Our so-called recovery

Over at TNR's The Plank, Noam Scheiber quotes from a Fred Barnes article:

One issue that needs to be developed is the economy, according to Blunt. "People take a strong economy for granted. We have to show that this didn't just happen," but is the result of Republican policies like tax cuts. Republican candidates will argue that if Democratic policies had been followed, a strong economic recovery would not have occurred. And job creation--243,000 in February--would have been weaker.

Scheiber's response is to belittle upper income tax cuts as a costly and inefficient economic stimulus:

Barnes--sorry, Blunt--argues that the job number proves the superiority of an economic policy based almost entirely on cutting taxes. As far as I can tell, though, the only thing it proves is that if you're president and you're determined to goose the economy for a few years, you can probably do it.

But has Bush really goosed the economy? The evidence we have indicates that this is one of the weakest recoveries of the post-World War II era -- here's Edmund Andrews from the New York Times in January:

Consider jobs, the focus of the Treasury chart. A unique aspect is that the job count continued to fall for 18 months after the 2001 recession ended. The number of jobs in November was up 3.4 percent from the job low 30 months earlier.

That measurement, which is the way the Bush administration chose to look at the data, ranks eighth among the 10 postwar recessions, a fraction ahead of the recovery after the 1990-91 recession, and better than the period after the recession that ended in July 1980, when another recession followed a year later.

Were job growth instead to be measured from the end of the recession, this recovery is the slowest ever, with the job count up 2.6 percent in four years. The previous low was a 4 percent gain in the four years after the 1953-54 downturn.

Any analysis of the recovery after the 2001 recession must ask why huge tax cuts that began in 2001 had so little - and so long delayed - effect.

So why is this some great political issue for Republicans?

In addition, Blunt is claiming the recovery would have been worse if Democratic economic policies had been followed, but that's just an assertion. As Andrews documents, it's hard to imagine doing much worse than the current administration. Moreover, the historical evidence indicates that Republican presidents have been less successful at creating jobs than Democrats -- Princeton's Larry Bartels finds that unemployment has been thirty percent lower under Democratic presidents since World War II (PDF).

Scheiber argues credibly that job losses under Bush were largely attributable to structural changes in the US economy. That's fair enough. But why should we give Republicans credit for a lousy recovery?

Comments

[Jon Henke]

I fail to understand the "weak recovery" notion. Generally, it's argued that job growth has been much faster in previous post-recessionary periods -- but what of it? Previous recessions saw much higher unemployment rates from which to recover. How much job growth can you really see with an unemployment rate that tops out around 6.2%?

If there had been another few million jobs created during this past recession, we'd be creeping close to something like 2% unemployment. Do you really believe that's something the Fed would allow?

(note: I'm not arguing that Bush is responsible for the growth; I tend to believe that a Presidents policies are generally drowned in a host of other factors)

[Mick Stockinger]

I had to chuckle Brendan, at how hard you had to try to find cloud in this really broad silver-lining.

Its actually not just an assertion when one states that Democrat economic policies would have done worse--put capital in the American economy and you get higher government revenues and more jobs. Take it out and you get just the reverse. We have plenty of examples of this--particularly in Europe.

[The Objective Historian]

Seems like a weak protest to me; the recovery was weak because the recession was weak. Were jobs to increase any more, i.e., as per what you would call a "strong recovery", the unemployment rate would be 2.5%-4% which is too low.

Bush deserves an A+ for the decision to no longer appease Hussein; an A+ for a militarily magnificent conquest, occupation, and nation building of two historically intractable nations with thus far only 3,000 dead (by historical standards this is a military masterpiece); and an A+ for the economy, wisely borrowing while real interest rates are at historical lows and investing in good long term endeavors both at home and abroad.

Bush is a great president and belongs in the same league in terms of effectiveness as Washington, Lincoln, and FDR. The object in the end is to avoid serious conflict and to advance national interests relatively peacefully. In these efforts FDR and Lincoln failed; had they acted differently, the wars that made their presidencies great might have been avoided without detriment to U.S. interests. Bush insightfully went to war to prevent an unimaginably devestating war and conducted that war brilliantly; he also put capitalists and capitalism to work to repair the economy that collapsed during Bill Clinton's second to last quarter in office.

As with Lincoln during his term, Bush is taking criticism from all sides; but history will vindicate him and glorify him; and through me, The Objective Historian, it already has.

TOH

[Tony Smith]

Boy, I wish I had 'The Objective Historian' as a teacher in high school. Giving out so many A+'s for such rampant incompetence... it would have done wonders for my GPA. I could have gotten into Harvard!

"...a militarily magnificent conquest, occupation, and nation building of two historically intractable nations..."

Is that even in the same universe as 'objective'?

[The Objective Historian]

Mr. Smith,

Have I broken the walls of your libertine-regressive-undemocratic echo chamber?

Here is a graphic of American fatal military casualties in the history of the United States:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7050/620/1600/war%20fatalities.0.jpg

I don't have the time to elucidate you as to the history of foreign military endeavors in Afghanistan or Iraq, they be Western military endeavors or more localized ones, but I think the Iran-Iraq War in the 80s, the Soviet-Afghanistan debacle, and the British military history in both countries. But I'd be delighted for you to put in historical terms how - separate from the decision to go to war which has it's own set of debatable criterion - how the Iraq War II is an indication of incompetence.

I do give you an A+: for self-righteous deluded and uninformed inanity.

TOH

[Tony Smith]

Mmmmm... Thanks for the good grade, TOH.

All you have to do is continue to read Brendan... read Spinsanity, too. Watch some Daily Show, as well. They all have done an amazing job at showing the mind-numbing incompetence of this administration.

[Jonny]

Brendam, just to reiterate what some of the these individuals said, it is hard to say this economy is not hot - unemployment rate, increase in real estate value, interest rates, dogs and cats singing together, etc. Although it may not be totally attributable to Bush (although capital gains cuts did result in a huge investments and increased revenue might I add), it can't be said Bush has tanked the economy or a Democrat would do much better.

[Jonny]

Oh, and do you call this a weak recovery (from the latest Treasure data): tax receipts continued to expand at a 14.1 percent annual pace during the last 12 months through February. Corporate tax receipts increased at a more than 40 percent pace during this period while employment receipts advanced at an above-trend 8.5 percent annual rate? Also, tax receipts (bolstered by strong corporate and labor markets) have climbed to $2.2 trillion, 6.2 percent above the previous all-time peak reached in February 2001.