(NOTE: Scroll down to the
fist table, if you're in a hurry.)
Most
people have a variety of reasons for holding the opinions that they
have of each American President. Among the many issues typically
discussed, economic policies are usually one of the most important.
Yet, when you ask a person “Who
are the presidents you considers to be the best?”,
predictably the ones belonging to one's own party are favored. What
makes a “good president” can differ depending on what criteria
one has. But of the many issues, economic policies are probably the
easiest to measure with confidence. Moreover, economics is one of the
few issues that usually weighs most heavily on most minds. There are
a number of factors to be considered, and in their combined totality
they can paint a clearer picture. It won't suffice to simply say
“President
Example is great because unemployment is lower”.
That same President might have
imposed many
unconstitutional policies. That example President may have begun an
unpopular war without just cause, or instituted excessive military
spending, or had terrible domestic or foreign policies. That example
President could issue executive orders that deny civil rights to
millions of citizens based on their sex, or skin color, or sexual
orientation – of which, one could reasonably argue makes him or her
the worst President instead of the greatest. That example President
could have ordered a criminal act, a burglary – let's say. So, for
all the different possible factors that could be argued as to why
so-and-so is a better President than another, this document will
focus on the overall impact on Americans of each President's policies
on the economy. All other considerations are left at the door for the
sake of this analysis.
What this analysis focuses on
is the economic portion,
as a whole, of a Presidential legacy. It's important to understand
that this analysis does not look at each state or region or county,
but is discussing the nation on the whole. If a region or state or
county is economically in worse condition while the data shows
economics is better nationally, this is harder to pin on the
President. The first people I'd want to look at if an area is
economically suffering while the nation is doing better is the
governor and legislature of the state and the local governments of
the county or city. If you'll excuse blatant partisanship for a
moment, the data I've seen suggests that Republicans are generally
not so good on economics as Democrats. I say this during the 2016
election in which so many supporters of Donald Trump live, for the
most part, in strongly Republican controlled states. There very well
may be regions or states with lagging economies and suffering people,
which many of Trump's supporters claim is their motivation – “the
economy is bad” they say. This distinction strikes me since
nationally, the data shows the economy to be significantly better off
than when Obama took office. It is clear that Obama's Presidency has
been largely concerned with stabilizing the economy after George W
Bush's administration, and things are back on track compared to when
Obama took office. He really has led us out of the metaphorical 'dark
times' – at least on the national scale. Since most Trump
supporters are Republicans, living in states with Republican
majorities, with Republican governors and Republican legislatures,
and since the data historically shows Republicans to be not as good
as Democrats economically for the people, there is only one thing I
can see which explains things, if we take many Trump supporters at
their word about their economic concerns.
The numbers are broken down by
specific indicators, but
the to have a good grasp on what the economic policies mean is to see
multiple combined indicators. The combination is vital. For example,
the unemployment rate is important but if 50 million jobs are lost in
one year and 100 million new jobs are created the next year that
would look great as a net gain of 50 million more jobs, though that
can be misleading if taken alone. If 50 million people lost their
jobs and then got a new job and it pays $10 less per hour, then
obviously those people are in a worst position than they were before
they lost their old jobs. Sure, it's better to have a job than to
have no job at all. But, earning less is a strong disadvantage in the
real world. So, enter the importance of considering other data
points. If unemployment is down because there are many new jobs
created, that's great but what about the income level? Let's say the
median household income has risen over the previous year in
coincidence with unemployment going down because of new jobs, that
means more people are earning more than they did before. If the
hypothetical 50 million people lost their jobs last year and now have
new jobs this year, and the median household income is up over where
it was last year, that reasonably indicates that many of those new
jobs pay better than the jobs that were lost. But, then there are the
other factors. If national median income suggests people earn, say,
$500 more this year but inflation rate was also up by, say, 5% more
this year it means that the wages have essentially stagnated since
last year. The income may be up but so are prices meaning people are
basically earning the same spending power, or possibly a little less
or even negligibly more. So, there's three different data points
which must be taken together, just in that example.
Another important factor is
median household debt. Like
the median income, half of all people are below and half have more
debt. So, what we want to know is what is the relationship or
correlation of change from last year to this year in both the median
debt and the median income. Now, as an aside, there are two different
kinds of debt handled in this analysis – national debt is one, the
other is the household debt. Household debt is the kind that you,
personally, owe as opposed to the debt of the national government and
thus the taxpayers, as a whole. The national debt matters for other
reasons when talking about economics and how it affects each person.
But, here were want to consider the household debt in relation to the
household income. If you have $100,000 in household debt and your
household earns $10,000 per year, and assuming there's absolutely no
other expenses, like rent or mortgage, insurances, groceries, gas,
electricity, phone, etcetera, then it would take 10 years to pay off
that debt if all income went to it. Naturally, what people want to
see is the household debt go down while household income goes up. So,
if unemployment is down because of new jobs, that's good, if those
new jobs largely pay better, that's good too, if the inflation rate
keeps the value of the dollar roughly close to what it was last year,
that's also good, and if household debt decreases that too is good,
but altogether these things are really good. It's where everyone
wants to be, earning more, with relatively more purchasing power of
that income, and with less debt gnawing at your ability to accumulate
wealth.
Now, look at total Gross Domestic Product, that is the
total amount of money earned by businesses and people collectively in
the whole nation. If it goes up that means there's more money being
made, on the whole, in the economy, particularly in the sense of more
value – not to be confused with printing and minting more currency.
The “percent of change in GDP” tells us how much more GDP there
was this year than there was last year. This is a direct measure of
the growth in the GDP, while the measure of GDP is the measure of
total wealth in the nation. So, as with anything we want to see
growth year-after-year in total wealth. Total production is that
wealth changing hands within the economy, meaning companies and
people are earning wages and profits. If GDP stagnates people and
companies can still earn money, at least in the short term –
perhaps a year or two. But, if it stagnates it also undermines
investor confidence which means people start pulling their
investments out of the economy and that hurts, bad. But, there's also
a relationship between growth in GDP and median household income. If
the GDP grows but the median household income drops, one can
reasonably conclude that the wealth gap between the top earners and
the lower earners expands. In a year, a lower median household income
and a higher GDP essentially directly implicates the rich getting
richer and the poor getting poorer.
I have used the purest data
sources that I could find. I
have avoided relying on reports from potentially biased companies or
news sources. Since one lone data point may seem favorable to a
particular president, the totality of several data points becomes a
stronger case. What must be considered in evaluating the economic
environment is not restricted to what profits corporations are
making. As we all know, a nation is made up of many people – in the
case of the United States, it's currently over 310 million people –
and it is their ability to pay their bills, to buy things, to feed
themselves and their families, etc, that really matters. A swimmer
could be an Olympic gold medalist, but it doesn't matter if the
swimming pool is toxic. That is to say, logically, the economy must
necessarily be considered as something that is deeply damaged when
too many people cannot afford to spend money. Companies can't pay
their bills and provide dividends to shareholders on the good wishes
of poor people. So, there are the other factors to be weighed as well
– such as: unemployment rate, inflation rate, national debt,
surpluses or deficits in budget funding, annual growth in Gross
Domestic Product (GDP), etcetera.
The annual growth of the GDP
could be quite good for
many years straight, but if unemployment stays high or grows over
that time it indicates a weaker purchasing capacity of the nation as
a whole. With high, or growing, inflation what is indicated is that
the purchasing power – what you can get for each dollar – is
declining. A growing GDP is deceptive while the inflation rate is
growing, or stays high, because while the straight numbers look like
there's more money being made, the value of the dollar is weaker. The
economy stagnates if the GDP, for example, grows by 1% while
inflation is 10% in the same year. Thus, the percent of growth of GDP
must be greater than the percent of inflation in order for there to
be an actual improvement in the total economic growth. Another
example, imagine if you earned $100 last year and that same year a
gallon of milk cost $1, this year you earned $110 but a gallon of
milk this year also cost $1.10, we can say then that you did not
actually earn more money in so far as it reflects on your purchasing
power. Despite the extra total number of dollars you earned, you
cannot buy any extra gallons of milk compared with last year – this
is keeping pace with the increase in cost of living. It's treading
water but not getting anywhere.
