Still More Post-Election Good News

According to CBS MarketWatch today, "U.S. consumer sentiment improved...in early November...The UMich consumer sentiment index rose to 95.5 from 91.7 in October. It's the best reading in three months. Economists were expecting the index to rise to 93.8."

Everyone seems happy about the election outcome -- except for die-hard lefties and global elites. The red states were right -- we rejected the pessimism and hate-mongering of the left, and re-elected the right man.

I've been pondering how the left is a mystery -- in their misguided mind-set, everything is our fault collectively (as in the U.S.A.), yet nothing is our fault individually (as in blaming criminal behavior on one's childhood or "society"). Conservatives are much more clear-headed about this: collectively and individually, we are imperfect, but such imperfection should not dissuade us from striving to improve, and, as November 2 showed, both collectively and individually, we make the right decisions more often than not.



- posted by Tom Pick @ 9:51 AM

 
More Good News on Jobs that the Lamestream Media Won't Report

CBS MarketWatch just reported that "U.S. nonfarm payrolls increased by a surprising 337,000 in October, about double the expectation, the Labor Department reported Friday...In addition, payroll gains in August and September were revised higher by a cumulative 115,000." The unemployment rate now stands at 5.5%.

Apparently Bush's "appalling" record on job creation isn't so bad after all. Looking at the Bureau of Labor Statistics figures for the last 10 years, the average unemployment rate for the first 10 months of 2004 is lower than the average rate for 1994 or 1995, and only slightly higher than 1996 -- yet I don't recall the lamestream press complaining about "the worst job market in 50 years" during the Clintonista era. The worst month for unemployment during W's administration was June 2003, when the jobless rate peaked at 6.3%; unemployment was higher than that during the first four months of 2004, yet again, I don't recall that level generating the same type of headlines and handwringing under Clinton that it has under Bush II. It's also important to note that since the June 2003 peak, the unemployment rate has been falling steadily; payrolls have now expanded every month for 14 straight months.

Think that kind of positive news might have swayed a few more voters to the Republican side on November 2? Of course; that's why the lamestream media didn't dare to report it.

- posted by Tom Pick @ 6:58 AM

 
How Can Anyone Possibly Consider Voting for Kerry?

Seriously -- how can any thinking person comtemplate a vote for Kerry? How can this election possibly still be close at this point?

I know, you probably don't like some of the things that George W has done -- that's a universal feeling. He's human, he's made some mistakes. But his instincts are right, and he's gotten the policy right on the big issues, and most importantly, he's NOT KERRY.

Let's take just three of the many issues available: taxes, healthcare and terrorism.

Bush has cut taxes for everyone who pays them. This is stimulating the economy. GDP growth was at 3.7% last quarter and unemployment is now below 5.7%.

Kerry will raise your taxes. He has to; he's promised more than $2 trillion in spending over the next 10 years, and smaller deficits, and proposed to pay for all of this by "rolling back" Bush's tax cuts for those earning more than $200K annually. However, this "rollback" will only produce about $700 billion over the next ten years using the most optimistic estimates; so there's no way to make this math work without significant, across-the-board tax increases. His promise of a "middle class tax cut" is hogwash; he's voted over and over again, consistently and repeatedly, to raise taxes on the middle class, and against middle-class tax cuts -- why would anyone believe this promise? Every taxpayer will face increased taxation under Kerry.

Next, healthcare. Yes, it's screwed up. Too many people don't have coverage, and the coverage is too expensive for those who do. Bush wants to use the power of competition and the marketplace to increase availability and decrease costs. Kerry wants to use a massive new government program. Deregulation works every time -- we deregulated long-distance phone service and got innovation, lower costs, and higher quality. We deregualted airline travel and got safer, cheaper, more convenient flights. When has a monopoly -- particularly a government monopoly -- EVER decreased costs and improved service? This has never happened. There's no reason to believe it will happen with healthcare. Bush is getting this right, Kerry is trying to lead us down the wrong path.

Finally, terrorism and national security. The Bush administration has gotten some of the details wrong, but it's got the big picture right. President Bush realizes that we need to take the fight to the terrorists, where they are. We can never defend every nook and cranny of America from every conceivable threat. We can't wait to be attacked again before taking action. Bush has the moral clarity to recognize evil for what it is, and the strategic insight to know that we have to go on the offensive against terror if we want to keep our country safe. That's why 80% of active U.S. military personnel AND veterans support him. They get it. Too many civilians, apparently, don't.

Kerry has said that he wants a return to the days when terrorism was a "nuisance." This is incredibly dangerous, bizarre thinking. Terrorism wasn't a "nuisance" when more than 240 of our Marines were blown up in Lebanon in 1983. It wasn't a nuisance when six people were killed in the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, or when 17 U.S. Navy personnel were killed in the U.S.S. Cole attack, or when 19 U.S. service personnel were blown up in the Kohbar Towers, or when more than 200 people were killed when two of our embassies in Africa were bombed. It has never been a "nuisance," and the use of such a term by the man who wants to be our commander in chief is beyond irresponsible. Summits won't stop terrorists. Neither will U.N resolutions. Neither will the French or Germans, neither of whom have any intention of committing troops to aid in the war on terror. Bashing our existing allies while daydreaming of grand alliances won't keep America safe. George Bush gets that, John Kerry, terrifyingly, doesn't.

This shouldn't be close. I'm praying for a last-minute epidemic of mass sanity.

- posted by Tom Pick @ 2:58 PM