The main stream media reported that the economy has performed pitifully under George W. The S&P 500 is down 11% in this, his first 7.5 years. You would have done better putting your money under a rock in the backyard than you would have done with it in the stock market. Under Bush, only 5.1 million jobs have been created. This in stark contrast to the 23 million created during Clinton’s 8 years. Under Reagan, 16 million were created. (During the elder Bush’s 4 years, only 2.5 million. It is not just the English language that seems to give the Bush men trouble.)
But it does not take much for the numbers to look even worse under this most recent Bush president. For all his talk of a smaller government and the importance of business, the growth of jobs in the private sector is terrible. Under Reagan, the total number of jobs grew by 18%; private sector jobs grew by 20%. Under Clinton, the total number of jobs grew by 25%; private sector jobs grew by 24%. Not only was job creation robust during Reagan and Clinton’s terms, but the growth did not much rely on the expansion of government.
By contrast, Bush’s anemic 6% growth (less than a fourth of what it was under Clinton and a third of what it was under Reagan) drops by half when the growth in government jobs is factored out. Private sector job growth under Bush has been only 3%.
Given how much government work has been privatized, I’m sure that this anemic number would drop even more if I could factor out the jobs technically in the private sector but paid for by government contracts.
Not only has Bush failed to address looming financial shortfalls in entitlement programs as baby boomers begin to retire – reversing the budget surpluses of Clinton’s administration and turning them into record deficits – he has failed to put in place any kind of economic policy that stimulates job creation. His incessant mantra of tax cuts has not just been proven to be no panacea – it scarcely seems to work.
And even sadder, Bush's annual salary has been twice that of Clinton or Reagan. Bush is the first president to make $400,000 a year. In other words, we paid Bush as much as we paid Clinton and Reagan combined.
11 comments:
those are some awfully depressing -- but unsurprising -- statistics.
s-mom,
Next time I'll work on offering something less depressing.
I suggest we outsource the presidency to India. They work better, they work cheaper, and we wouldn't have to go through these dreary campaigns anymore.
Thomas,
I think that we could find guys who would do it for less than $400k. In fact, I think that guys like Cheney would do it in return for unchecked power. Oh. Wait. He did and it cost us more than $400k a year. Never mind.
Oh, we've paid, all right.
Jennifer,
And yet it doesn't even compare with how much we still have yet to pay for the former boy cheerleader's conviction.
This post ought to be on the front page of the New York Times.
LH,
Thanks. I'll let you know if they call.
It does seem to be a rule for the modern age doesn't it? Rewarding the inept. Bush is a poster boy for that. I also agree with Lifehiker, your post should be on the top page of the New York Times. Since I have no clout in that place I'll just fave it on technorati for the moment.
GW always says "the economy is important". Here's what he's really thinking: "the economy is important for what I want". GW and Cheney only really care about GW and Cheney. I'm sure their minions would slice and dice your numbers, Mr. Ron, to refute your statistics as either just plain wrong or, if they would admit the statistics as correct, they'd turn around and blame the low numbers on the Democrats in Congress "playing politics instead of passing the needed legislation that helps the American people!"
Milena,
Thanks for siding with LH on this. And I can see just the expression for George on the poster you describe.
ALLEN!
Good of you to stop by R World. And I have to agree with the minions - it is all the fault of Congress. George clearly has nothing to do with any of this. Sigh.
Post a Comment