Further, while any growth in
GDP may seem to indicate an
overall increase in economic activity, if the unemployment rate
increases it may, fairly, indicate that local employment sectors are
being closed down. Companies are sending those jobs overseas, the
outsourcing of work. When GDP goes up and unemployment goes up we can
say the distribution of possession of money is shifting more into the
bank accounts of the wealthiest. Matching increase in GDP and
unemployment means companies continue to pull in more money but the
workers are losing their jobs. The companies are making more money
while spending less, and fewer workers are earning money. While
companies love profits, this phenomenon indicates terrible
shortsightedness. As the money concentrates into the hands of the few
the flow of money dries up and this is toxic for companies in the
long-run. Companies necessarily depend on the population being able
to afford to buy their products and services, as unemployment grows
fewer spend money. Those that can spend can only spend less as they
must take care of unemployed family members. So, high GDP and strong
GDP growth rate is good, but inflation and unemployment rates must
steadily remain low for it to mean anything good.
As you may have noticed by now,
each factor has a
relation to other factors. For instance, the budget deficit grows the
national debt. Obviously if your budget is greater than your income,
you must borrow to pay for the excess in spending over your income.
Well, this is basically what happens with budget deficits even at the
federal level. And thus, the national debt is increased, as if our
government used a gigantic credit card to pay for the budgeted items.
Year-after-year, this process builds up the national debt. Of course,
when you've got a budget surplus you have extra money left over
because you spent less than your income, and that surplus can be used
to help pay down your debt. This has a double-sided affect, not only
paying off some of the debt making it lower, but also not adding to
the debt.
The issue to remember about
National Debt is that while
it's true our government borrows from other nations, our government
also borrows against the future. In fact, most of the National Debt
is not in the form of loans from another government, but an IOU
signed on behalf of the taxpayers. This is to say, much of the
National Debt really is a promise of future payment from taxpayers to
the congress. Yes, this means that to enjoy your brand new Ultra HD
widescreen LED TV you've promised that your grandchildren will pay
for it. There are only two possible ways for us to pay this National
Debt – increased taxes generating increased revenue for the
government to apply toward the debt, and budget cuts. The problem
with budget cuts, favored by conservatives, is that there are many
items on the budget that even the conservatives refuse to cut.
Moreover, those items that conservatives refuse to cut tend to be the
biggest expenses. This is called being “penny smart and dollar
foolish”. Many low budget items are just as necessary are big
budget items. Yet, to take this approach means that even if you cut
virtually every small ticket item you might not have cut enough. The
big budget items must receive the first cuts. Still, there's only so
much that can be cut from the budget, and taxes will still remain
necessary. Certainly the wisest approach is a balanced one. It's good
to find and eliminated excess spending and bureaucratic waste, but
taxes will need to be raised to meet the needs after that. And we
will only then still need to address the long-term National Debt. The
National Debt does us no good to keep around.
Scope
Because the historical records
become less reliable and
less available the further back in time we search, the scope of this
analysis is currently limited to beginning with the term of President
John F Kennedy. In future, I may do more work and expand this aspect
of scope backwards in time to include some of Kennedy's predecessors,
but I make no guarantee of that. Further, the records used to
generate this analysis are not the most current, with documents only
becoming available roughly two years after the period covered. Thus,
in 2016 the latest data available would be up to 2014, typically.
As an American, I have limited
this analysis, for
probably obvious reasons, to US Presidents. This analysis is, as the
title suggests, limited to the scope of the impact of economic
policies on the average American. What is not covered here are other
non-economic policies, or individual specific economic policies, nor
do I consider the impact of US policies on foreign markets. The
scope, as mentioned before, is limited to Americans as it is the
debate among Americans about which Presidents are better for America
economically, from which this analysis was begun.
This analysis is limited to the
tangible impact of the
totality of economic policies. Additionally, this analysis considers
each year individually, to help illustrate the difference between
trends attributable to policies and unaccountable minor fluctuations.
One ought not to think that one year's status compared to the
previous year is what matters, rather the difference from year to
year, over the course of many years points to trends that can be
attributed to policies.
Finally, a note on the years:
it should be obvious that
the first two years of each President's first term can show, to a
limited degree, the impact of the current President's policies, but
they show more the residual impact of the previous President's
policies. The economy has a sort of momentum, and so the effects of a
policy enacted today tends to not show up in the collected data until
a year or two later.
Methodology
First, I have take deliberate
measures to avoid using
any dubious source, always preferring direct government reports. To
maintain the viability, and the validity, of this analysis no data
originating from news or blogs or radio programs with a political
bias was used. News reports, blog posts, and various media programs
were in general not used.
Because a singular metric, by
itself, is not a reliable
indicator I have chosen several different metrics to use in
combination with each other. Further, to ensure transparency and
reliability the individual metrics are provided here for
verification. It is only in comparing several different metrics that
any reliable image of the impact of economic policies can really be
understood. Thus, the metrics used are:
-
National
Unemployment Rate [averaged over the nation as a whole, and averaged
for the year],
-
Inflation Rate
[calculated only for a complete year, after that year has ended, and across the whole nation],
-
National Median
Household Total Debt [secured debts and unsecured debts, combined],
-
National Median
Household Income,
-
Gross Domestic
Product,
-
Percent of Change
in the GDP [difference in the GDP of this year from the GDP of the previous year],
-
Federal Budget
Deficit or Surplus [difference between total federal outlays versus total federal revenue for the year], and
-
National Debt
[total accumulated amount of national debt at year's end].
Since the results of a
President's policies cannot be
seen until typically a year after the policy has been issued, it is
fair to consider the first year of a President's first term to be the
continuation of the previous President's policies. Because the
numbers are presented straight across for the year, they are
presented as such in the first table set. I plan to go over the
second table to ensure that the numbers reflect the actual policies
effects by adjusting the data used. This means for the second table
set that I will use the first year of the next President as the last
year of the previous President instead. This will be a single year
forward moving offset of data points for the second table set only.
E.g.: for Jimmy Carter, sworn in 1977 and Ronald Reagan being sworn
in 1981, I will consider Reagan's first year to be Carter's last year
for the second table set only, thus Carter's policies span 1978-1981.
Reagan's policies will begin in 1982, one year after being sworn in.
I have tried to find and to
provide and to use multiple
independent reliable sources for each data point. I consider data
points for which different sources agree to be reliable.
Unfortunately, not all data points have an abundance of different
independent sources. The primary sources I have relied on most are
government agencies, such as the Congressional Budget Office, the US
Bureau of Labor, and the US Department of Commerce, among others. It
is important to note that for many of the other sources they also
rely on the same government agencies.
Defining
the Data Points
Here are some facts about the
numbers. While one or two
indicators separately are not reliable as applied to the office of
the President alone, here, I am using several indicators combined to
give a better view into the general impact of the policies of the
period. It is important to remember that rates like unemployment,
inflation and GDP growth are always going to have some level of
activity, but fluctuations and their severity can be analyzed.
Unemployment
Rate; this is the percentage of the
able-bodied
working age people over 16 years old in the U.S. who are not at some
time during the year employed. While some people use the monthly or
periodic estimates of the unemployment rate, the purpose is generally
for keeping track of the current rate. For the purposes of historic
analysis and comparison, I have used the annualized rates only. NOTE:
The month-to-month unemployment rate is a poor indicator of
anything more than the current rate, and the impact of those
unemployed for one, two or three months is nominal overall but the
annual average rate is a better indicator as prolonged unemployment
has a much more devastating effect on people.
Inflation
Rate; is the percent of decrease in
the purchasing
power of the dollar. This is fairly easy to apply to practical
personal experiences in that a 10% inflation equals a change in price for a specific product, from the same company,
from $1 in year XXXX to $1.10 in the following year. While the specific example may vary, the purchasing power of the dollar is calculated on the average, nationally, across the averages in multiple markets (cars, dairy, housing, gasoline, electronics, etcetera). That is that
generally things cost more to the consumer as each year passes. This is often
calculated using the CPI (Consumer Price Index) or the CPI and “GDP
deflator” combined.
National
Median Household Total Debt; when we
consider debt there are several things to look at, but most
importantly is to consider how a person's debt really affects him or
her. First, this is very different from the national debt, though
both really impact the average American. The household debt is more
personal and direct, while the national debt is the total debt owed
by the US to its creditors. The way national debt is paid is through
funds collected via taxes. Thus, the national debt necessarily means
a future need for higher taxes. Back to the household debt, however,
this can be owed by individuals separately but combined for the
household, or it may be held jointly by multiple members of the
household.
The two main categories of
household, or personal, debt
are “secured debt” and “unsecured debt”. I use the term
“total debt” here to mean the combination of both secured and
unsecured debt a person holds. Secured debt is the sort of debt that
comes from mortgages on houses and loans on cars. Unsecured debt
comes from credit card use, student loans, and borrowing money.
Secured debt is considered “secured” because there is a tangible
property that can be seized if the debtor defaults on the debt, of
which the creditor can sell off to recoup the debt. Unsecured debt,
however, is the sort of debt that if a debtor defaults the creditor
can only try to work out an agreement to be paid back, or in the
worse case sue for liens, etcetera, to try to recoup money.
One of the major difficulties
in creating this data
point for Table 1 is that most reliable sources tend to focus not on
solid dollar amounts but rather on household debt as a percent of
GPD, or as a percent of income. One source may talk about debt only
in mortgages, another in only car loans, and another only in credit
card debt. Another problem is that most sources seem to focus on a
couple of years, which leaves the majority of years in Table 1
unaccounted for. So, for the meantime this section of the table may
be left blank, but I will continue to work on getting more numbers.
National
Median Household Income; is the income
level for which
half of all people earn more and half of all people earn less. It is
difficult to figure out the best metric for evaluating the typical
income of the most people. An average income would be misleading as
it would add together the few highest and the many lowest and
disperse the total over the total number of people evenly. The
median, however, is a little flawed too in that it's is the mid point
between the highest earner and the lowest earner. It does not reflect
the typical wage, but it comes much closer than averaging does.
National Median Household Income means the typical middle-value of
the distribution of incomes for the whole nation, which is taken in
by all households. This means that it could include single-person
households, or families where both parents and teenage children all
work and thus contribute to the household income. Any conceivable
scenario can apply as it considers total income for a household
rather than any specific individual person. Overall, the importance
of the median income is that as it rises it indicates that the lower
half of earners are earning more.
Gross
Domestic Product; is a measure of the
total size of an
economy. The total market value of all products and services
produced in the course of the year, including the sum of the addition
of value to a product through its various stages is what is measured.
The GDP is “gross” as opposed to “net” which means all
investments but not returns, sale price but not production cost and
etc. GDP is calculated as C+I+G+NX=GDP, which is consumption (C) +
investment (I) + government spending (G) + net exports (NX, exports
made in the nation but not including parts imported for production
purposes) = GDP. Generally the economy is considered to be healthier
when the GDP grows by a significant amount. Persistent major slowing
of the growth rate of the GDP is often considered a depression, while
a recession is a temporary short-term slowing.
Percent
of
Change in GDP Growth; is a quick and
easy indicator to
the growth rate calculated as total GDP of year XXXX (latest year)
divided by the total GDP of year XXXY (previous year) = percent of
growth. (Example: $150 divided by $100 = 1.5 or 50%).
Historical analysis shows that there is an ideal spot for GDP growth, as when the GDP jumps significantly it is typically followed within a few years by a major crash in the markets. Additionally, as the total GDP grows overall, the percent of change which is ideal narrows to a range of smaller change. Think of this in terms of the scale of proportions, such as 10% of $10 is $1, but 10% of $1,000,000 is $100,000. This means that the percent of change long ago being a higher percent is still not as much money as a smaller percent in change today since the total GDP is so much greater than it was long ago. To achieve the same high percentage would require much more business productivity than it once required. The problem is that to meet the needs to create so much more actual GDP in order to have the same high percentages would require more than the markets can bare -- instead of, for example, 10 new businesses this year it would need to be 10,000 new businesses in this same year. After all, this is the percent in change in the GDP from the previous year, meaning at one time the GDP was $1,000,000 and today it's $18,000,000,000,000, (which is 18 thousand times more than one thousand times more than one million) for example.
The "good and steady" range is about 2% to 5% growth. When the GDP grows by less than 2% a recession is on the horizon, when it's less than 1% it's right in a recession. On the other hand, when the GDP grows by more than 5% in a year, predictably a crash is very likely to follow, it typically indicates prolific unscrupulous practices, such as the fraudulently signed subprime mortgages of 2004-2007 and "toxic debt" bundling for trading (trading packages of debts, from one holder [person owed money] to another holder, and the "toxic" was the debts that were likely to never be repaid). Think of it this way, when the growth in GDP is too high it means someone, or group, is probably manipulating the markets, building up values in order to sell-off, cashing in, on what they know will fall apart once out of their hands. The people are left holding the bag. When the GDP has negative growth, or is at 0%, that is a depression, not just a recession. Crashes can easily lead to a depression, such as the Black Monday & Black Tuesday Wall Street stock market crash of 1929 immediately preceded the 12 years long Great Depression. We had an actual depression in 2008 to 2010, and it was caused, largely, by the unscrupulous practices corresponding to the increases in GDP growth in the mid-2000s. Depressions are significantly more difficult to correct.
Federal
Budget Deficit or Surplus; this is the
amount of money
the government possessed for the purposes of funding the expenditures
planned under the federal budget created by the President’s office
and adjusted and approved by Congress. A deficit is an insufficient
amount of required funds available and usually causes the government
to borrow and add to the National Debt. A surplus is an amount of
money available in excess of the required funds for the budget.
Surpluses can be accumulated by the government each year and be used
to fund unexpected and unplanned expenditures in future or to pay-off
the National Debt.
National
Debt; is increased by the accumulation
of budget
deficits and is an outstanding amount of total borrowed money that
the government owes. Those entities that loaned money to the
government generally hold an interest stock in the government. That
means three things; (1) those loaning entities often charge a percent
of the loaned amount as interest, thus increasing the actual debt and
(2) that demands may be made by the loaning entities for
accommodations in such things as trade relations and (3) that such
loaning entities may assume control or ownership of some properties
or other assets in lieu of direct payments. The debt also grows with
adjustment for annual inflation.
All
monetary values reported in the following tables included here are
adjusted to be represented in 2014 dollar values for all years
preceding 2014.
