Why doesn't the president get credit for the economy?

[mwb970]

by Jonah Goldberg

(snip)

Of course, there are reasons to fret about the economy: growing entitlements, demographic time bombs, health-insurance woes, the national debt and the deficit. But these are perennial concerns. If you want to tell me that Americans are vexed over entitlement spending because they've suddenly done their homework, studying the actuarial tables, I'd need some evidence first.

The debt and deficit didn't sour President Reagan's boom, nor did fears of a health-care crisis sour President Clinton's.

And yet Bush can't catch a break on the economy. It's just so unfair. If Clinton "created" those 22 million jobs in the 1990s, and if Bush "lost" a few million jobs in his first term, surely by the same standard Bush has "created" 5 million jobs since 2003.

Of course, Republican presidents rarely receive such fairness. The media held Reagan responsible for the 1981-1982 recession but merely darn lucky for the boom that followed. Poppa Bush was blamed for the mild recession in 1991-1992, and, even though it ended on his watch, the press credited Clinton with "fixing" the economy in the 1990s.

(snip)

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003006547_goldberg22.html

Here's the e-mail I sent to Jonah (at [e-mail]) after reading this piece:

Hello Jonah,

Remember that study that came out recently claiming that toddlers who are whiny crybabies, always saying "It's not fair!", tend to grow up and become conservatives? (I know you read about it, because you wrote a column in response complaining that the study wasn't fair.) Well, your tear-soaked essay that appeared in this morning's Columbus Dispatch appears to be more of the same. You even actually use the sentence "It's just so unfair" as you whine about Americans being too stupid to realize how great the economy is doing these days.

The irony for your Columbus readers is that the same edition of the Dispatch has as its main front-page story an item headlined "Everything's up". Let me quote the opening paragraphs of the story:

---------------------------------------
Inflation is modest. Wages are rising. Unemployment is down. The numbers paint a bright economic picture, but working Americans think the economy stinks.

Why? Because the cost of so many things people can't do without is rising like crazy, and paychecks and credit lines are stretched to the max.

Gasoline prices have risen 96 percent since 2002; college-tuition costs have risen 51 percent at Ohio's state colleges; natural-gas costs are up 121 percent over four years ago. Add it up, and many Americans find that their income isn't keeping pace with expenses.

"I'm not breaking even; I'm going backward," said Paul Beller, a former railroad employee whose pocket is being picked by rising health-care costs. His Pike County home needs a new roof that he can't afford. "They say the economy is in great shape. I call them a bunch of liars. I don't believe it."
---------------------------------------

In a large, above-the-fold graphic, the article presents eight examples of items and the change in their cost over recent years. Here are the figures provided:

Gasoline, avg. cost per gallon
2002: $1.40
2006: $2.74

Water and Sewer, avg. quarterly bill in Columbus
2002: $103
2006: $141

Ohio taxes, avg. state and local taxes per capita
2001: $3237
2006: $4332

Beef, 1 lb. of ground chuck
2002: $2.10
2006: $2.60

College tuition, avg. annual cost at state schools for in-state undergraduate
2002: $4973
2006: $7521

Natural gas, cost per 1000 cu. ft. in Columbus
2002: $4.91
2006: $10.85

Health insurance, avg. annual family premium
2002: $7061
2006: $10,880

Postage, first class
2002: $0.34
2006: $0.39

So, after reading about this discouraging situation, which is easily verified with a glance into one's wallet or a stroll through the monthly bills, we turn to the editorial page to find a sobbing opinion piece by a predictable, out-of-touch right-winger, whining that "it's just not fair" that Our Great Leader gets no credit for the wonderful economy he has visited on us.

Jonah, Jonah, grab the reins. Come back to us, buddy. The American economy stinks for ordinary people in the real world. Bush's policies have contributed to the situation and he has done nothing whatever to help. That's what's "not fair".


Edit: typo

[cry baby]

1. Those prices clearly illustrate what everyday life is like for us

pee-ons. Goldberg sure is whiney!

[Rose Siding]

2. What a great letter

:D The Editor should get a copy!

[EVDebs]

17. I agree ! Those price figures are SCARY. Read Plan B 2.0 BTW

Lester Brown's Plan B 2.0 shows us that the world has only until around 2031, if China and India emulate the US style economy. R's have no answer to this but keep doing more of the same. Someone needs to wake them up from their Bush-induced sleepwalk.

[Lisa0825]

3. K&R! Bravo! Great letter!:-)

:yourock:

[Roland99]

4. Why are you so angry? You must really hate America.

:)

[Jackpine Radical]

5. There's a great irony in the notion of giving Bush credit

for the economy, because what he's doing is running the whole show ON credit.

It's pretty easy to look prosperous in the short term when you have an unlimited redit account. What's about to happen, of course, is that the rich are gonna abscond with all the loot they put on plastic, & we're gonna end up with the bill. And, once the rich own every inflation-proof asset in the world, they'll just start cranking the printing presses & effectively steal our savings to pay the debt.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

7. Reagan ran deficits through the roof. These inflated the 80's economy

There is a pattern here. The "Supply Side" tax cuts end up causing deficit spending, which causes a temporary inflation of the economy.

This temporary inflation ends up benefiting the haves a lot more than the have-nots and ends in a recession.

