Is the Kerry camp stupid or a bunch of liars? From the Business Times

George Miller, chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee, said: “We’ve had nearly four years of failed economic policy that has led to declining wages, rising costs and the worst job record since Herbert Hoover.”

Not satisfied with disproving it here, here, or here, I set off to crunch a few numbers again.

First, why do they use Herbert Hoover as a baseline? Obviously, it is because that name is associated with the Great Depression. However, the Department of Labor Statistics did not even begin to keep unemployment numbers until the Truman administration. Of course, FDR definitely left office with less unemployment than what he inherited....then again, he died at the height of WWII---the lowest unemployment period (estimated) our country has EVER gone through!

Laying that aside, let's look at the numbers. All numbers were gathered from the official Bureau of Labor Statistics website.

The following graph represents the difference in official unemployment between the month a Presidential term began, and the month it ended (Jan-Jan). Needles to say, George W. Bush's numbers are not complete--and with the economy still producing new net jobs, his performance will improve.

George W. Bush does not have the 'worst job record since Herbert Hoover'. His father left office just as a recession was ending. Both of Nixon's terms were characterized by wild swings in the economy, with his second term (completed by Ford) in worse shape than the present recovery. In fact, even with the disappointing job numbers just released, le't remember that we still had a month of net gains. Even if that slow rate of growth were to continue (presuming the job numbers are accurate), Bush's job record should exceed that of Nixon I and Eisenhower II by end of this Presidential term. Let's lay this to rest. Please.

When the Democrats repeat the falsehood that this is the 'worst recovery since the Great Depression' or whatever variation they are using this week of that sentiment, remember that it is wrong. And by wrong I mean a lie.

I hate to use that word. Democrats fling it around so much these days that it has become utterly devoid of it's true meaning. When you and I disagree over whether Iraq posed a threat to our national security, this is a difference of opinion. It is an empirically unverifiable statement to say the 'Iraq posed a danger' or that 'Iraq didn't pose a dangger'. Why? Because danger is a subjective term. Some people swim with Great Whites, others won't go in the water at all. Difference of opinion over what is a danger.

But job numbers--those are matters of public record. Job numbers are empirically verifiable. The Kerry camp is simply not telling the truth.

Now, I know what Democrats might say. Even if this isn't the worst recovery ever, it is still pretty bad. Losing jobs on your watch isn't something to be proud of. And they are right, it isn't something to be proud of. But neither is it something to necessarily be ashamed of.

You see, what the President does has very little affect on the economy. Sure it can help or hinder, but in only marginal ways and only over a very long period of time. The economy moves up and down. Politicians can only hope that the business cycle times nicely with the election cycle. Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn't.

It just so happens that Bush came into office at the beginning of a recession, and we are just now pulling out of it. In one way Howard Dean is right-- it is all about the timing.

Let me leave you with this graph that I nabbed from a NY Times op-ed and a quote from George Schultz, the author of that piece.

Source: NY Times

"When you look at the record, a quick summary is this: President Clinton inherited prosperity; President Clinton bequeathed recession."

QED

Posted by: Rusty at 01:19 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 702 words, total size 5 kb.