Building on the nation’s historic economic growth under the tax policies of the Bush Administration, the Department of Labor announced today that the economy added 211,000 jobs in March — 21,000 more than the projected 190,000.
Job growth in March brought unemployment to a record low of 4.7%, which is below the average of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. The March employment numbers brought total job creation for the past 12 months to 2.1 million, and 5.2 million since May 2003. It looks like the best-kept secret in San Francisco is that tax cuts work.
Job creation wasn’t the only good economic news of the day. It was also reported that GDP grew at a level of 3.5% for 2005, and real consumer spending was up 3.2% in 2005. In addition, new construction spending is up 7.4% over February 2005, and amounted to a record $1.185 trillion.
With all the good news, it is hard to fathom a legitimate reason for members of the Democrats’ illusionary “middle class” to be unemployed, especially when the Washington Post reports that the jobless rate among immigrants fell below that of U.S. natives in 2005. If an immigrant with limited English proficiency can find a job, logic requires that the high rate of unemployment among the middle class, reported response the release of March labor statistics by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) stems from their lack of desire to be employed. If Democrats are looking out for America’s families, why do they support a marriage tax penalty? Their pseudo-reality can be classified in psychological terms as a state of psychotic denial.
In the midst of the excellent economic news, House majority leader John Boehner said in a press release today: "The pro-growth, pro-family policies championed by congressional Republicans and President Bush have helped American businesses continue to provide thousands of new job opportunities for our nation’s workers every month. By making the President’s tax cuts permanent and allowing the American people to keep more of their own money, we can address the pocketbook challenges working families face every day and make our economy even stronger."
In contradistinction, the New York Times echoed the Democratic mantra in an April 5 business article that the cut in capital gains tax disproportionately favored millionaires. Perhaps the Times would like to explain to my folks why it is that they owe thousands in capital gains taxes for taking money out of the stock market to purchase a new home in 2005, even though they are not millionaires. Or, perhaps the Times would like to explain why every homeowner in America pays capital gains taxes on profit from the sale of a home? To do this, of course, the Times and its liberal reader base would have to exit the self-created alternate reality. This is as likely as Rep. Pelosi’s sponsoring a bill to make Social Security benefits tax-free.
An article in Catholic University’s Archbishop Sheen Review reported yesterday that, according to the non-partisan Tax Foundation, one out of every three Americans who filed a return in 2004 had no tax liability after utilizing their credits and deductions. Millions more paid nothing at all. The article further asserted that the top 20% of wage earners, comprised of all Americans earning more than $71,000 a year in 2004, now pay more than 80% of all income taxes, according to the Tax Foundation.
The figures coming out of a widely respected, non-partisan entity such as the Tax Foundation lead Americans to wonder what exactly constitutes “middle class” for Rep. Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) — especially since they reported that the middle class is facing undue burdens in today’s economy. The last time I checked, food stamp recipients didn’t classify as middle class, not to mention the working class. You can’t receive welfare if you are employed.
Nevertheless, it is absolutely mind-boggling to hear elitist liberals, many of whom have never been working or middle class in their life, tell Americans that make $71,000 or more that they constitute the upper-class and should, therefore, pay more taxes to pay for life-long welfare recipients. Of course, this shouldn’t surprise homeowners or the middle class in the least, for liberal Democrats couldn’t exist if they couldn’t define people’s lives.
At a Washington breakfast today, I asked a friend if he was a Republican. He replied, “I have seven children; I can’t afford to be anything but a Republican.” A 25-year Navy captain, the man explained that as a product of an Irish-Catholic Democrat family, his brothers and sisters, all of whom have large families, realized two decades ago that being a Democrat was no longer affordable.
As President Bush said, if you believe that politicians know your finances better than you, and can better spend your money, then vote Democrat. If you believe that you are the best judge of your financial situation and know best how to spend your hard-earned money, then vote Republican. It is time for the forgotten middle-class, now redefined as “wealthy,” to hit the Democrats where it hurts.