On this past weekend's Sunday political gabfests a theme arose that was repeated repeatedly: Is the recession over? Most of the answers that I heard were ambivalent on the subject, with most leaning towards a qualified "Yes", which was then used as a jumping off point to praise the wonderful workings of the Obama stimulus plan. Now, we all know that the $787 billion boondoggle hasn't quite lived up to the promise of the program, what with unemployment steadily rising, banks going under, and the government taking over private enterprises in order to "save" them. However, the worshippers of the One-Who-Makes-Oceans-Recede do not see it that way, because BHO works in mysterious ways.

But one of the other things that has caught my attention for a couple of years now, and caused them to perk up again was the trotting out of the canard that this particular recession started way back in 2007, so that all that we are going through right now can be conveniently laid at the feet of the not so dearly departed Bush Administration. By pushing the idea that the recession started in 2007, the unholy alliance of the media and the Democratic Party is able to paint a picture that establishes a narrative where the Bush Administration drove the economy off the proverbial cliff, but the ever heroic BHO slapped on his cape, tights, and boots and swooped in to save the day....just before the economic engine crashed into the ground below. Now our Economic Superman, and his Economic Justice League partners are hard at work using the unlimited powers of the government to set things right! Just like an old Saturday morning cartoon!

However, there is just one tiny bit of a problem with that scenario: it is built on one of the basest lies ever told! It is built on a lie that anyone with a computer, an internet connection, an inclination, and a little bit of time can easily debunk. Moreover, it is only a viable lie if the left is allowed to redefine common terms, as it is wont to do whenever a word has an inconvenient meaning for their particular position.

The only way that the left (i.e. Democrats and media) can even start to advance their 2007 recession story is to redefine what constitutes a recession. As commonly understood, a recession is when the economy goes through two down quarters as measured by GDP, or two quarters of negative growth, also known to us plebeians as "a loss".  However, in order to make the year 2007 the beginning of the recession a new definition was needed, so the left created a new definition of recession that substituted negative growth (a loss) for less growth. It may not seem like a big deal, but in reality, it is a huge change. By defining less growth as an indicator of recession, an economy that continues to grow can be declared to be in a recession in the midst of a growth cycle.

Now, I do not claim to be an economist but I can tell you that by no stretch of the imagination did the recession start in 2007. According to statistics published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the numbers for 2007 told a different story on the economic climate than the Blame Bush crowd would have you believe, to wit:

• GDP for 1st quarter: +1.2%
• GDP for 2nd quarter: +3.2%
• GDP for 3rd quarter: +3.6%
• GDP for 4th quarter: +2.1%

Now, I do not know about you, but that seems like four straight quarters of positive growth! Only by redefining the meaning of recession can a case be made that the current recession started in 2007 on the Bush Administration's watch. In fact, the well-regarded Hoover Institution think tank based at Stanford University reports that for the year 2007:

• GDP rose by 2.2%
• Personal consumption spending rose by 2.9%
• Personal income rose by 3.1%
• Industrial production rose by 1.5%
• The national deficit was down by 34%, to $163 billion
• Unemployment stood at 5%...virtually zero unemployment
• The trade deficit was down 7% to $650 billion
• Consumer prices rose by 4.1%
• Consumer credit debt rose 4.2%
• Producer Price Index rose 3.9%

Even with the last three indicators being generally negative, the economy of the US was in very good shape all through the year of 2007. Moreover, things were in generally good shape in the first two quarters of 2008, with growth rates of 1% and 2.5% respectively; it was not until the third quarter of 2008 that the economy began a downturn (-0.5%) before totally catering in the fourth quarter (-6.3%) with the twin collapse of the housing and banking sectors. Yet for nearly three years we have been fed a steady diet of misinformation about the starting date of the current recession, all the better to turn a tough recession into a catastrophe to be simultaneously blamed on the previous administration and used to advance a radical political/economic agenda.

It is well past time that the Obama administration stops lying to the American people about the measures being taken in the name of rescuing a flailing economy; a stimulus that stimulates nothing, continued government takeovers of private enterprises, and continued rising unemployment rates in the face of government promises to reduce unemployment.  It is also time to stop the lies about the economic conditions during the Bush years and take ownership of the mess that BHO campaigned to take control of, and his policies have made worse. Bush is eight months removed from office now, and continuing to blame him for everything that has gone wrong is a mark of immaturity and unprofessionalism. Barrack wanted it, now he has it, and it is up to him to do something constructive about it; the Blame Bush Pity Party is at an end. As they say in this neck of the woods, "That dog just won't hunt!"

From time to time we all love to rant and rave at the folly and excesses we see going on around us. Let’s face it, a little rant is oftentimes good for the soul…it acts as an emotional catharsis and allows us to efficiently function (nice alliteration, LOL!) in a world that seems at many junctures to have simply gone mad.

Recently the object of scorn has been the evil bank executives who handed out billions of dollars in bonuses, while their banks were teetering on the edge of collapse. Or it could be the Citi executive who blew through over a million bucks to redecorate his office, or the latest outrage of the company attempting to take delivery of a corporate jet after the bank had to be “bailed out” by the government. And then there is the favorite whipping boy of the press, Exxon-Mobil which again managed to post record profits in the midst of an economic downturn. Ranting at their excesses or complaining about the money they blow through on “frivolous” expenditures is only natural, when many of us are actually hurting financially. We look at that money, calculate how much it could have helped regular folks, and we rant. And I can live with that, because I understand it…heck, I even rant about some of this stuff myself!

The danger in that ranting, though, is when people turn that frustration into a political position or platform. Too much of the populist sentiment we see coming from television commentators like Bill O’Reilly or some politicians who stoke anger at a perceived lack of judgment on the part of corporate execs is easily transformed into demagoguery. People get so emotionally caught up in vilifying the evil executives that all sense of fairness and fact checking get lost in the rush to see who can condemn the “profligate spending” the loudest. For example, the Citi corporate jet was not costing the taxpayers anything, since it was ordered and the payments were being made when the company was in good financial shape. And in the case of the million dollar office make-over, none of that money had anything to do with the TARP funds that the government was handing out like candy on Halloween. While it may have been a bit over the top, the renovations were done before the company went in the crapper and it was done on the company’s dime…so where does President Obama get off carping about it!

Which leads me to the biggest danger in the whole rush to embrace populist sentiment, and that is the fact that populism almost always leads to a more intrusive government. Think about what you’re hearing now: Levin saying that the government should not allow Citi to take delivery of their plane or Obama weighing in on how much money corporate executives should be allowed to earn. At the end of every populist campaign is a call for the government to intercede and “set things right”. Populism leads into an ever more intrusive government presence in business and industry and in our personal lives as well, like night leads to day. I have yet to see a populist yet whose solution to whatever problem he is ranting about encompasses any type of market based, or individual responsibility based solution; it is always, “We have a problem with X, so we need the government to do Y!”