Aaron Okin Columnist

As the Bush-Kerry matchup seems more and more likely, the Democrats are taking issue with the president's military service, the proposed budget and, most fiercely, the general state of the economy.

Some legitimate questions come up about what the administration is going to do about the unemployment rate and why it proposed such a high-cost budget in the face of a large deficit. However, some assertions, with historical references attached to them, are illegitimate. Someone who wishes to discern between constructive questioning (that could yield solid answers from the president) and those catchy claims floating around would be best-advised to take a look back at the timeframe invoked.

For example, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., has reportedly claimed that Bush has the worst record of the last 11 presidents in terms of jobs, and that Bush is responsible for the loss of 3 million jobs during the first 500 days of his presidency. Yes, it's true that millions lost their jobs, and this did occur while he was president. But are we expected to believe that he is fully responsible for that?

The Dow Jones Industrial Average, when evaluated on a monthly basis, peaked above 11,000 in December 1999 and fell, cracking the 11,000 ceiling in only one other month, August 2000. From that point on, the skyrocketing American economy everyone looks back to nostalgically was not so promising. The wider economy was starting to lose steam while Clinton was still in charge. The market did continue to tumble after Bush took over, but since it bottomed out in February of last year, it has regained a level comparable to Clinton's last months in office.

As far as Bush's job record, unemployment statistics from the last 11 presidents reveals that the jump in the unemployment rate during Truman's first full term, after he had three years of Roosevelt's term to deal with such issues, and is comparable to Bush's first term, in which he did not have the benefit of prior years in office.

Truman also did not have Sept. 11 to deal with, on top of an already fledgling economy, nor was that jump in unemployment the largest until Bush. The 1970s and 1980s dealt with significant jumps in unemployment, and far higher unemployment rates than today's 5.6 percent. It's never good when people who want to work are unable to work, but the fact is that the economy is by no means in as bad shape as Bush's detractors would have us believe. Nor is his record in office the worst in most of America's lifetime.

Practically speaking, one should not be surprised that a rise in spending was necessary following the events of 2001 and subsequent actions to ensure security for U.S. citizens and interests. And the budget confronts the issue - it has steps in place to reduce it by half over the next five years. Not only is it paying for safety for the present day, but it's also paying off mistakes made by previous administrations that allowed the situation to reach this dire point.

Maybe we should take a look at the enduring era of Democratic congressional fiscal responsibility that spanned more than 30 years before the 1994 elections. There was a surplus once, in 1969, and the deficit was promptly reinstated in 1970. It took a Republican-controlled Congress to keep surpluses for more than a year. Even the infamous Bush tax cuts wouldn't have completely liquidated them - the public would still be overpaying the government.

It's easy to gain supporters in the anti-Bush cause when statements decrying his policies skew the facts and are packaged for the voters in an envelope of rhetoric indicating Bush is to blame. In the interest of educated voting, hopefully the Democrats' spin on history and disregard for their own record is as well-known to the voters as the nonoptimal state of the economy.

Aaron Okin is a regional development and political science junior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.