The Clinton Economy Easily Beat the Bush Economy

[question everything]

JANUARY 26, 2009

The Clinton Economy Easily Beat the Bush Economy
WSJ Letter

Your editorial "The Bush Economy" (Jan. 17) states "Democrats like to claim the 1990s were a golden age while the Bush years have been disastrous." For the Clinton years, their claim is accurate.

The average annual growth rate of real GDP during Bill Clinton's presidency was 3.7%. The average annual growth rate of real GDP during the first seven years of George W. Bush's presidency was just 2.3%. When the growth rate for 2008 is announced, the average annual growth rate of real GDP for Mr. Bush's eight years in office will be less than 2%.

Bill Clinton presided over a huge expansion in private-sector employment during his eight years in office: Payrolls increased by 21.14 million. Private-sector payrolls have increased by just 1.3 million under Mr. Bush. In other words, for every 16 private-sector payroll jobs created while Bill Clinton was in office, President Bush has overseen the creation of just one private-sector payroll job. To say the least, that is a significant difference, especially when one considers that Mr. Clinton raised tax rates and Mr. Bush reduced them.

The robust economic and private-sector employment growth during the Clinton years was also reflected in the stock market. The S&P 500 index stood at 435.71 at the end of 1992. Eight years later it was 1,320.28, an increase of 884.57 points or 203%. At the end of 2008 the S&P 500 index stood at 903.25, declining 417.03 points or 31.6% over eight years.

There is one area where George W. Bush easily surpassed Bill Clinton: the growth in federal spending. From the fourth quarter of 1992 to the fourth quarter of 2000 the annual rate of federal spending increased by $421.6 billion. By the third quarter of 2008 the annual rate of federal spending was running higher by another $1.244 billion.

Ronald W. Olive
Economics Department
UMass/Lowell
Lowell, Mass.

ttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB123302166829118227.html

[dtotire]

1. No Argument There n/t

[angryfirelord]

2. Well of course it did

It was simply because we were on the expanding side of the market bubble back then. When Bush took over, the bubble popped. It's the inherent flaw of capitalism in that you get too much investment (the boom) and then that investment simply goes away. (the bust) Plus, let's not forget that Bill Clinton did some very pro-republican policies such as the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act, supporting the "ownership society", and the cut in the capital gains tax.

[Zynx]

3. Take out even 1998-2000. Prior to 1998, no bubble existed. Then it became severe.

Even prior to 1998, Clinton's economy crushes Bush's.

[SergeyDovlatov]

4. I think even arch-conservatives would agree with that assessment n/t