This chart is a remake of a New York Times chart that is supposed to show how great Democrats are. Why is it a remake? Well, because the original chart had to lie, change scales and do other trickery so that Democrats looked better then Republicans. Because they don't.
The original chart was supposed to show that Democratic administrations are better then Republican administrations. Reworked to be honest, it shows the opposite. What this chart shows is that in general, growth has been better under Republican administrations than Democratic administrations.
The two exceptions are Nixon and Bush. But its impossible to discuss the Bush administration without talking about the three significant economic issues that happened during his administration:
- The Dot Com Bubble Bursting
- 9/11
- The Financial Meltdown (which he tried to head off, but I digress)
Even after the financial meltdown, if you charge the Dot Com Bubble and 9/11 against Clinton, Bush would have positive growth during his 8 years.
Similarly, Nixon had the Energy Crisis to deal with. Other people have pointed out that if you include the roaring 20's, Hoover was a net wash over the previous period.
So frankly, I think you have to throw out Nixon/Bush/Hoover as outliers. So if you look at the chart, its pretty obvious that except for Clinton (who got to ride the dot com bubble), growth is significantly better under Republican administrations than Democratic administrations. 3-5% bigger.
The reason this matters is because Obama is making a big deal about how he's giving the middle class these $500 tax rebates. A $500 rebate works out to about $.25/hour. It's about 1% wage growth for a median income of $50,000. But if growth is better under Republican administrations, then that means you're passing up a raise of 3-5%/year, which works out to be $1500-$2500 the first year, and for every year after that.
Since raises and growth are cumulative but this "tax cut" is a one time bump, you're even father behind after four years, because 3-5% growth for 4 years would mean that 4th year you'd be making $6,000-$10,000 more.
So that $500 isn't looking very good to me.
Leave a comment