In his weekly radio address (listened to by exactly six people nationwide), Bush laid out his primary economic accomplishments as president.
“The unemployment rate is now 5.4 percent, down almost a full point since June, 2003, and below the average rate of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. The home ownership rate is at an all-time high, and new home sales are still rising. After-tax income is increasing, which means workers are keeping more of their paychecks. The tax relief we passed is working.”
There are three points here — unemployment, home ownership, and household income — all of which Bush should be embarrassed about, not bragging about. Bush has the worst employment record of any president in 75 years and the home ownership rate is growing slower now that when Clinton was president.
But let’s put that aside for now and focus just on household income. It’s one of those helpful statistics that drives public confidence — workers are either making more money or they’re not.
Here are the cold facts about median household income over the last three presidential administrations (adjusted for inflation):
* Under H.W. Bush, median income fell $1,535
* Under Clinton, median income rose $5,489
* Under W. Bush, median income fell $1,312
It’s the kind of data that makes you want to vote Democratic, isn’t it?
And yet, there was Bush over the weekend, boasting about after-tax income as proof of the success of his reckless tax cuts. Does he really want to go there?
In fact, the closer one looks at the details, the worse Bush’s claim appears. Bush said incomes are “increasing.” They’re not.
[Census data released Thursday, August 26 shows that] median household income stood at $43,318 in 2003, compared with $43,381 in 2002.
Only Bush could consider a $63 drop in household income an “increase.”
We know grammar isn’t his strong point, but Bush is apparently no better at arithmetic. Probably has something to do with “fuzzy math.”