Year
|
National Average
Unemployment Rate
|
Inflation Rate
CPI
Bundle,
GDP
Deflator
|
National
Median
Household
Total Debt
|
National
Median Household
Income
|
Gross Domestic Product
in
billions
of
dollars
|
Percent Change in GDP
from
year before
|
Fed. Budget Deficit (-)
or Surplus
in
billions of dollars
|
National Debt (-)
in
billions of dollars
|
John F. Kennedy
– Democrat
|
1961 #
|
6.70%
|
1%
|
|
|
$544
|
3.5%
|
-$1
|
-$288
|
1962
|
5.50%
|
1%
|
|
|
$585
|
7.5%
|
-$7
|
-$298
|
1963
|
5.70%
|
1%
|
|
|
$617
|
5.5%
|
-$5
|
-$305
|
Lyndon B. Johnson
– Democrat
|
1964
|
5.20%
|
1%
|
|
|
$663
|
7.4%
|
-$6
|
-$311
|
1965
|
4.50%
|
2%
|
|
|
$719
|
8.4%
|
-$1
|
-$317
|
1966
|
3.80%
|
3%
|
|
|
$787
|
9.5%
|
-$4
|
-$319
|
1967
|
3.80%
|
3%
|
|
|
$832
|
5.7%
|
-$9
|
-$326
|
1968
|
3.60%
|
4%
|
|
|
$910
|
9.3%
|
-$25
|
-$347
|
Richard M. Nixon
– Republican
|
1969 *
|
3.50%
|
5%
|
|
|
$984
|
8.2%
|
$3
|
-$353
|
1970
|
4.90%
|
6%
|
|
|
$1,030
|
5.5%
|
-$3
|
-$370
|
1971
|
5.90%
|
4%
|
|
|
$1,120
|
8.5%
|
-$23
|
-$398
|
1972
|
5.60%
|
3%
|
|
|
$1,230
|
9.9%
|
-$23
|
-$427
|
1973
|
4.90%
|
6%
|
|
|
$1,380
|
11.7%
|
-$15
|
-$458
|
1974 †
|
5.60%
|
11%
|
|
|
$1,500
|
8.5%
|
-$6
|
-$475
|
Gerald R. Ford
– Republican
|
1975
|
8.50%
|
9%
|
|
|
$1,630
|
9.2%
|
-$53
|
-$533
|
1976
|
7.70%
|
6%
|
|
|
$1,820
|
11.4%
|
-$74
|
-$620
|
Jimmy Carter
– Democrat
|
1977
|
7.10%
|
7%
|
|
|
$2,030
|
11.3%
|
-$54
|
-$698
|
1978
|
6.10%
|
8%
|
|
|
$2,290
|
13.0%
|
-$59
|
-$771
|
1979
|
5.80%
|
11%
|
|
|
$2,560
|
11.7%
|
-$41
|
-$826
|
1980 ^
|
7.10%
|
13%
|
|
|
$2,780
|
8.8%
|
-$74
|
-$907
|
Ronald W. Reagan
– Republican
|
1981
|
7.60%
|
10%
|
|
|
$3,120
|
12.2%
|
-$79
|
-$997
|
1982 **
|
9.70%
|
6%
|
|
|
$3,250
|
4.0%
|
-$128
|
-$1,140
|
1983
|
9.60%
|
3%
|
|
|
$3,530
|
8.7%
|
-$208
|
-$1,370
|
1984
|
7.50%
|
4%
|
|
$49,038
|
$3,930
|
11.2%
|
-$185
|
-$1,570
|
1985
|
7.20%
|
4%
|
|
$50,123
|
$4,220
|
7.3%
|
-$212
|
-$1,820
|
1986
|
7.00%
|
2%
|
|
$51,041
|
$4,460
|
5.7%
|
-$221
|
-$2,120
|
1987
|
6.20%
|
4%
|
|
$51,689
|
$4,730
|
6.2%
|
-$150
|
-$2,350
|
1988
|
5.50%
|
4%
|
|
$51,894
|
$5,100
|
7.7%
|
-$155
|
-$2,600
|
George H.W. Bush
(Sr.) – Republican
|
1989
|
5.30%
|
5%
|
|
$51,472
|
$5,480
|
7.5%
|
-$152
|
-$2,850
|
1990
|
5.60%
|
5%
|
|
$50,607
|
$5,800
|
5.8%
|
-$221
|
-$3,230
|
1991
|
6.80%
|
4%
|
|
$49,893
|
$5,990
|
3.3%
|
-$269
|
-$3,660
|
1992
|
7.50%
|
3%
|
|
$49,859
|
$6,330
|
5.7%
|
-$290
|
-$4,060
|
William J. Clinton
– Democrat
|
1993
|
6.90%
|
3%
|
|
$50,487
|
$6,650
|
5.0%
|
-$255
|
-$4,410
|
1994
|
6.10%
|
3%
|
|
$51,446
|
$7,070
|
6.2%
|
-$203
|
-$4,690
|
1995
|
5.60%
|
3%
|
|
$52,580
|
$7,390
|
4.6%
|
-$164
|
-$4,970
|
1996
|
5.40%
|
3%
|
|
$53,840
|
$7,810
|
5.7%
|
-$107
|
-$5,220
|
1997
|
4.90%
|
2%
|
|
$55,314
|
$8,300
|
6.2%
|
-$22
|
-$5,410
|
1998
|
4.50%
|
2%
|
|
$56,397
|
$8,740
|
5.3%
|
$69
|
-$5,520
|
1999
|
4.20%
|
2%
|
|
$56,419
|
$9,260
|
6.0%
|
$126
|
-$5,650
|
2000
|
3.97%
|
3%
|
$50,971
|
$55,759
|
$9,810
|
5.9%
|
$236
|
-$5,670
|
George W. Bush
(Jr.) – Republican
|
2001
|
4.70%
|
3%
|
|
$55,114
|
$10,100
|
3.2%
|
$127
|
-$5,800
|
2002
|
5.80%
|
2%
|
$56,395
|
$54,818
|
$10,400
|
3.4%
|
-$158
|
-$6,220
|
2003
|
6.00%
|
2%
|
|
$54,939
|
$10,900
|
4.7%
|
-$375
|
-$6,780
|
2004
|
5.50%
|
3%
|
$68,955
|
$55,214
|
$11,600
|
6.6%
|
-$521
|
-$7,370
|
2005
|
5.10%
|
3%
|
$71,333
|
$55,801
|
$12,400
|
6.4%
|
-$318
|
-$7,930
|
2006
|
4.61%
|
3%
|
|
$55,516
|
$13,100
|
6.1%
|
-$423
|
-$8,500
|
2007
|
4.64%
|
6%
|
|
$54,973
|
$13,800
|
5.3%
|
-$160
|
-$9,230
|
2008
|
5.80%
|
4%
|
|
$53,770
|
$14,700
|
1.7%
|
-$458
|
-$10,700
|
Barack H. Obama
– Democrat
|
2009
|
9.28%
|
1%
|
$72,862
|
$52,798
|
$14,418
|
-2.0%
|
-$1,412
|
-$12,311
|
2010
|
9.60%
|
2%
|
$74,619
|
$52,082
|
$14,964
|
3.8%
|
-$1,294
|
-$14,025
|
2011
|
8.30%
|
3%
|
$70,000
|
$51,847
|
$15,517
|
3.7%
|
-$1,299
|
-$15,222
|
2012
|
8.08%
|
2%
|
|
$52,605
|
$16,155
|
4.1%
|
-$1,086
|
-$16,432
|
2013
|
7.40%
|
1%
|
|
$54,462
|
$16,663
|
3.1%
|
-$679
|
-$17,351
|
2014
|
6.17%
|
2%
|
|
$53,657
|
$17,348
|
4.1%
|
-$484
|
-$18,141
|
2015 ^^
|
5.28%
|
0%
|
|
$53,482
|
$17,947
|
3.5%
|
-$438
|
-$18,922
|
2016 ++
|
4.90%
|
2%
|
$?
|
$53,482
|
$?
|
?%
|
$?
|
-$19,400
|
#
While 1960's
GDP isn’t listed here 1961’s percent of change in GDP from 1960
is given.
†
This year,
1974, Nixon resigned the Presidency, leaving after ¾ into the year,
and then Vice President Ford took over for the last ¼ of the year.
* All-time low unemployment rate is 3.5% for this
data
set (span of 55 years), in 1969.
** All-time high
unemployment rate is 9.7% for this
data set (span of 55 years), in 1982.
^ All-time high inflation rate is 13% for this
data set (span of 55
years), in 1980.
^^ All-time low inflation rate is 0.0% for this
data set (span of 55
years), in 2015,
++
For this
current year the data provided is up to date as of: 22 July, 2016.
The numbers represented by question marks are not at all available
yet. For the rest they are estimated and averaged up to the latest
update here. These numbers are estimated averages to date and
include: the current Unemployment Rate, the current National Debt,
and the current Inflation according to the CPI.
Analysis
of
trends found
in this table set.
If we compare the growth of the National Debt under
several Presidents a noticeable and telling trend develops. If we
take as the baseline the amount of total National Debt from the last
year of the previous President, we can see the amount of change
year-over-year. It is important to note that the National Debt
matters more than most people even realize. The fact is that our
nation's debt is essentially the money we, as taxpayers, owe to the
lenders who funded our government's budget shortcomings.
George
H.W. Bush (1989-1992)
1989 year ending: $2.6 trillion (1988 year's end)
rose
to $2.85 trillion, an increase of $250 billion.
1990 year ending: $2.85 trillion (1989 year's end)
rose
to $3.23 trillion, an increase of $380 billion.
1991 year ending: $3.23 trillion (1990 year's end)
rose
to $3.66 trillion, an increase of $430 billion.
1992 year ending: $3.66 trillion (1991 year's end)
rose
to $4.06 trillion, an increase of $400 billion.
We can say that under Bush the National Debt
increased
by the same amount as the increase in Reagan's last year, and by $130
billion more in his second year than it did in his first year.
Followed by $50 more in the 3rd year from the 2nd
year. And it rose by $30 less in his 4th year
than it did
in his 3rd year. The amount of annual change in
National
Debt was an average increase year-after-year of $37.5 billion more
than each previous year. This makes for an general steady upward
growth in the annual increase to the National Debt under George H.W.
Bush.
William
J. Clinton (1993-2000)
1993 year ending: $4.06 trillion (1992 year's end)
rose
to $4.41 trillion, an increase of $350 billion.
