WP: And Now For Some Good News (from Rove's deputy)

[Rose Siding]

By now Americans know the litany: The nation is engaged in a difficult and costly war in Iraq; Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon; gas prices are high; the costs of reconstructing the Gulf Coast region are huge; illegal immigration is a major problem -- and more.

These issues are real and pressing. But they aren't the whole story -- and they ought not color the lens through which we see all other events. We hear a great deal about the problems we face. We hear hardly anything about the encouraging developments........

(Here he lists some things, many of which were results of Clinton's policies)

There are areas of concern, to be sure. Births to unmarried women are at an all-time high, and in many respects our popular culture remains a cesspool. But context is important. Between 1960 and the mid-'90s virtually every social indicator got worse -- and in many cases staggeringly worse. Then things began to turn around, almost as if a cultural virus created its own antibodies.
....
National Security : Perhaps no nation has ever been as dominant as the United States is today -- and we are using our military power to promote great purposes. As a reference point, it's worth recalling that the 1930s and early-'40s were regarded by many as the twilight of freedom. Democratic societies were threatened both internally (by a depression) and externally (by Nazism and fascism). There were only a dozen or so democracies on the planet.

Today we are witnessing one of the swiftest advances of freedom in history.....

.... The trajectory of events is in our favor -- and with the passage of time, all this will become clear enough.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/04/AR2006060400781.html

Spooky guy.

[depakid]

1. WTF?

Remind me to just stop clicking on the Post entirely- I've about had enough of their propaganda and the culture of lies it's wrought.

Good riddance. Sheesh.

[TomInTib]

2. I read the entire article. Sounded like The Onion.

"and in many respects our popular culture remains a cesspool. But context is important. Between 1960 and the mid-'90s virtually every social indicator got worse -- and in many cases staggeringly worse. Then things began to turn around, almost as if a cultural virus created its own antibodies."

mid-90s (we all know what happened then, don't we?).

Go fork yourslf, HotRod.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. Ahh, statistics, don't you love them?

A lot of what he quotes as advances would seem to be either as much or more the result of the Clinton years, or are really nothing to do with the US government at all - they are advances abroad. But, on the face of it, the economic figures he gives for Bush look OK, don't they? "Real disposable personal income has risen almost 13 percent" and stuff like that?

But take a look at another set of figures - household incomefor various levels of income - ie '20' means a household earning just more than 20% of all households do, '60' one earning just more than 60% of all households, etc. Compare 2004, the last year available, with 2000, the peak year for most people (the richest 20% or so were best off in 1999). In 2004 dollars:

            20      40      60      80       95
2000    19,656  36,197  57,229  89,688  159,290
2004    18,500  34,738  55,325  88,029  157,185
drop      5.9%    4.0%    3.3%    1.8%     1.3%

So, who the hell is actually better off? Well, the trend is clear - those who earn the least have been screwed the most. The ultra-rich have probably come out better off.

And that 13%? Well, despite the 'personal' tag in there, it actually means "for the whole country" - the 'personal' means "what people's income is, rather than corporations". The population has also gone up in that period. Go to the BEA website, and you can get the figures - let's include the start of Clinton's presidency for comparison, and calculate the average annual growth rate:

1993 1Q: $5,512.1 billion; per capita 21,279
2001 1Q: $7,283.0 billion; per capita 25,620
2006 1Q: $8,218.6 billion; per capita 27,548
93-01 change:      +32.1%;            +20.4%
avg annual:         +3.5%;             +2.3%
01-06 change:      +12.8%;             +7.5%
avg annual:         +2.4%;             +1.5%

And disposable income is after tax. So, the average annual per capita disposable income has gone up slower under Bush than under Clinton; the household income distribution shows the poor have got worse off; and the tax cuts were aimed largely at the rich, but have been paid for by future debt (held by the country, not just the rich). Bush has increased 'disposable personal income', but by less than Clinton did, and it's been done largely by borrowing, and giving the money to the rich.

[Rose Siding]

4. Yes. The spin made reading difficult

This one disgusted me-

"Welfare caseloads have declined almost 60 percent since 1996."

And poverty is up!

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/national/31census.html?ex=1283140800&en=d6576faa22af6f52&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

And that's for a family of FOUR earning LESS than 20K. -the class that only dreams of health care- even as energy costs double.

Record bankruptcy filings in 05
http://commonlaw.findlaw.com/2006/03/record_bankrupt.html

Record home foreclosures
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2002-09-09-foreclosure_x.htm

Clinton's questionable welfare reform did, at least, make a nod to training and child care -exactly the kind of services bush loving goppies can be counted on to cut.

Rove-ette's boast about the US being so "dominate" was a gut-buster, too. -as though the whole concept of value judgement is somehow beyond his reach. So much for partnering with the rest of the world.