Republicans Better for the Economy? Pure Fiction!

This post from February needs to be dusted off in honor of the Democratic National Convention.

Administration     Change in National Debt as % of GNP …… Verdict…..

_____________________________________________________________

Eisenhower………………… -16.2%……………………………… Outstanding

Kennedy/Johnson……….. -16.5%……………………………… Outstanding

Nixon/Ford…………………. -2.8%………………………………. Adequate

Carter…………………………. -3.2% ……………………………….One term only

Reagan……………………… +20.5% ……………………………..Impeachable

Bush Sr……………………… +13.1% ……………………………..Shameful

Clinton………………………… -8.8%……………………………… Very good

Bush Jr……………………… +12.4%*……………………………. Unacceptable

*End of year 2008 estimate.

The myth of “tax and spend Democrats” is, in fact, a myth. The myth of “dispassionate, fiscally responsible Republicans” transcends myth, having achieved jokedom. And, most amazingly, the myth that Republicans are better for the economy is (you guessed it) pure fiction.

There is some slop in these figures, due to macroeconomic lags and the partisan complicity of Congress. The balance of power between the White House and Congress has been roughly even over this period. One party has controlled both branches of government for about as long as they have been split. Republicans have controlled the White House for 32 of the 52 years included in the study. Otherwise, the figures speak for themselves.

We also correlated GNP growth by year during this same period to test the Republican claim that they are better at growing the economy than Democrats. These statistics are, unfortunately, just as rough. Yet the contrast is significant. During 32 years of 5 Republican administrations, measured in linked 2000 dollars, average annual GNP growth was 2.7%. During the 20 years of 3 Democratic administrations, average annual GNP growth was 4%, again measured in real dollars. So the Democrats were 50% more successful growing the economy during their terms, and did so without busting the budget every year.

Republicans who stand around today wringing their hands over the fact that our Treasury bonds are in the hands of foreign governments have only themselves to blame, in that the bulk of these bonds were issued to finance the fiscal irresponsibility of the 3 Republican presidents since 1980.

A headline crossed my desktop while I was working on this: “Federal Deficit Could Reach $800 Billion”. In this election year, the Democratic nominee must not allow John McCain to position himself as the business-friendly candidate, the guy for economic growth and fiscal discipline. That kind of thinking went out with Eisenhower.

Disclosure: None

Comments

[sr9web:]

Defense spending went way up under Reagan/Bush - we outspent the USSR in the final leg of the Cold War and that's why the Russians had to fold their hand - then came Gulf War.

Under Bush W., it's the same thing: Military spending.

Clintoon cut the military and counted the jobs lost to soliders as reductions in Federal Employees.

2008 Aug 27 02:39 PM

[HARM:]

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hope of its children."

--Dwight D. Eisenhower (www.nolanchart.com/art...)

What a Communist 'wanker' that Eisenhower was! Probably was a Defeato-crat. I'm so proud that we're spending hundreds of $billions on our War of Choice, while we're also the last industrialized nation on earth without basic universal healthcare for its citizens. Thank God we've got our priorities straight!

2008 Aug 27 05:04 PM

[2houndz:]

When Bush was elected, I made a bet with two coworkers that when Bush is finished we will see a worse deficit picture than when he started. Unfortunately I will be collecting my winnings soon. BTW we are all three conservatives. Obviously Bush is not.

2008 Aug 27 08:45 PM

[Xyrus:]

Reagan and the Bushes, along with most Republicans these days are RINOs (Republicans In Name Only). About the only thing conservative about them is their social perspectives.

The real conservatives, like Ron Paul, are few and far between. They others either converted or were replaced beginning in the early 80's. Since then, there hasn't been much conservativism in the conservative party.

I would really enjoy seeing a strict fiscal and foreign policy conservative in office. I'd love to see all the cash we send overseas to be put to much better use here at home and to pay down the debt. But it's not going to happen. Too many people have their hands in various cookie jars for it to happen.

Se la vi.

~X~

2008 Aug 27 09:31 PM

[caveatBettor:]

Fiscal policy changes take about 2 years to show up. So maybe one party reaps what the other sows.

2008 Aug 28 07:40 AM

[Bobco23:]

Good point, caveatBettor. I will also add; corrolation is not cause and effect. Just because the deficit was up or down when a particular party occupied the white house (by the way congress controls spending), does not mean that the party caused the deficit. This is a complex, competetive, and violent world. The rants are just too simplistic and emotional to be useful.

2008 Aug 28 09:38 AM

[Iwishiwerea...:]

All of you writers and commentators write and speak as if you know it all. I wish you would really think before you do anything. When you do why don't you compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges instead of using whatever you see that fits your plan. You are almost as bad as the politicians you talk/write about. For ONCE BE HONEST and then do your thing. The only power our president has it the power of veto, outside of that it is the congress that makes the decisions. The president makes suggestions or implores his feelings as he does in "The State Of The Union" outside of that he is a DIPLOMAT trying to do what he or she thinks is good for the country and possibly the world. I often wonder if we had a president like Reagan or Bush instead of the great FDR would there have been a holocaust and think of why we cannot do anything in Darfour! Is it possible it is the useless United Nations?

2008 Aug 28 12:20 PM

[ain't no fo...:]

I have to laugh when I hear the hypocrites in the Republican party blame everything on the UN, the "libs", and the rest of the world... while whining about the "tax and spend - democrats". Then they go start another senseless TRILLION DOLLAR war, do everything possible to protect the oil lobby, bail out the financial companies that have almost destroyed the world's financial system, cut the taxes of the ultra rich, and transform the budget surplus into the worst deficit in history of this country. Yah, just too funny these guys.

2008 Aug 28 02:58 PM

[milkchaser:]

The lowest decade on that graph falls in the 1970s. Remember what halcyon days those were! Also, it is fundamentally misleading to divide the graph based on the party of the Presidency. Congress controls both taxation and spending. Congress alone can balance the budget.

2008 Aug 28 02:58 PM

[Delaminator:]

Yes, congress is a factor. What that tells us is that neither republicans nor democrats have the will to do the right thing. If you're not voting third-party, you're just voting for more of the same.

2008 Aug 28 03:51 PM

[Gneezer:]

Congress approves the budget set forth by the President. Did Reagan, Bush Sr., or Bush Jr. ever even propose a budget that was balanced?
Clinton's budget called for increases in military spending, not decreases.
Check your facts before you post nonsense.

2008 Aug 28 05:25 PM

[Gneezer:]

2 year lag for policy impact - according to who?

2008 Aug 28 05:27 PM

[hobitual:]

I love the Economic Lag theory recently pedddled by Neocons in order to switch the economic records of the presidencies. How many of them blamed *Nixon for the Carter stagflation "malaise", or credited *Carter for Reagan's record economic expansion? Too funny!

2008 Aug 29 11:38 AM