Bush Administration Hides More Data, Shuts Down Website Tracking U.S. Economic Indica

[Billy Barooooooo]

I know I know Politics but this is sort of Ironic don't you think?

Bush Administration Hides More Data, Shuts Down Website Tracking U.S. Economic Indicators

Think Progress » Bush Administration Hides More Data, Shuts Down Website Tracking U.S. Economic Indicators

Bush Administration Hides More Data, Shuts Down Website Tracking U.S. Economic Indicators
The U.S. economy is faltering. Family debt is on the rise, benefits are disappearing, the deficit is skyrocketing, and the mortgage crisis has worsened. Conservatives have attempted to deflect attention from the crisis, by blaming the media’s negative coverage and insisting the United States is not headed toward a recession, despite what economists are predicting.

The Bush administration’s latest move is to simply hide the data. Forbes has awarded EconomicIndicators.gov one of its “Best of the Web” awards. As Forbes explains, the government site provides an invaluable service to the public for accessing U.S. economic data:

This site is maintained by the Economics and Statistics Administration and combines data collected by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, like GDP and net imports and exports, and the Census Bureau, like retail sales and durable goods shipments. The site simply links to the relevant department’s Web site. This might not seem like a big deal, but doing it yourself–say, trying to find retail sales data on the Census Bureau’s site–is such an exercise in futility that it will convince you why this portal is necessary.

Yet the Bush administration has decided to shut down this site because of “budgetary constraints,” effective March 1:


Economic Indicators is particularly useful because people can sign up to receive e-mails as soon as new economic data across government agencies becomes available. While the data will still be available online at various federal websites, it will be less readily accessible to members of the public.

In its e-mail announcement on the closing of Economic Indicators, the Department of Commerce acknowledged the “inconvenience” and offered “a free quarterly subscription to STAT-USA®/Internet™” instead. Once this temporary subscription runs out, however, the public will be forced to pay a fee. So not only will economic data be more hidden, it will also cost money.

It’s ironic that the Economic and Statistics Administration is facing “budgetary contraints,” considering Bush recently submitted a record $3.1 trillion budget to Congress for FY ‘09.

UPDATE: Steve Benen has compiled other examples of the Bush administration hiding inconvenient data.

[FlyersFan]

Although this doesnʼt tell the whole story, it is a snapshot of a comparison between Clinton and Bush on taxes. Who knows if either the candidates revert back to the oppressive taxation of the Clinton years, but we might. That canʼt be good for the economy.


FYI
Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008
Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250


Ref:
The Tax Foundation - U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2008
If you want to know just how effective the mainstream media is, it is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever. If any democrat is elected, ALL of them say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can't wait for it to happen. This is like the movie The Sting with Paul Newman; you scam somebody out of some money and they don't even know what happened
=
Although this doesnʼt tell the whole story, it is a snapshot of a comparison between Clinton and Bush on taxes. Who knows if either the candidates revert back to the oppressive taxation of the Clinton years, but we might. That canʼt be good for the economy.