Jobs – Bush Versus Clinton
Yet again, the media and the Democrats are using an “apples and oranges” argument to advance their false thesis that job growth is weak under President Bush.
The number of Americans with jobs rose in June from 143,976,000 to 144,363,000, an increase of 387,000 people. The number of people unemployed fell by 58,000 and the number of people not in the labor force fell by 87,000. That hardly appears weak or sluggish.
I’ve seen comparisons with the Clinton “robust” jobs growth. The graph below illustrates the growth for both Clinton and Bush for each of the years of their Presidency.
Note that Bush year six is only half over. We can reasonably expect a final number much higher than that displayed. Bush year one is, of course, the Clinton recession and the effects of the murders on September 11.
Note that Clinton did not add employment in any manner that could be described as robust, at least if your definition of “robust” includes steady growth or even maintaining existing growth. Bush has exceeded Clinton’s job growth two of the first five years of their administrations and is poised to do so for this year as well.
Let’s compare unemployment rates. Here is a graph showing the comparative averages for both Presidents, term year by year.
Would the term “virtually identical” be appropriate?
The facts are that job growth and unemployment have been at least as good under George Bush as they were under Bill Clinton. Job growth has trended upward for all six years of the Bush administration but it was not the case under Clinton. In fact, the trend was the opposite.
And… let us not forget that Bill Clinton was our first “black” President. Here is the term over term comparison for average yearly black unemployment.
It looks like the Bush record is “virtually identical” to the Clinton record.
The only way the media and the Democrats can spin these facts is by distorting them. The Bush economy is every bit as healthy as the Clinton economy, if not more so.
Great work. I’m guessing that you’re consistently using the “household” and not the establishment data.
I intend to investigate a few things, like whether the BLS and the press have been consistent in what they have used in reporting the monthly employment increases. The 9 MILLION person difference in total employment between the two is to say the least troubling.
[...] UPDATE: I am grateful to Chuck Simmins at North Shore Journal for irritating the heck out of me (seriously). [...]