The bad news today is that W's inflation of the economy isn't creating good jobs for average Americans. Yes, unemployment is low, but most people are working for lower real wages, adjusted for inflation than a few years ago and some of us are making drastically less money due to being "downsized" or "outsourced" from a good white-collar job into a crummy one.

[Lasher]

14. The Gross National Debt

I posted this here at DU a while back:

White House data show the gross national debt hit a 47 year low just as President Reagan was taking office. It climbed steadily under Reagan and G.W.H. Bush, declined under Clinton and made a quick U-turn under G.W. Bush.

In 1981 the gross national debt, as a percent of the nation's annual income, reached its lowest point since 1931, 32.5%. It could have been paid off then easier than at any time in the previous 50 years.

The gross federal debt now stands at 63.5% of GDP. Of that, 33.5 percentage points were contributed by Reagan-Bush, 6 points by G. W. Bush, and 6.1 points by printing money. The remaining 18 points are left over from WWII.

http://zfacts.com/p/gross-national-debt.html

The graph clearly illustrates the real legacy of Reaganomics of the Reagan/Bush I/Bush II eras: They borrowed and spent us into debt. As I have said before, their supply side economics (AKA trickle-down theory) have never been anything but an attempt to find moral justification in stealing from the poor to give to the rich. I never thought the day would come when I would say I missed Nixon and Ford, but in this respect I do. They were the last of the real fiscal conservatives in the Republican party.

[eppur_se_muova]

18. Great, powerful graph. Thanks for posting. nt

[Vinnie From Indy]

6. Goldberg is merely a low rung water boy hoping to make the big team

He has the gravitas of a turd.

[Jackpine Radical]

13. Moral turditude?

[exlrrp]

8. same old whine

whats intersting about this administration and its sycophants/apologists is how they a) rewrite history to suit themselves; b) ignore the most salient facts that disprove their case and c) want to claim credit for other peopl's achievements..
I'm not going to read this whole aticle---rather have root canal surgery--but just whats shown here is pathetic.
" growing entitlements, demographic time bombs, health-insurance woes, the national debt and the deficit. But these are perennial concerns."
The national debt and deifict weren't perennial concerns at the end of the Clinton administration, there was a budgetaery surpluc and the debt was being PAID DOWN. Although the Republicans claimed credit for this, it was actually a bipartisan effort--Clinton, accordibng to his plan when elected, starteed putting money away to pay down the debt. Remember the term "Deficit reduction"? That was a Cl;inton era term, we have never heard it since.
The fact is that, once in complete power, the Republicans completely abandoned any claim to finanncial responsibility, producing record deficits almost every year. The newest yearly deficit, though not record ( the record year so far: 2004) will be 50% higher than any deficit before Bush took office.
"If Clinton "created" those 22 million jobs in the 1990s, and if Bush "lost" a few million jobs in his first term, surely by the same standard Bush has "created" 5 million jobs since 2003." Lets say this means the last 3 years (2003, 2004, 2005) By Goldbergs own numbers given here,, jobs were created in the Clinton era at the rate of 2.75 million a year--EVERY YEAR--but in the best 3 years of the Bush era only 1.6 million are being created
te real reason for the "Bush Recovery" (The longest and weakest on record in the 21st and 20th centuries) is not taxcuts but the most record low interst rates in history, at one time getting the prime down to 1.8%. THIS was the spur to the economy, not watweever taxcuts Bush has done.
The Republicans rosy claims of a recovered economy are all spin to covcer more of Bush's failures/non-actions.
DID I mention the Dow STILL hasn't reached Clinton days yet? Neither ha the unemployment rate (cureently 4.7%--Clinton record: 4.1%)
I was listenting to Kudrow the other day on C span--he was spouting the same crap. The question journaists need to be asking is how much Goldberg and Kudrow are being paid by the Bush administratuion to spin their bullsht

[mwb970]

10. You're right about the "perennial concerns".

I was going to mention that but decided to hammer on just the one point instead. Thanks for amplifying.

[exlrrp]

9. oops

sorry about a double post

[Mr_Spock]

11. Perhaps thing are just swell for the bourgeoisie?

Sucks being a commoner in an elitist Republican empire.

Jonah takes the elitist view - I wonder why?

[sinkingfeeling]

12. Excellent response. I'd have sent it as a LTTE instead, so it would

get published.

[raccoon]

15. Great response to this out-of-touch whiner. nt

[Initech]

16. The economy's great if you're a rich, white corporate executive.

For the other 99% of us, it sucks! And this proves it!

[struggle4progress]

19. It's a complete waste of time to correspond with a wingnut like Goldberg

Why bother? You're dealing with a neocon who wrote "John Kerry is a sphincter" and "The United States needs to go to war with Iraq because it needs to go to war with someone in the region and Iraq makes the most sense."

IMO, all you're doing is helping him gauge how you think and giving him a private heads-up on what you'll say in public later. I personally try to forget jerks like Goldberg and concentrate on people whose minds I might actually change ...

[barb162]

20. If we go into a serious recession and that is very possible, he

will take the blame. There will be no way he can get out of it

[depakid]

21. Just another liar- and an ignorant one at that

The only reason he gets published at all is becuase of mommy- and because he's another dumb Republican.

[mcscajun]

22. As poster sinkingfeeling already suggested, this would make

good LTTE, and it's not too late to make it one. :)