1994 year ending: $4.41 trillion (1993 year's end)
rose
to $4.69 trillion, an increase of $280 billion.
1995 year ending: $4.69 trillion (1994 year's end)
rose
to $4.97 trillion, an increase of $280 billion.
1996 year ending: $4.97 trillion (1995 year's end)
rose
to $5.22 trillion, an increase of $250 billion.
1997 year ending: $5.22 trillion (1996 year's end)
rose
to $5.41 trillion, an increase of $190 billion.
1998 year ending: $5.41 trillion (1997 year's end)
rose
to $5.52 trillion, an increase of $110 billion.
1999 year ending: $5.52 trillion (1998 year's end)
rose
to $5.65 trillion, an increase of $130 billion.
2000 year ending: $5.65 trillion (1999 year's end)
rose
to $5.67 trillion, an increase of $20 billion.
In Clinton's first year the National Debt increased
by
$50 billion less than it did in Bush's last year. In Clinton's second
year it increased by $70 billion less than it increased in his first
year. In his 3rd year it increased by the same
amount as
the previous year, and in his 4th year it
increased by $30
billion less than in his 3rd year. His 5th
year
saw an increase that was $60 billion less than the previous year, and
his 6th year the debt increased by $80 billion
less than
his 5th year. Unfortunately, in Clinton's 7th
year the National Debt increased by $20 billion more than it did the
year before. But, Clinton's final year saw the greatest savings on
increase to the National Debt, with $110 billion less increase than
in 1999. The trend that emerges is that year-after-year Clinton's
Presidency saw a steady decrease in how much the National Debt grew,
with it being a flat change in his 3rd year and
a slight
uptick in his 7th year, but followed in his 8th
year by a huge drop in how much the debt increased.
The annual average increase in growth if the
National
Debt for Bill Clinton was -$47.5 billion. This means that each year
the total amount, on average, of the increase in the National Debt
was $47.5 billion less than in each previous year. This would make a
steady downward growth in annual amount of increase to the National
Debt under William J. Clinton. The on average the annual growth in
the National Debt was $201 billion each year, though it was growing
by less each year. The obvious trend indicates that if Clinton's
administration had lasted longer the average annual growth of the
Debt would be less, and less the more the years went on.
If one were to plot a chart based on Clinton's
eight
years performance on National Debt, and if we imagine his economic
policies continuing unchanged, a conservative estimation would be to
say that a hypothetical 9th year would have seen
the same
increase as the 8th (just $20 billion). We can
further
speculate that a hypothetical 10th year would
likely have
seen no increase in the National Debt, and likely in an 11th
year it would have been a shrinking National Debt, perhaps by as much
as $50 billion less than in the 10th year. This
means we
can extrapolate out further, given the average decrease in the amount
of increase in the Debt by $47.5 billion each year. If Clinton's
policies had been maintained for another 8 years there's a good
chance the National Debt would have been $380 billion less than it
was in his actual last year (2000).
George
W. Bush (2001-2008)
2001 year ending: $5.67 trillion (2000 year's end)
rose
to $5.80 trillion, an increase of $130 billion.
2002 year ending: $5.80 trillion (2001 year's end)
rose
to $6.22 trillion, an increase of $420 billion.
2003 year ending: $6.22 trillion (2002 year's end)
rose
to $6.78 trillion, an increase of $560 billion.
2004 year ending: $6.78 trillion (2003 year's end)
rose
to $7.37 trillion, an increase of $590 billion.
2005 year ending: $7.37 trillion (2004 year's end)
rose
to $7.93 trillion, an increase of $560 billion.
2006 year ending: $7.93 trillion (2005 year's end)
rose
to $8.50 trillion, an increase of $570 billion.
2007 year ending: $8.50 trillion (2006 year's end)
rose
to $9.23 trillion, an increase of $730 billion.
2008 year ending: $9.23 trillion (2007 year's end)
rose
to $10.7 trillion, an increase of $1,470 billion.
We can see if we were to visualize a graph that
under
George W Bush the National Debt grew by $110 billion more in his
first year than it did the final year of Clinton. In Bush's second
year the Debt grew by $290 billion more than in his 1st
year, and it grew by $140 billion more in his 3rd
year
than in his second year. After three years of dramatic growth in the
rate of increase in our National Debt in Bush's 4th
year
it slowed in growth only increasing by $30 billion more than the
previous year. Following that, in Bush's 5th
year the
increase in the growth of the Debt was $30 billion less than in the
previous year, and in his 6th year that slight
downward
tick from the previous year switched when the rate of increase in the
growth of the National Debt came up by $10 billion more. Then, in
Bush's 7th year the rate of increase in Debt
growth jumped
back up by $160 billion more than in his 6th
year, and in
his final year the Debt grew by $340 billion more than in his 7th
year. So, Bush's rate of increase in the growth of the National Debt
over the course of his Presidency is a strong upward reversal from
Clinton's administration contributions to the Debt. Though over three
years in around the middle of his administration the rate of increase
plateaued, then dipped slightly, and then rose slightly – before it
spiked in his last two years.
Under George W Bush the National Debt doubled from
$5.67
trillion to $10.70 trillion, adding $5 trillion in just 8 years. This
can be compared to how the National Debt grew by only $1.6 trillion
under Bill Clinton's entire administration, which is a difference of
$3.4 trillion more under Bush. Moreover, with 4 straight years, in
the middle of Bush's administration of adding more than $550 billion
to the National Debt, in his first year it was only $130 billion, but
it was $1.47 trillion in his last year – more than eleven times
increased.
George Bush's annual average increase in growth of
the
National Debt was + $131 billion. Clinton's annual average increase
in growth of the National Debt, for comparison was just - $47.5
billion. The annual average increase in growth of the National Debt
means that each year, averaged over the term(s) of the President's
administration, the amount of increase in the National Debt was that
much more than it was the previous year.
Table Set 2.
Analysis
of Each Presidency
JOHN F. KENNEDY
Term: 3 3/4 years.
Avg. Budget
Deficit /Surplus: - $4.4 Bil.
Avg. Unemployment
Rate: 5.9% Tot.
Budget Deficit / Surplus: - $13.2 Bil.
Tot. Accrued Debt:
$25 Bil. Avg.
Inflation Rate: 1%
Tot. Growth of GDP:
$92 Bil. Tot.
Inflation: 3% (1963’s $1.03 equals 1960’s $1)
Tot. Percent of GDP
Growth: 16.5% Avg. Percent of GDP
Growth: 5.5%
LYNDON
JOHNSON
Term: 5 1/4 years.
Avg. Budget
Deficit /Surplus: - $9 Bil.
Avg. Unemployment
Rate: 4.18% Tot.
Budget Deficit / Surplus: - $45 Bil.
Tot. Accrued Debt:
$38 Bil. Avg.
Inflation Rate: 2.6%
Tot. Growth of GDP:
$293 Bil. Tot.
Inflation: 13% (1968’s $1.13 equals 1963’s $1)
Tot. Percent of GDP
Growth: 40.3% Avg. Percent of GDP
Growth: 8.06%
RICHARD M.
NIXON
Term: 5 3/4 years.
Avg. Budget
Deficit /Surplus: - $11.65 Bil.
Avg. Unemployment
Rate: 5.29% Tot.
Budget Deficit / Surplus: - $67 Bil.
Tot. Accrued Debt:
$138 Bil. Avg.
Inflation Rate: 6.09%
Tot. Growth of GDP:
$590 Bil. Tot.
Inflation: 35% (1974’s $1.35 equals 1968’s $1)
Tot. Percent of GDP
Growth: 52.3% Avg. Percent of GDP
Growth: 9.09%
GERALD FORD
Term: 2 1/4 years.
Avg. Budget
Deficit /Surplus: - $63.5 Bil.
Avg. Unemployment
Rate: 7.2% Tot.
Budget Deficit / Surplus: - $127 Bil.
Tot. Accrued Debt:
$159.5 Bil. Avg.
Inflation Rate: 7.5%
Tot. Growth of GDP:
$320 Bil. Tot.
Inflation: 15% (1976’s $1.15 equals 1974’s $1)
Tot. Percent of GDP
Growth: 20.6% Avg. Percent of GDP
Growth: 10.3%
JIMMY
CARTER
Term: 4 years. Avg.
