Poverty edges up, income down

As any reader of this page knows, I’m a staunch supporter of President Bush. But I try to be an honest commentator and the latest economic data doesn’t look good (the lefty bloggers are gleeful). Saying that the downturn was expected doesn’t soften the blow:

Experts had predicted that rising unemployment last year and the still shaky economy would increase poverty and lower income for most people, even though the recession officially ended in November 2001.

Bureau statistician Daniel Weinberg said the changes between 2001 and 2002 were consistent with changes following past recessions.

"The highest point in the cycle of poverty and the lowest point in income tend to come in the year after a recession," he said at a news conference at bureau headquarters in Suitland, Md.

But, honestly, what more could Bush have done to turn things around? When the economy is soft, the standard government tactics include 1.) lower taxes 2.) increased government spending and 3.) lower interest rates. Bush pushed through across-the-board tax cuts, he certainly spent enough money, and the prime rate stands at a historic low of 1%. The current estimates are that the economy will grow 4% in the last six months of 2003, but that employment and income will continue to lag.

Let’s be realistic: the Dems are going to be flooding the airwaves this weekend with the “miserable failure” meme. But the Dems remedy nearly always falls back on the old saw of “tax the rich” which takes capital from the very people who have the resources to create jobs. In that light, Bush’s economic plan may be, to paraphrase Churchill, the worst plan – except for all the others.