John Kerry has been harping on the economy for some time, recently complaining about all the jobs lost during the Bush Administration. Never mind that the job loss figure that he quotes is from only one of the many reports compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics -- the Establishment Survey of National Non-Farm Employment, Seasonally Adjusted -- which shows a job loss from January 2001 to March 2004 of 1.8 million jobs. He doesn't consider the Establishment Survey that isn't seasonally adjusted (I can't figure why seasonal adjustments would matter over multiple years when seasonal variations should even out), which shows a gain of 1.6 million jobs, or the Household Survey, which shows a gain of 1.5 million jobs during the Bush Administration. Fine, the press seems to think that he's quoting the right statistics. But the bad news for Kerry is that all of those losses may be turned into gains by November, if the pace from the first quarter keeps up, during which the economy added over 500,000 jobs.
It's also interesting to note that employment is a lagging economic indicator. If the economy turns sour, it takes a while for employment to fall. If the economy turns up, it take a while for employment to increase. During the first 9 months of the Bush Administration and prior to the effectiveness of Bush's first budget, the economy lost over 800,000 jobs, according to Kerry's preferred survey. Perhaps these were Clinton losses or dotcom bubble losses. In fact, job creation began its fall in June 2000, eight months before Bush took office.
HOW BOUT THE INDEX OF LEADING ECONOMIC INDICATORS?
There's also the Conference Board's Index of Leading Economic Indicators, which economists have used for years, surprise, as an index of how the economy is doing. Kerry doesn't like those numbers either, as they show that
The upturn in the leading index since March 2003 has been signaling stronger economic growth, and real GDP growth picked up to a 6.1 percent annual rate during the second half of 2003. While the growth rate of the leading index has slowed somewhat in recent months, it is still signaling relatively strong economic growth in the near term.MAYBE GDP IS BAD? NOPE.
Of course, Kerry doesn't like that other major indicator of economic performance, Gross Domestic Product. GDP went flat in Clinton's last year in office and turned up again in late 2001 and is even accelerating today. Kerry can't point to these numbers to say the economy is bad.
THE STOCK MARKET?
There's no help for John Kerry here either. The market began its plunge during Clinton's second term, but has been heading steadily upward since fourth quarter 2002, despite a war.
THE ORIGINAL MISERY INDEX?
Then there's the Misery Index, created by Chicago economist Robert Barro in the 1970s, which is simply a combination of the unemployment rate and inflation. A favorite of the press, the Misery Index was higher under Bush 41, Carter and Clinton than under Bush 43. Obviously, Kerry doesn't like these numbers either because they don't support his efforts to talk down the economy.
LET'S MAKE SOMETHING UP!
So, let's see, employment numbers, GDP, the Misery Index (inflation and unemployment) and the Index of Leading Economic Index all show a pretty good economy under George W. Bush. So, Kerry asked his advisors to get him some numbers that show the economy is bad and, like the crafty accountant, when asked what 2 + 2 equals answered "what number do you have in mind", Kerry's people rejected all accepted economic indicators and made a new one, which Kerry calls his Middle-Class Misery Index.
CARTER ECONOMY BETTER THAN REAGAN ECONOMY!
This set of cherry picked numbers is a nice little political lie, as it shows good economies under Democrats and bad ones under Republicans. So, contrary to all common sense, Carter presided over a better economy than did Bush 41, Bush 43 and even Reagan, according to the Kerry Misery Index. The simple assertion that the Carter economy was better than the Reagan economy is so hilarious on its face that Kerry should be laughed out of the campaign. It is far more disturbing than Howard Dean's scream.
Not only is this Index a ridiculous attempt to dismiss all accepted economic indicators, it is also a poor strategic move for the Kerry campaign. Voters tend to support candidates that focus on positive visions for the country. Kerry has chosen to put "misery" at the center of his campaign.