Budget Deficit /Surplus: - $57
Bil.
Avg. Unemployment
Rate: 6.52% Tot. Budget Deficit /
Surplus: - $228 Bil.
Tot. Accrued Debt:
$287 Bil. Avg. Inflation
Rate: 9.75%
Tot. Growth of GDP:
$960 Bil. Tot. Inflation: 39%
(1980’s $1.39 equals 1976’s $1)
Tot. Percent of GDP
Growth: 44.8% Avg. Percent of GDP
Growth: 11.2%
RONALD
REAGAN
Term: 8 years. Avg.
Budget
Deficit /Surplus: - $167.25 Bil.
Avg. Unemployment
Rate: 7.54% Tot.
Budget Deficit / Surplus: - $1.34 TRILLION.
Tot. Accrued Debt:
$1.69
TRILLION Avg. Inflation Rate: 4.62%
Tot. Growth of GDP:
$2.32 TRIL. Tot.
Inflation: 37% (1988’s $1.37 equals 1980’s $1)
Tot. Percent of GDP
Growth: 63% Avg. Percent of GDP
Growth: 7.87%
GEORGE
H.W. BUSH
Term: 4 years. Avg.
Budget Deficit /Surplus: - $233
Bil.
Avg. Unemployment
Rate: 6.3% Tot. Budget Deficit /
Surplus: - $932 Bil.
Tot. Accrued Debt:
$1.46 TRIL. Avg. Inflation
Rate: 4.25%
Tot. Growth of GDP:
$1.23 TRIL. Tot. Inflation: 17%
(1992’s $1.17 equals 1988’s $1)
Tot. Percent of GDP
Growth: 22.3% Avg. Percent of GDP
Growth: 5.57%
WILLIAM J.
CLINTON
Term: 8 years. Avg.
Budget Deficit /Surplus: - $40
Bil.
Avg. Unemployment
Rate: 5.2% Tot. Budget Deficit /
Surplus: - $320 Bil.
Tot. Accrued Debt:
$1.26 TRIL. Avg. Inflation
Rate: 2.62%
Tot. Growth of GDP:
$3.48 TRIL. Tot. Inflation: 21%
(2000’s $1.21 equals 1992’s $1)
Tot. Percent of GDP
Growth: 44.9% Avg. Percent of GDP
Growth: 5.61%
GEORGE
W. BUSH
Term: 8 years. Avg.
Budget Deficit /Surplus: -
$278 Bil.
Avg. Unemployment
Rate: 5.28% Tot. Budget Deficit /
Surplus: - $1.67 TRIL.
Tot. Accrued Debt:
$5.03 TRIL. Avg. Inflation
Rate: 3.25%
Tot. Growth of GDP:
$4.89 TRIL. Tot. Inflation: 26%
(2008’s $1.26 equals 2000’s $1)
Tot. Percent of GDP
Growth: 37.4% Avg. Percent of GDP
Growth: 4.67%
BARACK
H. OBAMA (These
numbers are only up to July 2016, they will be different after 2017.)
Term: 7 ¾ years, so
far. Avg. Budget Deficit
/Surplus: - $836.5 Billion.
Avg. Unemployment
Rate: 7.4% Tot. Budget Deficit /
Surplus: - $6.692 Trillion.
Tot. Accrued Debt:
$8.7 Trillion. Avg. Inflation
Rate: 1.625%
Tot. Growth of GDP:
$3.247 Trillion. Tot. Inflation: 13%
(2016’s $1.13 equals 2008’s $1)
Tot. Percent of GDP
Growth: 20.3% Avg. Percent of GDP
Growth: 2.54%
HILLARY
CLINTON – or – DONALD
TRUMP ? (This is
a placeholder until
after 2017. As of: 23 October, 2016)
Term: 0 years, so
far. Avg. Budget Deficit
/Surplus: - $0.
Avg. Unemployment
Rate: 0% Tot. Budget Deficit /
Surplus: - $0
Tot. Accrued Debt:
$0 Trillion. Avg. Inflation Rate: 0%
Tot. Growth of GDP:
$0 Trillion. Tot. Inflation: 0%
(2017’s $0 equals 2016’s $1)
Tot. Percent of GDP
Growth: 0% Avg. Percent of GDP
Growth: 0%
Commentary
The importance
of considering
extemporaneous factors, and of considering the fact that policies set
by a President in his or her last term usually has a carry over
effect in the first year or two of the next President's term. Under
normal circumstances this effect can play some role in the numbers of
a new Presidency, but in some cases those policies of a previous
President can have far-reaching effects that may well stretch on for
even up to a decade. One such example of the far-reaching effects of
a previous President's policies can be seen beginning in 2007 and
reaching even to 2016. During the Bush administration some various
policies had a net negative affect on our economy.
Starting early
in George W Bush's
first term his policy of issuing refund checks to all Americans took
a federal budget surplus that was created by Bill Clinton and meant
to establish a cushion for the federal government to help pay down
the national debt and to provide for emergencies. The budget surplus
is somewhat like your 'rainy day fund'. If you set aside some money
after balancing the budget which is leftover from your income, you
can build up a fund. A surplus in the federal budget can be used in a
similar way. By having money stashed away 'just in case', when such
unpredictable and yet inevitable emergency expenditures arise there's
a buffer that can prevent raising the national debt.
Balanced budgets
also have some
affect on the morale of the marketplace, and on our nation's
creditors. A balanced budget leads to confidence that the government
can afford to do the things it is going to do anyway. A budget
surplus has a stronger morale-boosting effect. Because that surplus
can accumulate into a positive treasury balance, which not only makes
the government stronger for being able to fund emergency issues, but
also allays fears of default on debts. In fact, as with consumers,
the higher the debt and the more it grows the higher the interest
rates lenders begin charging, which in turn contributes more to
growing that debt.
So, Bush's
policies also had an
affect on the behavior of the markets, which inspired malpractices by
lenders, particularly regarding the subprime mortgage crisis and
credit swap defaults. These malpractices lead to a ballooning housing
market, but also set it up to necessarily burst. And burst it did
beginning in 2007. With, additionally, regulatory failures during the
Bush administration, the markets began suffering a severe confidence
problem and that only made the problem far, far, worse. Altogether
this was the Great Recession, in fact it was a sort of depression,
thought obviously not as bad as the Great Depression of the 1930s. It
takes some time to set up the massive failure, the crash happens
quickly, but the recovery necessarily also takes years to accomplish.
It took Franklin
D Roosevelt about a
decade to recover the economy from the Great Depression, and for
Obama it has taken his entire Presidency. Along with that recovery
comes a gigantic price tag. Unfortunately, Bush started trying to fix
the Great Recession with his one trillion dollar bailout package. The
cost of which, largely, shows up in Obama's first year. The Bush
Bailout also did not do nearly as much good as it was purported that
it would do. Fundamentally, Obama had zero choice in spending another
one trillion on an economic stimulus package. That Obama Stimulus was
far better designed, with the requirement that the corporations that
received federal funding under that plan to pay back what they got
once they were stable again. As of today most of that loan was paid
back. But, Obama did not just give money to corporations. About one
third of his Stimulus plan was allocated to the states to help them
locally boost their economies, with state governments investing their
portions into various programs as they saw fit. Another third of it
was allocated at the federal level to help create new jobs and to
help those most deeply impacted, including subsidizing homeowners who
would work to refinance their mortgages but also needed help. This
latter part really went a long way to cut short the massive mortgage
defaults and repossessions, and helped the economy by helping banks
to keep their customers in their homes and thus continuing to pay
mortgages. By loaning money to auto manufacturers and other
corporations Obama's plan was able to help stem the unemployment rate
by keeping them above water and not cutting more jobs.
The clear fact
that comes out of this
evidence is that despite some people feeling disappointed by Obama,
he actually has done a tremendous amount of good for America. The
reality is that his Presidency is really defined by recovery from a
terrible economic disaster. And it is that economic recovery that
Obama's legacy must be appreciated, because he was quite successful
in turning our terrible downward spiral in 2008 around and putting us
back on our feet. In fact, the effects of the 2007 Great Recession is
still lingering, the aftereffects still haunt us, but thanks to
Obama's policies and efforts we are most certainly better off today
than we were in 2008. Most Americans are fairing better economically
today. Most Americans are not in as bad a shape as they were eight
years ago, and overall our economy is growing better and getting
stronger.
