That the Lazy C despises Republicans is well known in these parts and is likely the only real “indisputable fact” in all of Southwest Washington. And let’s face it; the local Republican Party makes it very easy for them with their ineptness and underhanded shenanigans to cling to control of the county party over keeping people informed.
But, the Lazy C’s Greg Jayne, in finally admitting he is the Liberal we always believed him to be, should have done his homework before posting his latest Sunday editorial: “Republican Party abandoned its most worthy ideals,” where he pretty much seems to indicate anything worthy of them was only when they acted more Liberal than Democrats.
He laments how they deny Gorebull warming even though the Environmental Protection Agency was created by Republican Richard Nixon in 1970.
Isn’t this the same Nixon they labeled “Tricky Dick” for all of his nefarious dealings while in office? The same EPA that has grown recklessly out of control, far beyond what President Nixon intended?
And regardless of worries of any past president, the claim is highly disputed by several scientists, even some formerly convinced it was real.
But where he fails completely is when he wrote, “There is indisputable evidence that the economy has performed better under the Democratic administrations of Clinton and Obama than under Reagan and the two Bushes.”
It took me about 20 seconds on Google to turn up this very claim from left-leaning FactCheck.org from Hillary Clinton having made the same claim.
It appears to be based upon a 65-page Princeton University research paper by economists, Alan S. Blinder and Mark W. Watson.
While the research, which even they admit is open to question from other well-respected economists from either side, did seem to show better statistical claims favoring a Democrat, they also cautioned, “Democrats would probably like to attribute a large portion of the D-R growth gap to better fiscal (and perhaps monetary) policies, but the data do not support such a claim. If anything, and we would not make much of such small differences, both fiscal and monetary policy actions seem to be a bit more pro-growth when a Republican is president…”
It is also claimed “there were factors independent of presidential fiscal policy driving the gap” they saw between partisan presidencies, listing “Shocks in oil prices, changes in productivity levels, growth in defense spending (wartime defense spending is generally good for the economy), foreign economic growth and differences in consumer expectations account for “as much as 70% of the partisan gap. ‘Some, maybe all, of these might be considered blends of good policy and good luck. But our empirical analysis does not attribute any of the partisan growth gap to fiscal or monetary policy’.”
Also not mentioned is the House of Representatives and the Senate, those who actually write and pass all spending bills a president signs or vetoes.
It seems forgotten that Clinton enjoyed a House & Senate under a Republican majority for the last six of his eight years in office.
Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush had Democrat majorities to deal with and George W. Bush finished his term in office with a Democrat majority.
Surely that plays a role in our economy, does it not?
And while we hear how great everything in our economy is now under Obama, who is holding majorities in the House & Senate? That’s right, the very Republicans Jayne laments.
That does not mean Republicans have performed with any particular brilliance, as they move further left to appease Democrats failing policies they are who is left holding the bag.
They question now comes as to why is it Greg Jayne flippantly makes such a claim as he does in his screed, apparently not exerting any effort whatsoever to fact check it.
Surely if I can find it within 20 seconds, he could have also.
Unless, of course, it is contrary to whatever agenda the so-called newspaper is pushing.
Keep this blog active with a voluntary contribution at the PayPal button at the top of the sidebar on the right. Thank you.