According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the organization that is generally seen as an independent declarer of recession and expansion reported thusly in 2003:

The National Bureau's Business Cycle Dating Committee maintains a chronology of the U.S. business cycle. The chronology identifies the dates of peaks and troughs that frame economic recession or expansion. The period from a peak to a trough is a recession and the period from a trough to a peak is an expansion. According to the chronology, the most recent peak occurred in March 2001, ending a record-long expansion that began in 1991. The most recent trough occurred in November 2001, inaugurating an expansion.

Now one can argue that in Novemeber 2001 we began to recover from the brief recession that ocurred during President Bush's first year in office. I would say that one could still say that in 2002 and 2003 we were recovering. Now that we're 3 1/2 years along, isn't it about time we called this the Bush expansion instead of the Bush "recovery"?

From today's NY Times, remarking on the creation of almost 300,000 jobs in April and a rise in personal income - Still, for all the good news, even optimistic forecasters were reluctant to declare that the recovery, which entered its soft patch in the first quarter, was firmly back on track.

41 months of economic gowth and over 3 million new jobs since January 2004 (and a net gain since Bush took office) and we're still "recovering" and not expanding.

One of the arguments you can read against this expansion is that a lower percentage of Americans are bothering to look for work and that's what's keeing the unemployment rate down. The labor participation rate is the lowest it's been in a decade, if not longer. Is it possible that this could have something to do with the aging population and the baby boomers (like my dad) heading into retirement in massive numbers?

As our population ages, by definition a smaller percentage of adults will be in the work force. Some would have you believe that people are just giving up because the economy's so miserable. If those people looked a little deeper, maybe they'd even start to be concerned (as I believe Bush is) about how that 60% is going to support the other 40% (not to mention the children).

Isn't it amazing that nearly half of all adult Americans don't have to work and we're still the most prosperous nation on Earth? One could almost say we do it with one hand tied behind our back.