Scott Robinson: Kerry distorts Bush economic record

The national economy is presently in a robust period of expansion. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate from November 2003 to April of 2004 hovered between a high of 5.9 percent and the most recent figures of 5.6 percent, all of which are lower than the 6.3 percent average unemployment rate over President Clinton's two terms. Since most economists estimate the natural rate of unemployment to be anywhere from 4 to 6 percent, 5.6 percent is close to, if not exactly, ideal.

Employment aside, inflation is minimal, mortgage and interest rates are near historic lows, home ownership is at an all time high, and real GDP grew 4.2 percent over the first quarter of 2004. The list goes on, with other indicators pointing up. Most recently, President Bush reappointed the conservative Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, former Nixon economic adviser, former member of Ayn Rand's inner circle and original Reagan appointee, to serve another four years as the single greatest arbiter of American economic policy and market stability.

As probably no single issue will determine the 2004 election more than the public's perception of the state of the economy, this rosy picture bodes well for the sitting president. Independent voters will retrospectively ask whether they are better off now than four years ago. In large part, this translates into the question how has the economy performed over the past four years and even more so, over the past few months.

Recent history supports an economy-centric view of presidential elections. In 1992, the economy took a cyclical downturn and may have cost President George H.W. Bush re-election. President Clinton later rode the dot-com bubble into a second term in office, but his chosen successor was ousted amidst signs of a weakening economy coupled with a public desire for a break from the Clinton scandals. Following the handover of power on June 30th in Iraq, the economy will again be front and center as the two candidates butt heads and compare economic packages in 2004.

Beneath the rhetoric, the two candidates have diametrically-opposed interests in terms of favorable public opinion regarding the economy. Senator Kerry would benefit from a sagging economy that may motivate the electorate to seek leadership change. In order for him to portray a negative economic story line, Kerry, his supporters and his sympathizers in the media would need to selectively emphasize, exaggerate, and do everything in their power, up to and including outright distortion.

President Bush benefits from a positive economic track record and promising, near-future forecasts. In order to prevail, the President and his supporters in turn will need to sell swing voters on the country's positive economic outlook. Luckily for President Bush, the truth about the current economy lies in his favor. However, this does not translate into a free path toward re-election, as calculated manipulations can lead to public perceptions that do not completely square with economic reality.

So far, in an attempt to turn some aspects of the economy into election year issues, John Kerry and company have played-up a few issues in particular over the course of the campaign. "Outsourcing" became the first red herring dragged into the fray during the Democratic primary.

John Kerry and other Democrats have engaged in what President Bush has called the "politics of economic isolationism" for three reasons. First, the case is easy to make. Those who have lost jobs are easily identified, and the much greater number of people and the economy as a whole, which have benefited, are more diffuse and unaware that they have benefited. Second, Democrats have made a calculated political appeal to hard-hit manufacturing interests in bell weather states such as Pennsylvania and Ohio. Finally, Democrats, eager to please the organized labor portion of the Democratic core, have succumbed to protectionist pressures.

Moreover, and in flip-flopping fashion, Kerry has also used rising gas prices to criticize President Bush. Kerry initially criticized the administration for not "jawboning" OPEC to increase supply and lower oil prices. Following White House pressure, Saudi Prince Bandar announced plans to increase supply to stabilize prices. Kerry turned around and criticized the administration for conspiring with the Saudis for political gain.

This sort of unsubstantiated conspiracy theory is nothing new from Kerry, who has routinely made baseless charges of corruption against an Administration "in the pockets of big oil". The oil industry understands that the real reason for price increases has been an increase in foreign demand, and that the real threat of to consumers is from Democrats such as Kerry and their environmentalist opposition to new refineries and exploration. Kerry has also opposed the Yucca Mountain initiative and expanded reliance on efficient and clean nuclear power.

If that isn't bad enough, a man who has driven around in a Chevy suburban, flown across the country on his private jet and paid to heat his five mansions has the gumption to lecture the American public about conservation. Kerry's concern is clearly not the economics of oil, but rather only his potential political benefit.

If the opening figures were not enough to convince readers of a solid job market, consider this. Since August, the economy has added more than 1.1 million new jobs, and even the troubled manufacturing sector has experienced sustained job growth over the past three months. If the economy continues to flourish as it has (and it should) through November, things look good for Bush's chances, but not if the Democratic spin machine has anything to say about it.

Scott Robinson is a junior in Wharton from Carlisle, Pa.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.