All the news that's not fit to print
Shhhhh. Don't tell anyone, but here are some juicy news items you won't be seeing in the New York Times (barring a rift in space and time, of course):
Since the Bush tax cuts of May 28, 2003, stock prices have been on a roll. The accompanying illustration depicts the performance of the Dow Jones Industrials.
And despite a double whammy consisting of the largest enemy attack on American soil and the greatest natural disaster in American history, the economy has continued to thrive under the stewardship of the Bush administration. Unemployment, currently hovering around 4.5%, is represented in the accompanying chart.
Furthermore, despite the catastrophic effects of twin hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which devastated oil refining capacity, gasoline prices have returned to pre-hurricane levels. Gas prices, despite the greatest natural disaster in U.S. history, are low by all historical measures.
And the price of natural gas, which also spiked after the hurricanes, has continued to drop. This directly benefits the enormous number of Americans that utilize natural gas.
And, since 9/11/2001, because of tools like the Patriot Act and exceptional work on the part of U.S. armed forces, law enforcement, and the intelligence community, multiple terrorist attacks on the American homeland have been foiled. The Bush administration and a Republican Congress deserve the credit.
The simple truth that the New York Times dares not mention is this: despite the devastation of a massive terrorist attack (and a major natural disaster), the U.S. economy has continued to thrive.
It is hard to overstate the total economic impact of the 9/11 attacks.
The estimated impact of the attacks on New York City alone has been estimated at nearly $100 billion (source: Comptroller of the City of New York [PDF]). Estimates of the total economic impact of the attacks have ranged as high as half a trillion dollars ($500 billion, source Center for Contemporary Conflict).
In addition to keeping Americans safe, the Bush administration's pro-growth strategies have sliced the federal budget deficit to its lowest level in four years. The 2006 fiscal year deficit was $71 billion or 22.3 percent less than last year and lower than just three months ago, when the president noted that deficit reduction was a year ahead of schedule.
Sure, you could choose to put the likes of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Charlie "I never met a tax I didn't like" Rangel into power, but it's always worth remembering that old truism:
You get what you pay for.
With Democrats, you're certain to get higher taxes, more regulation, and less entrepeneurship. That's guaranteed. If you want Jimmy Carter-era financio-nomics combined with a questionable (and that's putting it kindly) track record on national security, certainly feel free to vote Democrats into office.
But if you want a stable economy, lower taxes, pro-growth policies, and a thoroughly clear-eyed view on matters of national defense, then there's really only one choice.
Oven-fresh good readin', just like Mama used to make:
Anchoress: Saddam wanted to strike the US?
Captain's Quarters: What's at stake in North Korea
Gateway Pundit: Democrat Steny Hoyer Says Michael Steele is Being "Slavish"
Hugh Hewitt: Another campaign update
Rick Moran's RWNH: A real anti-American
STACLU: Those who will not learn from history...
Wizbang: Ammo For Those Final Campaign Ads
Post a Comment