Conservative Lysenkoism II

Bush and his flunkies will do anything to get this recession moved away from them. Too bad that the truth isn't on their side.

Recession's Timing Becomes An Issue
By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 20, 2004; Page A04


Just as questions appeared to be dying down about his service in the National Guard, President Bush faced a third controversy yesterday over claims in an annual economic report that usually receives little attention.

The new questions concern whether the recession began on Bush's watch or before he took office. Bush has asserted in speeches that he inherited the recession, and the report adopts that view. The charts and analyses in the 412-page "Economic Report of the President," issued last week, put the "start of the recession" in the fourth quarter of 2000 -- under President Bill Clinton.

But the National Bureau of Economic Research, which dates business cycles, has said the recession lasted eight months beginning in March 2001 -- two months after Bush's inauguration. Members of the group that determines the date have discussed moving it into 2000, but no meeting has been scheduled to consider the question.

Bush's report acknowledges the bureau's date but points to later data putting the peak of economic activity in October 2000.

Asked about the discrepancy, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said "the facts are pretty clear" that the "balloon was deflating well before this president took office."

"Any way you want to look at it, the economy was weakening, the economy was declining well before the president took office," he said.

The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) is the official dating body to call the recessions. The Council of Economic Advisers doesn't make that call. The president doesn't make that call. And the working of the refs here isn't making economists outside the administration very happy. See Brad DeLong.

Secondly, let's look at that line that "...the economy was weakening, the economy was declining well before the president took office." Employment was still growing. While not as fast as in 1999, certainly faster than it has in the past, say 3 years. Inflation-adjusted GDP growth was slower in 2000, but did not decline for 2 quarters in a row, the classic definition for when a recession has occurred. This occurred in the first, second, and third quarter of 2001. Also, growth in the full year of 2000, at 3.7 percent, was higher than 2001, 2002, or 2003 annual growth.

Instead of trying to move the goalposts, the administration could cite all of it's policies that have helped deal with the joblessness and the recession. Unfortunately, that would mean it would have to talk about the tax cuts for the rich, which haven't done a damn bit of good to the poor and jobless.