Despite Reagan’s
tremendous
borrowing to try to grow the GDP we see a demonstration of an
interesting phenomenon. While Reagan increased the GDP according to
his much touted “Trickle Down Economics” he increased it less
than Clinton did without using that approach. Also Reagan added much
more national debt while Clinton’s approach added significantly
less debt. Reagan’s plan only worked for big business, as
indicated by the contrast between the increased GDP while his term
saw a seriously higher unemployment rate average combined with
dramatically more devaluation of the dollar. All-in-all, Reagan’s
“Trickle-Down” plan proved to be a very inefficient approach.
Thirty years on, we can say that it has actually been quite
disastrous. Wage stagnation has become commonplace while prices keep
rising, and in some cases skyrocket, such as with healthcare and
education. Trickle-Down economics allows the wealthiest to horde
money while not carrying their weight in the social contract. This
leaves the middle class shrinking and struggling. Those leaving the
middle class are not, by and large, moving up, but are rather moving
down in economic status. This growing wealth gap goes hand in hand
with the wage stagnation and ever increasing prices.
Reagan also has
the distinction of
having some extreme numbers not matched by any other president as
explained here.
-
The
highest unemployment rate 9.7% followed by 9.6% in the next year.
Barack Obama had the next highest rate at 9.6% also.
-
The
most debt added to the national debt. Though it is speculated that
George W Bush may exceed that. But those numbers are not yet published
in any searchable authentic material.
-
The
most “out-of-control” federal budget, having the most deficit of any
president.
-
Reagan
is also the first president to make the national debt exceed one
trillion dollars.
-
He
is also only one of three presidents, out of the nine listed here, to
see an inflation rate in the “double-digits”.
To properly
understand Clinton’s
presidency we must take a serious look at several issues. What is
the story the numbers are trying to tell us? I will, here, enumerate
the particular points that should be considered.
-
While
this president’s average unemployment rate was 5.2% for his entire
term, we can see a linear decline in the unemployment rate. Reaching
back to the last year of Bush’s term, which ended with 7.5%
unemployment rate and Clinton started his term with 6.9%. The nation’s
unemployment rate declined significantly each year, never increasing or
stagnating and his presidency ended with a rate of 4.0% an overall
improvement of 2.9%. This suggests, since a clear pattern is evident,
that among other things the improvement is probably due to programs
instituted by this president.
-
Also
Clinton’s first year saw the highest unemployment rate of his
presidency, which was itself down significantly from the last year of
his predecessor’s term. That high rate clearly seems to be an inherited
legacy of the previous president’s term in office.
-
Much
like the unemployment rate decline, Clinton also vigorously pursued the
reversal of the federal budget deficit. This is also evident in the
pattern, in which each year the budget deficit became less and less,
until ’98, in which the first budget surplus was established since
1969, and thereafter the budget surplus grew each year. And though we
see his total deficit was $320 billion, it is in reality less because
the surplus created by Clinton was given as a legacy to Bush Jr., which
was recorded as the first year of Bush’s term. Accounting for this
fact, we adjust his budget deficit to credit him properly. So his total
deficit for all 8 years is only $193 billion and thus his annual
average budget deficit is lowered to $24.12 billion. This is
justifiable as Bush’s first year was his only with a surplus and at
that it was a lower surplus than Clinton’s last year. So Clinton is the
only president in 29 years to actually balance the federal budget.
-
The Gross Domestic Product gained more in
Clinton’s 8 years than in any other president’s term (including
Reagan’s $2.32 trillion when adjusted for inflation). Now I will grant
that when adjusted it is only a difference of about $100 billion, but
the point is that the increase of the GDP is a good thing for our
economy. Source: http://www.bls.gov/bls/inflation.htm,
just enter $232 (Reagan’s amount) and his last year 1988, then enter
Clinton’s last year 2000.
-
When
adjusted for inflation Clinton’s term accumulated less national debt
then either Bush or Reagan.
-
After
Lyndon Johnson and John Kennedy, Clinton’s term had a very low currency
inflation rate. And unlike most of the other presidents (except
Kennedy) Clinton also had a very steady inflation rate.
-
Additionally
each year of Clinton’s term saw a fairly significant growth rate in the
Gross Domestic Product. The growth rate remained fairly steady from
year to year, which is better than a “boom” year (or two) because
shortly afterward a drastic “down-swing” year (or two) is seen. It does
not matter if the following year is at a “medium” or “good” growth rate
if it is a few percent less, because the effect on the businesses is
that they may have planned on the higher rate and thus become
over-extended.
-
The
accumulation of national debt also declined under Clinton. The annual
contribution of debt to our National Debt was; for the year 1993 +$35
Bil; ’94 = +$ 28 Bil; ’95 = +$28 Bil; ’96 = +$25 Bil; ’97 = +$19 Bil;
’98 = +$11 Bil; ’99 = +$13 Bil; ’00 = +$2 Bil. Apart from a brief
“level-out” in 1995 (same amount as previous year) and a “bump” upward
by a small amount in 1999, followed by a dramatic drop in the next
year, the decline in the growth of the National Debt was fairly steady
year-after-year. The average annual decrease in National Debt
accumulation was about 4.13 billion dollars, this means that the
National Debt grew each year by 4.13 billion dollars less than each
previous year. The National Debt as a “runaway train” was coming to a
stop and was destined to be in decline. We see that if Clinton’s
policies had been as vigorously pursued by the next president the
following year (2001) would have seen either no additional debt or a
negative debt growth (i.e.: actually starting to pay-off the debt). If
the next president had pursued his budget plan we would likely have a
high budget surplus. We would also, just now, be starting to see the
national debt being paid-off. The thing to remember is that the
accumulation of national debt is rather like a runaway freight train,
first we must apply the brakes and it is going to take some time before
it comes to a stop. This means that to actually pay-off our debt we
need several presidents who are willing to cooperate for the good of
our nation.
Bush squandered
the budget surplus
created by Clinton and returned the government to serious budget
deficits and record-setting national debt growing. Unemployment
increased to 4.7% from 4.0% after 8 straight years of steady
improvement that immediately preceded Bush’s term. Then it
increased the next year to 5.8% and again a year later peaking at
6.0%.
For further
reading on issues
discussed in this abstract:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis
On George W
Bush’s Economic
Policies.
During his first
term, George W. Bush
sought and obtained Congressional approval for tax cuts: the Economic
Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001; and the Job
Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002; and the Jobs and Growth
Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. These acts increased the child
tax credit and eliminated the so-called "marriage penalty."
Complexity was increased with new categories of income taxed at
different rates and new deductions and credits, however; at the same
time, the number of individuals subject to the alternative minimum
tax increased since it had remained unchanged.
Facing
opposition in Congress for an
initially proposed $1.6 trillion tax cut, Bush held town hall-style
public meetings across the nation in 2001 to increase public support
for it. Bush and some of his economic advisers argued that unspent
government funds should be returned to taxpayers. With reports of the
threat of recession from Alan Greenspan, the then Federal Reserve
Chairman, Bush argued that such a tax cut would stimulate the economy
and create jobs. Economists, including the Treasury Secretary at the
time Paul O'Neill and ten Nobel prize laureates who contacted Bush in
2003, opposed the tax cuts on the grounds that they would fail as a
growth stimulus, increase inequality and worsen the budget outlook
considerably. In the end, five Senate Democrats crossed party lines
to join Republicans in approving a $1.35 trillion tax cut program —
one of the largest in U.S. history.
Economic growth.
While the
economy had continued to
grow under the Bush administration, that growth was below average in
comparison to the average for business cycles between 1949 and 2000.
Overall real GDP had grown at an average annual rate of 2.5%. Between
2001 and 2005, GDP growth was clocked at 2.8%, 17.6% below average,
while GDI (Gross Domestic Income) growth was 36% below average. The
number of jobs created grew by only 6.5%, 28.5% below the average
growth rate of 9.1%. The growth in average salaries was less than
half as usual; 1.2% versus 2.7%, respectively. While growth in
consumer spending was 72% faster than growth in income, it too had
“failed to keep pace with the... average of previous cycles.”
Only investment residential real-estate soared, growing 26% faster
than average.
