Here we go again!

7:49 PM Dec 6, 2003by Rob Ritchie

In 1991, I worked at Martin Marietta. As you may recall, we had undergone a small economic dip over that previous 12 months or so, following the completion of Gulf War I.

The Democrat candidates gunning for Bush Sr.'s job were hard at work, spinning the economy into the campaign issue of the season, despite the fact that the economy, by 1991, was in recovery and that it wasn't an actualy issue that would effect Americans greatly in the coming years.

(We now know that many Leftist and Democrat-supporting media outlets downplayed and otherwise buried optimistic reports of economic recovery in order to increase "traction" for Clinton's "It's the economy, stupid!" Presidantial campaign strategy.)

I worked with a young woman who told me that she was putting off buying a CAR because she was concerned about the economy. What exactly was her concern? I asked. Her job was secure (she still works for the same employer), her rents and expenses were constant, her income was increasing. She couldn't actually identify anything specific that bothered her, but she'd heard a lot in the news about how bad the economy was, so she decided not to make that $20,000 purchase.

Self fulfilling prophecy, as we all know. She didn't buy the car, the car dealership didn't make the sale, the bank didn't make the loan, the salesman didn't make his commission. Multiply that one decision by a hundred or a thousand or ten thousand, and, hey, presto, instant economic problem.

It was at that exact moment, that I realized that I could never vote for a Democrat again. These people were willing to RUIN THE ECONOMY, and frighten millions of citizens in order to get their guy into the White House. And the media were their willing accomplaces.

Well, here we go again

The New York Times reaches deeper into the bottom of the barrel than ever thought possible to deny the economic recovery. Floyd Norris writes today about the strong job gains in the Department of Labor's "Household Survey," from which is derived the unemployment rate, which fell last month from 6.0% to 5.9%. He managed to find a Wall Street economist -- a "senior strategist of Mizuho Securities USA," that highly respected institutional of economic analysis -- who would tell him that the strong growth in self-employment comes from "spammers, the people who fill e-mail in boxes with unwanted mail. It is not clear how many of them there are, but there is no doubt most Americans would be quite happy if there were fewer."

Well, that about sums up the New York Times' positions on jobs in general, doesn't it? "Quite happy if there were fewer."