Defend the Bush Economy, Stupid!

ONE of the great mysteries of this campaign season is why the Republicans are so defensive about the economy. The Kerry Democrats' mantra is that 2 million jobs have been lost on George W. Bush's watch. But this allegation is misleading at best. The new economic data from the Commerce Department show conclusively that the economic contraction began in the third quarter of 2000, at least six months before Bush took office. Bush inherited a recession from Clinton, and job losses were baked in the cake before a single Bush economic policy was implemented.

Moreover, given the economic thunderbolt of 9/11 it is a marvel that the U.S. economy has grown as robustly as it has over the past three years. Our economy has grown about one-third faster than Europe's or Japan's even though it was America that was struck by terrorists and even though America has shouldered the burden of fighting terrorism.

Republicans should be running on the economy, not away from it. The tax cut, for one thing, has been an unqualified economic success story. The accompanying table shows that since the tax cut was passed last May (the very tax cut that Senator Kerry wishes to repeal) all economic indicators are pointing north. For example, the stock market is up a frisky 25 to 30 percent, and the economy has grown at a head-spinning 6 percent annualized rate.

Readers no doubt remember the famous "misery index" that Democrats invented as a way of bludgeoning Gerald Ford in 1976 (when Americans really were feeling pretty miserable). This index--inflation plus unemployment--serves as a convenient economic pulse of the nation. When Ford ran for re-election in '76, the misery index was 11 percent. Ford lost. In 1980 the misery index rose to 17 percent under Carter. Even when Clinton ran for re-election in 1996 celebrating good times, the misery index stood at 8 percent. Under Bush, the number now stands at 7.8 percent. Democratic politicians would be delighted if they could run on numbers like those, notwithstanding their runaway hyperbole about "the worst economic performance since Herbert Hoover."

Still ...