At what point is it fair to compare presidents' economic records? Granted presidents aren't entirely responsible for economic performance during their administrations. And granted one can argue that Bush was unlucky in his first year or two: the recession that began in March 2001 was not his fault, and the corporate scandals that weakened the stock market and investment in 2002 may not have been either. September 11 wasn't Bush's fault. And while many economists blame uncertainty over the impending war in Iraq for weak performance in 2002-2003, let's be generous and not blame Bush for that either. Hurricane Katrina was certainly an unfortunate event from a macroeconomic standpoint (though its impact on the US economy was pretty small). Still, has Bush been less lucky than Clinton was? 62 months into the Clinton administration was February 1998. Up to then, Clinton faced: a crippling budget deficit he had inherited from previous presidents; an agonizingly weak recovery that had produced a mere 876,000 jobs in 22 months; interest rate increases in 1994-95; the Mexican economic meltdown in 1994; and the Asian financial crisis in 1997. Also, whereas Bush has benefited from relatively strong growth in Japan and Europe (the second and third biggest economies in the world) in the last couple of years, during the 1990s Europe and Japan were stagnant. Maybe, just maybe the difference in economic performance has to do with policy rather than luck. Clinton balanced the budget; Bush exploded it. Clinton made investments in health care and education; Bush shoveled money to his campaign contributors. Clinton pursued trade agreements with Mexico and China; Bush has little to show for his efforts in trade; Clinton had welfare reform and policies to promote work for the poor; Bush has nothing. Most of all, I think, Clinton didn't f*** things up, whereas Bush has f***ed things up at absolutely every opportunity. So here's another nice picture:
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment