I took it for granted that anybody over 30 knows that the economy was better under the administration of Bill Clinton than it has been under George W. Bush. Whether one attributes this to congress or the executive branch or both, I suppose there is room for debate. But there is no doubt that the policies under Democrat Clinton resulted in a more robust economy than those of Republican President Bush.
Or so I thought.
I was recently challenged by a commenter on another blog to show that that is true. My first attempts to chide the commenter to return from the land of make-believe and simply acknowledge reality, were met with an insistence that the Clinton economy was a disaster. Sigh.
Against my better judgment, I spent some time gathering some statistics that illustrate how good the Clinton economy was and how anemic the economy has been under Bush. I'm sure the commenter will insist that everything good that happened during Clinton's eight years was a benefit of the Bush before him and that everything bad that happened under the current Bush is the fault of the previous president. If you don't fall for the self-contradictory silliness of such a view, you might find it interesting to see just how Bush's economic record stands up against Clinton's:
1. UNEMPLOYMENT
When Clinton took office, he inherited an unemployment rate of 7.3%. When he left office, unemployment was 4.2%, a 43% decrease.
When Bush took office, unemployment was at 4.2%. Today it is at 5.7%, an increase of 36%.
2. BUDGET DEFICIT
When Clinton took office, the federal budget deficit was $320B. When he left office, it was $32B, a 90% decrease.
When Bush took office, the federal deficit was $32B, it is projected by the CBO to be $482B this fiscal year. (And that's with the war being "off the books"), a 1,500% increase.
3. STOCK MARKET
When Clinton took office, the DOW was at 2,700. When he left office, it had grown to 10,800, an increase of 300%.
When Bush took office, the DOW was at 10,800. Today it is at 11,450, an increase of 6%.
4. PERSONAL INCOME
When Clinton took office, per capita income (in 2006 dollars) was $21,000. When he left office, it was $26,000, an increase of 24%.
When Bush took office, per capita income was $26,000. Today it is $26,300, an increase of 1%.
There are plenty of issues of importance for the upcoming presidential election, certainly the economy is among them. When you hear people saying that the economy will tank under a Democratic president, you may ask yourself if you should be frightened by fairy tales or make a decision based in reality.
.
Roch, you rock.
ReplyDeleteActually, this is well-researched and doesn't even sound too gloating. Although gloating might be earned...
ReplyDeleteYour sources, please?
ReplyDeleteBush vs. Clinton: The Economic Verdict
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2007/4/18/bush-vs-clinton-the-economic-verdict.html
"I checked the employment data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and found that 60 months into the Clinton expansion, the unemployment rate was 4.7 percent vs. 4.5 percent for Bush. The last time the jobless rate was as high as 5.3 percent under Clinton was January 1997, 49 months into the Clinton expansion."
The Republicans forced it:
"The U.S. economy was already expanding, and the disintegration of the Soviet Union seemingly meant that defense spending could come down–which encouraged Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to cut interest rates. Then Clinton got a Republican Congress in 1995 that was also eager to bring the budget into balance."
Economic growth:
"Now, one way to statistically compare the two economic records is by looking at the Bush expansion vs. the Clinton expansion. And 21 quarters into each, the economy has grown 16.6 percent under Bush vs. 19.9 percent under Clinton–advantage No. 42. And the unemployment rate 22 quarters into each expansion–jobs numbers come out more frequently – show that the current unemployment rate is 4.4 percent vs. 4.5 percent under Clinton."
It was handed to Clinton, he didn't work for it:
"The Clinton administration clearly benefited from an expansion that began well before the election and well before they ever passed a single piece of economic legislation."
The sources are the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Yahoo Finance. The both feature interactive graphs that make it impossible to provide links, but the info is there for the seeing.
ReplyDeleteOne can take a snapshot of a period in Clinton's administration and compare it to a snapshot of a point in the Bush administration 2 years ago, add some qualifiers and commentary and declare Bush is better, but I think the most illustrative view is one that looks at the total picture to-date -- as I've done above and which you, thoughtfully, do not refute.
