In today's WashPost White House Briefing blog:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A60120-2004Jun22?language=printernote: links added.
(snip)
Fact Check
So how about that economy?
Bloomberg
(http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000176&sid=adBlakFXPuK0&refer=us_elections) today bursts Bush's economy balloon a bit, reporting: "A 2.2 percent rise in wages in the 12 months through May has been more than offset by a 3.1 percent gain in consumer prices. . . .
"The disparity between pay and prices may keep President George W. Bush from fully capitalizing on the economy's addition of 1.2 million jobs this year, the best five months of job growth since 2000, as he runs for re-election, said political analysts including Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution in Washington."
Furthermore, Bloomberg writes: "Even with the recent surge in jobs, the economy has had a net loss of 1.5 million jobs during Bush's term, including 2.9 million manufacturing jobs, which typically pay more than the service jobs that account for most of the positions now being added."
Terry Weber
(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040622/RCIBC22/TPInternational/Americas) writes in the Toronto Globe and Mail: "The U.S. labour market – while finally experiencing increases in job creation – has also seen a dramatic drop in employment quality, with low-paying jobs elbowing aside higher-paying ones, CIBC World Markets
said yesterday."
"The brokerage's employment quality index – which measures the overall tone of the market by looking at things such as compensation, job stability and the mix of full-time and part-time employment – fell by eight points between 2001 and 2004, a decline CIBC called dramatic."
****
I am really diggin' Dan Froomkin. Is he influential?