guy," just remember the little guy to whom they refer is a trial lawyer.

Upon reflection, I must apologize to the Grinch for comparing his actions to those of the Liberal Democrats. The Grinch ultimately learned that spreading hate and taking advantage of others earned him nothing in return. The Grinch changed his ways, gave up his tricks, and returned the treats to their rightful owners.

Grinch Dean, I have reviewed your plans for America and the three words that best describe them are as follows, and I quote, "Stink, stank, stunk"!

Yesterday we learned that economy has had its strongest quarter of growth in nearly 20 years. It looks like the economists were right—tax cuts stimulate the economy!

The economy grew at a blistering 7.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter in the strongest pace in nearly two decades. Consumers spent with abandon and businesses ramped up investment, compelling new evidence of an economic resurgence.

The increase in gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the economy's performance, in the July-September quarter was more than double the 3.3 percent rate registered in the second quarter, the Commerce Department reported Thursday.

The 7.2 percent pace marked the best showing since the first quarter of 1984. It exceeded analysts' forecasts for a 6 percent growth rate for third-quarter GDP, which measures the value of all goods and services produced within the United States.

Scott McLellan, President Bush's spokesman, said that while today's numbers are "another positive sign," and that Bush's strategy of cutting taxes to boost the economy is "is working, getting more money into people's pockets," there is still more work to be done. "We need to continue to act and build upon the steps we have taken to get our economy growing so we can continue to translate growth into job creation," McLellan said.

Despite Democrats claiming that the tax cuts would ruin the economy, President Bush showed his leadership by getting the tax cuts passed. As a result, our country is recovering from the Clintonian Recession.

Near rock-bottom short-term interest rates, along with President Bush's third round of tax cuts, have helped the economy shift into a higher gear during the summer, economists said. The next challenge is making sure the rebound is self-sustaining, they said.

We need President Bush to continue this phenomenal progress with the economy. The same tax cuts, which resulted in this economic boost, are at the risk of being repealed under a Democrat president. Don't let that happen.

Is it me or do you get tired of Democrats telling you how we must live our lives, while they are doing the exact opposite?

Take Howard Dean. He preaches to the folks that we must drive very tiny cars to conserve energy and not support terrorist States while all along he is driving not one but two Ford SUV's.

Now consider tax cuts. I find it rather telling that the same folks who tell us that they know better which cars we should drive are now trying to tell us that they can spend our dollars better than we can. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) said it well. "Democrats have lost touch with voters they need to win." "Given a choice of tax increases or tax cuts," Miller says, the typical voter doesn't say, "Hmmm, that's a tough one.".

Vulnerable House Democrats are worried about a Dean candidacy. As Rep. Rodney Alexander (D-La.) put it "I am not going to be out there waving the banner for Dean". His constituents drive around their rural, sprawling district in pickup trucks with gun racks. They were not bashful one iota in taking back their money in the form of the tax-cuts that Howard Dean has promised to rescind. I believe Howard Dean when he promises to rescind all tax cuts and use taxpayer money to pay for national health care. We see how well that is working in the United Kingdom, where a 62 year old woman had to spend seven months waiting in agony for surgery to repair her hernia. Thank God she wasn't having heart failure. Mr. Dean: Thanks for the offer of socialized medicine, but I am not interested.

One would think that Howard Dean and the rest of the left wing would be happy about the most recent economic numbers (they are not). Not only do interest rates remain near historical lows, but the Dow is up roughly 34 percent and the tech heavy NASDAQ is up around 45 percent. Professional economists, who work for a living rather than teach classes at Berkeley, will tell you the cause of those great numbers was the President Bush’s tax cuts. JFK's tax cut and Reagan's tax cuts had the same result - a full-blown economic recovery. In baseball, when a player goes 4-for-4 and hits the game winning home run, that player is the hero. Folks look up to that player and want him on their team.

Everyone capable of honest reflection, regardless of party identification, will acknowledge that JFK and Ronald Reagan were heroes to the vast majority of American people. They said they were going to cut taxes and encourage economic growth and that is what they did. They didn't constantly bash their opponents’ efforts without offering a plan in return. They acted on their convictions and followed through with truth and integrity.

American now has a new hero in President George W. Bush. I am overjoyed that he is on our team - the team that desires a strong America, both economically strong and strong in security. To our liberal friends, as the title of this article says, ”When all else fails, try the truth.

They are words to live by.