Good Economic News
This piece points out that the economy has grown faster under President Bush -- since he signed his "tax cuts for the rich" -- than it did under President Clinton. The author measures Bush from 2003 forward, arguing that one should begin evaluating Bush's success dating only from the implementation of his economic plan.
At first blush, then, one might argue that the Bush averages should be compared with the Clinton term only from 1994 on, after his economic plan was put in place.
But there's an important difference. President Clinton was elected in the midst of a growing economy; GDP for the third quarter of 1992 was up by 4.5% (not that anyone knew it -- thank you, MSM). By contrast, Bush was elected in a slowing economy.
At first blush, then, one might argue that the Bush averages should be compared with the Clinton term only from 1994 on, after his economic plan was put in place.
But there's an important difference. President Clinton was elected in the midst of a growing economy; GDP for the third quarter of 1992 was up by 4.5% (not that anyone knew it -- thank you, MSM). By contrast, Bush was elected in a slowing economy.
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:05 AM
2 Comments:
The percentage of Americans living in poverty increased again last year, after seven years of decline in the 1990s.
The deficit has exploded under George Bush's watch, a deficit that Clinton had erased by the time he left office.
Not to be confused with yearly deficits, the national debt, corrected for inflation, has increased from under $6 trillion in 2000 to more than $7 trillion today. The lethal combination of explosive spending and dramatic tax cuts have ensured our children will be more dependent on China's willingness to hold the note.
Like the Reagan era, the prosperity we are experiencing now is concentrated onto the few who bring up the average. It is also a hollow, ephemeral prosperity, tantamount to a "friend" getting us drunk and happy on our own credit card, keeping the buzz going just long enough until he can slink out the back door of the bar, leaving us to deal with the hangover and the bill, plus the interest.
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.--Mark Twain, apocryphal.
What we have here is the non-surprising result that if you cherry pick only the best 10 quarters for President Bush, and compare them against all 32 quarters for Bill Clinton, you can exaggerate the lack-luster economic performance under the Bush administration.
How bad is this exaggeration? Well, given that you can get the raw numbers as a Excel spreadsheet here, we can do a couple of simple tests. If you don't trust me, roll your own numbers. (Just for clarification... in the article the author uses numbers from July 2003 forward, 2003Q3, not all 2003 data as Carol stated. Also, both BuzzChart and I use the chained 2000 dollar numbers.)
First, how does adding a quarter or two of the missing data effect the Bush results? Well, if we go back 12 quarters to January of 2003 (Carol's claim) instead of July of 2003, which the BuzzChart people used, the Bush administration has 3.59% average growth. While OK, this is less than the 3.63% average growth Bill Clinton garnered quarter after quarter for eight full years.
The next way to compare is to pick ten consecutive quarters for Bill Clinton and compare his average to the past ten quarters for George Bush. Here again, I find at least five 10 Q periods where the Clinton administration did better than George Bush's best 10 quarters. (There may be more than five. I was doing this by hand, and I got bored after five so I quit.)
In short, it appears that best economic performance the Bush administration can point to would have been considered slightly below average compared to the totality of the Clinton years. Alternatively, this study is further proof that Mark Twain was correct.
Post a Comment
<< Home