Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Not trying to be snarky, but, yeah - votes.
Reason I say that is, performance numbers are more akin to weather patterns than widget production. Too many variables. I think it would be more accurate to forecast effects of tax cuts with ranges, or trends, than with hard numbers. If the numbers are failing to meet the published expectations (I don't remember those), but are trending the right way, is it a failure? I don't think that case has been made.
|
I'm not really looking for you to proclaim the policy as a failure. I'm just saying that if they publish projections that support their policy at the time of its adoption, and those projections call for x number of jobs to be created before the end of 2003, and now that we've reached the end of 2003 they are clearly short of x, can we really credit the admin's steady hand on the tiller for the .1% decrease in unemployment without acknowledging that shortfall?
It sounds like you are saying "we're in power, so we call it successful until you can prove otherwise." And, just as you observe, performance numbers are not susceptible to that kind of analysis, so your point is made. But you'll have to excuse me for being less than convinced that this admin has been very effective on this point, by its own standards.
"Trending the right way" seems rather nonresponsive when the economy is falling off the pace to create the 4.1 million jobs through the end of 2004 that were projected even without the tax cuts, much less the additional 1.4 million promised as a result of the tax cuts.
btw, I couldn't find the cite for the monthly projection numbers I posted a few weeks ago, so fyi here is a report from the council of economic advisors that has the aggregated annual projection numbers:
http://www.jobwatch.org/creating/bkg...ro_effects.pdf
