You know, for all this talk about recession, (with some pundits calling for a recession just about every year—Paul Krugman comes to mind), the reality is that economic growth has been steady and strong following the 2001-2002 recession.
Think lower marginal tax rates, implemented in 2003 to strengthen work incentives, and significantly increase after-tax investment rewards.
This is Goldilocks plus.
It is called free market, Milton Friedman capitalism—with a strong dose of supply-side guru Art Laffer.
Kudlow is tendentious at best and misleading at worst. Kudlow doesn't give a source for his data, so I looked up the numbers at economagic.com, an online source for all sorts of economic data. They had slightly different numbers (since 2006 is an estimate, I used Kudlow's):
As you can see, economagic's numbers are a tick lower than Kudlows. More importantly, Kudlow's graph only shows economic growth during the Bush presidency, giving no sense of how it stacks up against economic growth in previous years. Here's a chart showing economic growth going back to the Eisenhower presidency (data from economagic.com):
This broader perspective shows that economic growth under President Bush has been OK and certainly not in a recession, but nothing to write home about. As the following table shows, economic growth under Bush has lagged behind most other recent presidents, even if we give Bush a pass for 2001:
|Bush 2 w/o 2001||2.9|
Not only has the economy performed worse under Bush than it did under Bill Clinton, but the much-maligned Jimmy Carter managed to do better than Bush.