John A. Lovra – 10/1/04

This page was last updated on October 1, 2004.

Let’s focus on real issues; John A. Lovra; Beaver County Times; October 1, 2004.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“Forget, for the remainder of the presidential campaign, any more debate on the following issues.

“Forget the military records of both George Bush and John Kerry. Let’s agree that both served honorably during Vietnam, and let it rest.

“Also in the nonissue [sic] category would be Bush’s silence after being told of the second World Trade Center plane crash, or if Kerry likes to wind surf. As for me, this is the last time I will debate these points with anyone. They are a waste of time.”

[RWC] Regarding the military records, I wonder if Mr. Lovra felt this way before the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth came along and CBS got caught trying to smear President Bush with allegedly forged documents?

Regarding the WTC, I wonder if Mr. Lovra felt this way before we learned in John Kerry’s own words that Kerry couldn’t think for nearly 40 minutes after learning of the second WTC attack. That’s nearly six times as long as President Bush’s alleged silence. For what it’s worth, I don’t believe President Bush was silent; it’s my understanding he merely continued working with children during a reading program until the next scheduled break.

That said, I agree these should have been non-issues. For the record, the anti-Bush crowd initiated both topics. I find it interesting these same people now want to drop the issues they themselves raised.

“So what should decide if Bush receives four more years or is replaced?

“On foreign policy and the war in Iraq, where are the WMDs? Why didn’t he listen to the intelligence and foreign policy experts who warned of problems with a post-war Iraq?”

[RWC] Regarding the WMD, the various congressional reports detail the intelligence issues that led to the conclusion Iraq had WMD. Remember, though, this was the same assessment made by the Clinton administration, the United Nations, John Kerry, et cetera. The reports also concluded the Bush administration neither pressured the intelligence community nor misrepresented the intelligence presented to the Bush administration.

Who says President Bush didn’t “listen to the intelligence and foreign policy experts who warned of problems with a post-war Iraq?” Anyone who’s been in a leadership position knows that you hear a lot of different opinions and you usually can’t make a rational decision if you try to follow every person’s counsel. I’m sure President Bush understood the risks and made the decision that action in Iraq outweighed the risks. That is not the same as not listening to or considering various scenarios.

“If we re [sic] winning this war, as seen through his rose colored glasses, why are the CIA, most foreign policy experts and even some high-ranking Republicans saying that the war isn’t going well? Where is his plan for eventually getting out?

[RWC] There’s nothing inconsistent about saying we’re winning while acknowledging Iraq is not going like a “Mission: Impossible” script. As many in the anti-Bush crowd, Mr. Lovra focuses on the bad things in Iraq and ignores the good. To the best of my knowledge, no one in the Bush administration ever said Iraq would be anything but hard work. All but the most trivial military actions have their ebbs and flows.

The “plan for eventually getting out” is victory. How many times do people need to hear it? When conducting a war, you can’t set a timetable and say we’ll be out by a certain date. That’s a sure strategy for losing. When we declared war on Japan in 1941, did FDR say, “If we haven’t won by 1943 we’re giving up?”

“On the domestic issues, what has America gained at home through less than four years of this administration? When President Clinton left office, he turned over a huge budget surplus, which has been turned into an extraordinary deficit.”

[RWC] Mr. Lovra conveniently omitted some information. First, while it is true President Clinton had surpluses in the latter half of his administration, the surplus of his last budget was less than half that of the previous year. In other words, the surpluses were already going away. Why? Because the economy was entering a recession. An early sign was the downward trend of the stock market beginning in 2000. Economists place the “official” start of the recession somewhere between late 2000 and early 2001. In either case, President Bush can’t be blamed because the final Clinton budget covered October 1, 2000, through September 30, 2001.

Though I don’t support deficits regardless of who is in office, it’s inaccurate to say we have an “extraordinary deficit.” As a percent of GDP, the current deficits are nowhere near all-time highs. Since 1962, at least 10 other deficits were higher than our current deficits on a percent-of-GDP basis.

If you want to blame President Bush for the deficits while ignoring the Clinton recession and the economic effects of 9/11 and the long-term accounting scandals uncovered in 2001, that’s your right.

“Mr. Bush will be the first president since Herbert Hoover to show a net national job loss, and 80 percent of the jobs that have been created are at or below the poverty level.”

[RWC] One sentence and two errors. First, there has been a net gain in jobs since January 2001. Democrats like to say we lost 2.7 million jobs since President Bush took office. What they don’t tell you is that we also generated 1.8 million new jobs. Therefore, using the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) payroll survey, we lost a net of 0.9 million jobs, 1/3 of that claimed by Democrats. I don’t claim this is cause for celebration, but even this doesn’t tell the whole story.

Each month the BLS actually conducts two job surveys, the household and the payroll surveys. Historically, the payroll survey underestimates employment because it doesn’t count the self-employed or those persons who work at home or on farms. When you use the household survey data, there has been a net employment increase of 1.9 million jobs since President Bush took office.¹ The household survey is also the basis for the official BLS unemployment figures. Now you know why Democrats like to quote the payroll survey.

Second, the “80 percent of the jobs that have been created are at or below the poverty level” comment doesn’t hold water either. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan doesn’t buy the claim that new jobs are of lesser quality than lost jobs. Testifying before Congress, Greenspan said, “We’ve not been able to find a significantly meaningful change in the quality of the jobs being produced relative to the quality of jobs being lost for the nation as a whole over the last year.” Is that true for Pennsylvania? I don’t know. The real disposable income of American workers has increased every month since at least January 2003 with the exception of September 2003. Home ownership is at its highest point in history and climbing. These facts don’t support Mr. Lovra’s claim.

“Also receiving failing grades are the No Child Left Behind legislation and the Bush energy plan.”

[RWC] I oppose any federal involvement in education, but what does Mr. Lovra dislike about the NCLBA? He doesn’t tell us. Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) was an author of the NCLBA and 87% of senators voted for the NCLBA. In the House, 88% of representatives voted for it, including 94% of Democrats. If the anti-Bush crowd believes the act is so bad, why did so many Democrats vote for it?

As with the NCLBA, Mr. Lovra doesn’t tell us what he doesn’t like about President Bush’s energy plan.

“My views here are quite obvious, but these are just few of the issues that should be in the forefront, and not 30-year-old military records on either side, wind-surfing candidates or moments of silence.”

[RWC] The only view presented is Mr. Lovra doesn’t like anything President Bush has done.

1. Why Are the Dems Griping About Jobs?; Robert J. Barro; BusinessWeek; October 4, 2004. A subscription is required to access this web site.