My point, Roch, in case you missed it, is that economic folks more expert than you or I have pretty much opined that the president is not responsible for the economy during their term. By and large, they merely play the hand they’re dealt.
ReplyDeleteClinton was dealt a sweet hand, and managed to squander it while worrying about nothing more than his personal peccadilloes. Bush was dealt a crappy hand by Clinton and managed to sustain it in spite of fighting a major war and many smaller ones against the Islamic terrorists that Clinton was too busy to fight. (Those under-the-desk activities take up a LOT of time, don’t ya know!)
"My point, Roch, in case you missed it, is that economic folks more expert than you or I have pretty much opined that the president is not responsible for the economy during their term."
ReplyDeleteThat's fine Jaycee. But the point you originally made, and which inspired my original post, was that the Clinton economy was a disaster. It wasn't. It was pretty damn good.
Now you want to argue a new point, that Clinton doesn't deserve credit. Fine. I don't care if he gets credit. If your experts say that a president is not responsible for the economy during his or her term, I'll take that to mean you recognize the fallacy, if not the inaccuracy, of blaming Clinton for a bad economy (an economy that wasn't bad, in reality, but great).
This also puts the lie to the assertion that the economy will tank if a Democrat is elected president. If you think the president is not responsible, like Jaycee, then it doesn't matter which party gets elected. If you think the president does matter, then see the Bush/Clinton comparison in the original post.
Grow up.
ReplyDeleteGood post Roch.
ReplyDeletethanks
marshall
Good old Roch.
ReplyDeleteTrust him to distort the truth in a weak attempt to support an unsupportable political meme.
Let's add a little context to the picture:
WSJ, today, pg A23:
" · According to the International Monetary Fund, the US GDP has steadily increased by an average of 2.2% per year since Bush was elected in 2000. Under Bush, the economy has grown a total of 19% since Clinton left office. The next largest GDP growth was that of France which grew 14% during the same time period. Also worth noting is that the GDP as yet to report quarterly losses despite all this talk of “recession.”
· According to US Unemployment figures which measure people between the ages of 16 and 65 (working age), US Unemployment averaged 4.7% under Bush compared to 5.2% under Clinton.
· World Bank Figures rank the United States second, behind Luxembourg, in per capita consumption during the Bush years stating that the average American spends $32,045 per year compared with the next highest countries the United Kingdom ($25,155), Canada ($23,526), France ($23,027), and Germany ($21,742).
· Despite two major fronts in the War on Terror, Government Debt interest payments under Bush only amounted to 2% of the GDP compared to 3.2% annually under President Clinton. While both Presidents spent staggering amounts on national debt, it is good to know that the numbers are getting closer to zero.
· It is also worth noting that the Government is spending more under George Bush despite lower debt payments. This is simply because the concept of supply side economics, that is, lowering the tax burden on business and investment, has the effect of increasing revenue for the government due to higher overall economic productivity. I’m not making this up, it’s a proven fact. The biggest source of this increased spending has to do with the fact that we are still very much at War. Under Obama, the government budgets will not decrease as is evident when the Presidential hopeful promises to “use the money spent in Iraq at home.” However, unlike Republicans, Democrats do not support supply side economics which means that a maintenance of current government spending levels combined with Obama’s promise to raise taxes, will result in decreased revenues for the Government thanks to the detrimental effect such increased taxes will have on US economic Production.
· Finally, of the states whose economies are falling behind, what political party is for the most part, in charge of those states?"
Regarding personal income, the REAL compensation level increased nine percent under Bush.
So what was the unemployment rate in January of 07 when the Dems assumed control of Congress, and what is it today?
As far as the stock market, what did the Dow close at the day before the Dems assumed control in the House and Senate in January 2007, and what did it close at today?
Mark Perry:
"The way the media reports it, the U.S. is a basket-case economy on the verge of plunging into another Great Depression. The factual evidence suggests otherwise."
Not that that will make a difference to someone like Roch.