Apples And Apples
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Wednesday, July 28, 2004 | Editor
Politics: Bill Clinton was in rare form at the Democratic Convention Tuesday, comparing his economic record to George W. Bush's. Not fair. The president's is better.
"Our way works better," the former president boasted in his Monday night address, touting a '90s economy that "produced 22 million good jobs, rising incomes and 100 times as many people moving out of poverty into the middle class." He also lauded his record on the budget, touting "three surpluses in a row."
How could Bush hope to match such accomplishments? Well, remember: Bush is still in his first term. He inherited a recession and slumping job market from Clinton.
Clinton, on the other hand, took over when both the economy and jobs were growing and picking up pace. Inflation was still in a decadelong decline.
So let's measure first term against first term apples to apples. If we do, Bush comes out on top even after 9-11.
Don't believe it? Look at the key gauges of our well-being growth, inflation, unemployment, disposable income (what's left after taxes), productivity, household assets and consumer confidence.
On most of these, Bush wins. Yes, GDP growth on a year-over-year basis is a bit slower. But, as we noted, Bush took office with a recession under way. It wasn't Bush's recession; it was Clinton's.
As for the other data, here's how Bush's first-term stacks up: Inflation? Lower. Disposable income? Higher. Household assets? Richer. Consumer confidence? Slightly lower, but comparable. Unemployment? A bit higher, but again about the same. Productivity? Way better under Bush.
Clinton deserves credit for a strong second term. But even that record needs an asterisk. After stumbling badly in 1993 and early 1994, and with his popularity and the economy weakening, he got lucky: The GOP won control of Congress.
Republicans pushed Clinton to sign on to welfare reform, capital gains tax cuts and spending curbs that produced a booming economy and balanced budget. They kept him from raising taxes, as he did in 1993, when his record tax hike nearly sank the economy. They also kept him from signing the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty.
Bush's record, we suspect, will look even better four years hence. All the key elements for a sweet decade of economic growth are in place. But you won't hear that in Boston.
Source: http://www.investors.com/editorial/issues.asp?v=7/28
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Wednesday, July 28, 2004 | Editor
Politics: Bill Clinton was in rare form at the Democratic Convention Tuesday, comparing his economic record to George W. Bush's. Not fair. The president's is better.
"Our way works better," the former president boasted in his Monday night address, touting a '90s economy that "produced 22 million good jobs, rising incomes and 100 times as many people moving out of poverty into the middle class." He also lauded his record on the budget, touting "three surpluses in a row."
How could Bush hope to match such accomplishments? Well, remember: Bush is still in his first term. He inherited a recession and slumping job market from Clinton.
Clinton, on the other hand, took over when both the economy and jobs were growing and picking up pace. Inflation was still in a decadelong decline.
So let's measure first term against first term apples to apples. If we do, Bush comes out on top even after 9-11.
Don't believe it? Look at the key gauges of our well-being growth, inflation, unemployment, disposable income (what's left after taxes), productivity, household assets and consumer confidence.
On most of these, Bush wins. Yes, GDP growth on a year-over-year basis is a bit slower. But, as we noted, Bush took office with a recession under way. It wasn't Bush's recession; it was Clinton's.
As for the other data, here's how Bush's first-term stacks up: Inflation? Lower. Disposable income? Higher. Household assets? Richer. Consumer confidence? Slightly lower, but comparable. Unemployment? A bit higher, but again about the same. Productivity? Way better under Bush.
Clinton deserves credit for a strong second term. But even that record needs an asterisk. After stumbling badly in 1993 and early 1994, and with his popularity and the economy weakening, he got lucky: The GOP won control of Congress.
Republicans pushed Clinton to sign on to welfare reform, capital gains tax cuts and spending curbs that produced a booming economy and balanced budget. They kept him from raising taxes, as he did in 1993, when his record tax hike nearly sank the economy. They also kept him from signing the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty.
Bush's record, we suspect, will look even better four years hence. All the key elements for a sweet decade of economic growth are in place. But you won't hear that in Boston.
Source: http://www.investors.com/editorial/issues.asp?v=7/28