Powerline Fisks The Times

The U.S. economy has been soaring over the past several quarters, posting a 5.6% gain in GDP in the first quarter. Our economy is the main driver of economic activity throughout the world. Thus, a vibrant U.S. economy is good, not only for Americans, but for just about everyone.

You would think the New York Times could handle a straight news story of excellent economic activity with impartiality. You'd be wrong, however. Powerline fisks the New York Times article on the economy, which is set for tomorrow's edition. The Times reportedly includes a false claim that overall revenues have not reached 2000 levels.

Liberals are so blinded by class envy (e.g. "tax cuts for the rich") and hatred (e.g. Bush = Hitler, etc.) that they cannot bring themselves to credit the policies which have produced the outstanding economic growth we are seeing today. Obviously, he's not solely responsible for the economy. Hardworking Americans deserve the lion share of the credit here. Indeed, if Bush could control his profligate spending (which appears to be starting to happen) we could make serious headway in reducing and/or eliminating the deficit.

For more on the economy, here's Larry Kudlow:

"Did you know that just over the past 11 quarters, dating back to the June 2003 Bush tax cuts, America has increased the size of its entire economy by 20 percent? In less than three years, the U.S. economic pie has expanded by $2.2 trillion, an output add-on that is roughly the same size as the total Chinese economy, and much larger than the total economic size of nations like India, Mexico, Ireland and Belgium.

"This is an extraordinary fact, although you may be reading it here first. Most in the mainstream media would rather tout the faults of American capitalism than sing its praises. And of course, the media will almost always discuss supply-side tax cuts in negative terms, such as big budget deficits and static revenue losses. But here's another suppressed fact: Since the 2003 tax cuts, tax-revenue collections from the expanding economy have been surging at double-digit rates, while the deficit is constantly being revised downward.

U.S. President George W. Bush speaks about the economy in front of a portrait of George Washington at the White House in Washington April 7, 2006. Bush said an increase of 211,000 new jobs in March was evidence of a broad economic resurgence. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

For those who bother to look, the economic power of lower-tax-rate incentives is once again working its magic. While most reporters obsess about a mild slowdown in housing, the big-bang story is a high-sizzle pick-up in private business investment, which is directly traceable to Bush's tax reform."

Perhaps the biased and dishonest reporting the Times has been foisting on the American public (not to mention its wanton disregard for its safety by revealing national security secrets) is responsible for the freefall in their subscriptions . And this...

New York Times stock performance (black) vs. S&P 500 (red) over the last two years.

(h/t Pajamas Media).

UPDATE:

Captain's Quarters takes issue with Kudlow's methodology, stating that, adjusted for inflation, GDP growth has been 11.4% since 2000. Captain Ed also discusses some noteworthy distinctions between the Bush, Clinton and Reagen administrations.

First, neither Clinton nor Reagan had a shooting war going on during these periods, allowing for more stable economic environments. Second, oil prices dropped during these periods for Clinton and Reagan, while they have increased considerably during the Bush expansion. Yet the Bush expansion, fuelled by the tax cuts, has shown remarkable stability and consistency. In the past eleven quarters, the only one below an annual rate of growth of 3% was 2005Q4, which reflected the economic impact of Hurricane Katrina. Also, we should recall that the Clinton era coincides with the dot-com bubble and the bulk of the investor frauds of Enron, Global Crossings, and Worldcom.

In fact, in Bush's entire tenure in office, he has only had one quarter of economic loss where he was president for the entire quarter -- and that was 2001Q3, when he ordered the entire airline industry grounded as a result of 9/11, as well as the devastating losses in Manhattan in both lives and property. Even then, the loss was kept to an annual projected rate of -1.4%. (Clinton only had one as well, in 2000Q3, and the two share another, 2001Q1.)