Unemployment and Mainstream Media Hypocrisy: History (Clinton) Shows That the Way to Ensure Recovery Is to ABANDON Health Care Overhaul

On August 8, 1992 the same thing happened as happened last Friday: The unemployment rate ticked DOWN ("improved") .1%--from 7.8% to 7.7%. However, the reaction in the mainstream media was very deifferent. The New York Times "NEWS" story (not "editorial") said that sucha a "marginal" (correct word then, but not used on this Friday and Saturday by the mainstream media) uptick in unemployment would not help President Bush (41), because it failed to show a sustained recovery was in process. That was the mainstream media "spin" thne, as Bill Clinton's war room was misrepresenting how bad the economy was ("it's the economy, stupid"). (Thanks to Byron York for the exact information as to what happened on August 8, 1992, although this blog cited the media HYPOCRISY and DISHONESTY in last night's entry, before I heard from Byron York.)


Now it turned out that the .1% "improvement" (really lack of getting worse) in unemployment in 1992 WAS the "turning point". Unemployment cotinued down from that point, as we headed into the prosperity of the 1990's era of Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich.


Newt Gingrich is important here. You will remember that the Republicans BLOCKED the Clinton health care "overhaul" in the first two years of the Clinton Presidency, and took control of the House in 1994. That is why President Obama has it completely wrong when he says that we can't have a "recovery" without a health care "overhaul" (see last night's entry explaining why that is a lie). The queston is: Can we have a recovery WITH an health care overhaul. Republicans blocked that "overhaul" in 1993 and 1994, and we had one of the strongest recoveries in the history of the country . Would we have had that strong an economy if Republicans had not stopped the big expansion of govenment that the Democrats attempted? There is no reason to blleve so In fact, there was NO real "expansion" of government under Bill Clinton, except administratively. Legislatively, Bill Clinton's administration was MORE CONSERVATIVE than that of President Bush 43--because the Republican House fought him at every turn--back when Newt Gingrich was a hero instead of a self-promoting blowhard.


Yes, the New York Times, and the mainstream media in general, were WRONG in 1992. What else is new? There was no "stimulus" or bailouts. There was no health care "overhaul". Yet, one of the strongest recoveries in this nation's history was already underway by the time Bill Clinton took office.


Can the HYPOCRITES (with an agenda motivated totally by their bias) in the mainstream media be WRONG again, by treating a .1% "improvement" in the unemployment rate as a certain sign of a "recovery". Yep. They can.


They can be wrong again because we are doing exactly the opposite of what we did in 1992, and even in 1993 and 1994 (when Clinton was BLOCKED in his attempted expanstion of government). Government spending is out of control. The deficit is out of control. And Obama and the Democrats are intent upon doing what Bill Clinton (luckily for the economy) FAILED to do. Democrats are intent upn this MASSIVE Federal Government "overhaul" of health care. Again, if they assert it is NOT "massive", what is the hurry? Why not wait until a recovery occurs, IF it occurs (since we have expanded government and spending so much, even with health care "overhaul", that we may have made a 1992-1993 style recovery impossible).


In short, despite the Obama attempt to distort the truth, the question here is NOT whether we can have a recovery without a health care "overhaul". We had that in the 1990's (and 2001). The unanswered questioon is whether we can have a recovery WITH health care "overhaul"--plus unprecendented expansion of the Federal Government with deficit spending. We have never tried that before, and it is incredibly dangerous to try it now.


The New York Times was actually "right" in 1992 in a limited way, if not in the overall negative tone of the mianstream media dismissal of signs a recovery might be in process. A .1% "improvement" in unemployment does NOT represent a "recovery". It definitely does not represent a sustained "recovery". It may be a sign that there is an OPPORTUNITY for a recovery, which can be squandered. Odds are that we have already limited that opportunity with our out of control expansiion of government, which is still continuing (as evidenced by the push for that health care "overhaul"). Health care "overhaul" will merely seal the fate of the economy, and doom us to an economy which is incapable of a real recovery.