"I must admit it's getting better!"

A headline on my Excite.com homepage this morning reads, "Census Reports Slight Increase in ’05 Incomes." Well, as an old student of 'the dismal science,' I can't walk past stories like these. Census data, median American household incomes and gross national product numbers dancing in the street window are too tempting to pass by without a peek at what's inside.

And what the story said was that last year for the first time since Bush has been in office, the median household income actually grew 1.1% more than inflation. This is the first time incomes haven't shrunk under Bush.

This is GREAT NEWS!! Wait--or is it? I then read further. The article next said, "The rise, however, had little to do with bigger paychecks — in fact, both men and women earned less in 2005 than 2004. Rather, census officials said, more family members were taking jobs to make ends meet..." (emphasis mine)

Oh shit. It looks like the media and me are victims of those goddamned statistics again. People's incomes aren't up because wages aren't up. No, we're just scrambling to keep heads above the waterline by taking on more work. Or getting junior an after school job.

But the "good news" didn't stop the administration from exploiting the numbers as only analysts of statistics can do, illustrating yet again numbers can be used to prove anything--even a lie. So here's how Rob Portman, director of the Office of Management and Budget portrayed the stats (don't worry, Dada will try to translate for director Portman):

Portman: “Unemployment is low, wages are rising,"

Dada: Well, not exactly, Junior's taken an after school job at Taco Bell to supplement his family's household income.

Portman: "and there are more jobs in America today than at any other time in history"

Dada: Portman neglected to say that's because there are even more Americans in America today than at any other time in history (oh, and more of them below the poverty line than at any other time in history).

Portman: “While we still have challenges ahead,"

Dada: Ah, a hint of truth--that being, under Bush, American households incomes have actually fallen 5.9 percent since he seized office!)

Portman continued, "our ability to bounce back is a testament to the strong work ethic of the American people,"

Dada: Recall Bush's encounter with a divorced mother of three, including a 'mentally challenged' son, working three jobs that the president responded to by saying, "Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that." (Applause.) "Get any sleep?" (Laughter.)

So, yes, Portman may be partially correct citing American's "strong work ethic" indeed. Perhaps we're driven not so much by our desire to get ahead, but more by trying to just keep the fuck up?

Portman, concluding and attributing the good news to "the resiliency of our economy and pro-growth economic policies, including tax relief."

Dada: Meaning obscene corporate profits and tax cuts for the rich resulting in a rapidly growing gaping gap between rich and poor.

What it comes down to is how information is presented. I'm reminded of Bush in New Orleans yesterday. Pictures of him marching in front of an Afro-American band, meeting with Fats Domino, an interview with NBC's Brian Williams in front of some easter egg colored new houses for Katrina victims, but not one shot of Bush standing in front of the the horrific scenes of devastation still littering the landscape he has still not responded to a year after the storm!

Just as with photo-ops reminding us what a great job Bush has done for Katrina victims, statistics, likewise, can be used to "prove" anything. Like how much better off our household incomes are now than a year ago this time, despite the fact (ignored) that both men and women earned less than the year before!

As the Beatlies liked to remind us, "I must admit it's getting better, a little better all the time!" just as presidential photo-ops and OMB statistics on our growing incomes seem to prove. Even if they are lies.