What we should
remember is that rapid
growth in real-estate investments leading up to 2007. It was toward
the end of 2007 that the US economy suffered a severe recession. That
severe recession that some economists characterized as a depression
in reality. The central problem that caused the severe recession was
wild real-estate investments built largely on the back of “sub-prime”
mortgages – in which, unscrupulous brokers had forged signatures;
loaned to people far above their income-based capability to pay the
loans; falsified thousands of mortgage documents claiming many
consumers earned far more income than they actually did in order to
obtain profitable loans. Many of the mortgages were packaged as debt
securities which were traded on the markets. Those “toxic” debt
securities were traded, with each investor making a profit on
essentially worthless packages until the housing crisis left the last
investor holding the bag. Those sub-prime mortgages were one among
many problematic issues in the credit and securities markets that
caused a crisis. Importantly, the numerous problems that caused the
little depression of 2008 took advantage of the market environment
fostered by Bush's economic policies.
Income
inequality.
Many economists
are critical of the
Bush administration's policies and argue that the economy is only
benefiting the wealthy, increasing inequality between the top 1% and
the rest of society. Economists Aviva Aron-Dine and Richard Sherman
point to recent CBO (Congressional Budget Office) data showing that
"the average after-tax income of the richest one percent of
households rose from $722,000 in 2003 to $868,000 in 2004, after
adjusting for inflation, a one-year increase of nearly $146,000, or
20 percent. This increase was the largest increase in 15 years,
measured both in percentage terms and in real dollars."
According to economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty, in 2005,
the top 1% received its largest share of gross income since 1928.
The evidence is
clear that 30 years
of “Trickle Down Economics” policies has failed Americans. One
thing to consider is what we see compare the average household income
over a century. The average American worker earned a median annual
income of $36,662 in 2007.[1] In 1906 in America the average
household annual income was $835. While it may seem at first glance
that in over 100 years there has been a tremendous growth in the
median annual income, the fact is that median income is far worse
today. What we must take into account is inflation, which causes the
purchasing power of the dollar to weaken. Cost of living goes up, yet
wages have failed to keep pace. Adjusting for inflation if the
average worker was earning the same median wage it would now be
$94,000 annually, with a purchasing power relative of $47,900.[2]
NOTES:
[1] This average
worker median income
is based on those 16 years and older, working full-time, year-round,
in all fields, combining the median for men and the median for women,
then dividing by half.
[2]
https://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/uscompare/relativevalue.php
Tax cuts.
The Bush
administration lowered the
top marginal tax rate from 39.6% to 35%, at an average annual cost of
$400 billion. The administration has stated that the tax cuts have
spurred economic growth, while critics have charged that growth in
GDP, paid jobs, and income has remained below average. The tax cuts
have been largely opposed by American economists, including the Bush
adminitration's own Economic Advisement Council. In 2003, 450
economists, including ten Nobel Prize laureate, signed the
Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts, sent to President
Bush stating that "these tax cuts will worsen the long-term
budget outlook... will reduce the capacity of the government to
finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments
in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research... [and]
generate further inequalities in after-tax income." The Bush
administration has claimed, based on the concept of the Laffer Curve,
that the tax cuts actually paid for the themseleves by generating
enough extra revenue from additional economic growth to offset the
lower taxation rates. In contrast to the claims made by Bush, Cheney,
and Republican presidential primary candidates such as Rudy Giuliani,
there is a broad consensus among even conservative economists
(including current and former top economists of the Bush
Administration such as Greg Mankiw) that the tax cuts have had a
substantial net negative impact on revenues (i.e., revenues would
have been substantially higher if the tax cuts had not taken place),
even taking into account any stimulative effect the tax cuts may have
had and any resulting revenue feedback effects. Even Laffer, who
popularized the idea that a tax cut might pay for itself, is
skeptical that the Bush tax cuts have actually generated more revenue
than they have lost.
In terms of
increasing inequality,
the effect of Bush's tax cuts on the upper, middle and lower class is
contentious. Some observers argue that the cuts have benefited the
nation's most wealthy households at the expense of the middle and
lower class, while conservatives have claimed the exact opposite.
Inflation-adjusted median household income has been flat while the
nation's poverty rate has increased. Economists Peter Orzsag and
William Gale described the Bush tax cuts as reverse government
redistribution of wealth, "[shifting] the burden of taxation
away from upper-income, capital-owning households and toward the
wage-earning households of the lower and middle classes."
Federal Budget
Deficit.
The On-Budget
surplus in 2000 was $86
billion. A combination of tax cuts and spending initiatives has added
over $2.3 trillion to the national debt since then. The annual
On-Budget deficit for 2006 was $434 billion. Most debt was
accumulated as a result of tax cuts and increased national security
spending. According to economists Richard Kogan and Matt Fiedler,
"the largest costs — $1.2 trillion over six years — resulted
from the tax cuts enacted since the start of 2001. Increased spending
for defense, international affairs, and homeland security —
primarily for prosecuting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — also
was quite costly, amounting to almost $800 billion to date. Together,
tax cuts and the spending increases for these security programs
account for 84 percent of the increases in debt racked up by Congress
and the President over this period.”
ALBERT “AL” GORE
Jr.: (a
speculation).
Al Gore was the
Vise President to President Bill Clinton for his entire presidency.
While we can only speculate on what kind of a president Gore would
have been, it seems fairly obvious that he would have continued in
his footsteps, at least to a decent degree. Based on the $4.13
billion average annual decline in the accumulation of National Debt
that Clinton achieved we can imagine that under Gore the national
debt would have not grown at all in 2001. And by now the National
Debt would $28.88 billion dollars less than in 2001. That means
under Al Gore our National Debt would likely be $5.38 trillion in
2007 unlike under George W Bush as it is now $9.19 trillion. Now,
conservatives like to talk a lot about the idea that the National
Debt can be paid-off by future generations and they say that the debt
is good so long as some (realistically vague and disputable) good for
our nation is being achieved with it. But let’s look at paying-off
the National Debt in the daylight of reality. For the first time in
about 40 years the growth of the National Debt was slowing down and
on a real path to being paid-off. Assuming that no future presidents
tampered with Clinton’s economic policies the National Debt would
be paid-off in full by the year 3303 CE, 1,302 years after 2001! That
is, of-course, assuming that each year only $4.13 billion is
going to pay-off the Debt, clearly new economic policies would have
needed to be implemented. It would only need to be a simple policy,
that could have been easily affordable by now, of assigning more
money to the debt pay-off. This policy could have even been a
“stepped-payment” program, say something like from $4.13 billion
annually up-to $7.65 billion annually for about 4 years. Then up-to
$12.02 billion for another 4 years and then to $19.40 billion for 4
more years and then perhaps we could up it to $26.58 billion per year
for the next 4 years. Then increase again to $32.36 billion for the
final 8 years. With this idea it the debt would be completely
paid–off by the year 2029 CE! This would be a 28 year plan as
opposed to a 1,302 year plan! These are only my own numbers,
provided for the sake of giving an idea of how this could be done.
Another important thing to understand is that while amortizing (which
only means paying in installments and does not imply directly giving
the debt to future generations, unlike the way Mr. Falconi used it)
the national debt we could easily increase the budget surplus. This
means creating a reserve budget fund, that as it grows stronger would
greatly improve the government’s ability to handle just about any
surprise without assuming more debt.
The budget
surplus created by
Clinton, if it had been perpetuated by his successor, would likely be
at about $762 billion by the end of this year! The average decline
in the deficit and addition to the surplus per year was about $65.75
billion dollars. And the total improvement in dollars for his 8
years of actual budget balancing was $526 billion. This surplus
would increase, if future presidents continued Clinton’s economic
policies from the 8 years following Clinton, to about $2.14 Trillion.
Imagine that! Using Clinton’s economic policies, only adjusting
the debt amortization rate to completely pay the debt off by 2029, at
the same time that America became debt-free the federal budget
surplus would be $2.14 Trillion! That would be a strong America. But
this is only my imagination of how things should be, reality is
sadly very dismally different. I also know that there are to be
expected over time too many variables that render this speculation
almost useless. The only reason it is not entirely pointless is that
if one thinks about it one can create a realistic economic policy
that can achieve such good for America.
TAXES; Confusing
“tax rate” with
“taxable income”.
It appears that
many conservatives
have a completely misinformed, or uninformed, view of the reality of
taxes in America. This seems to likely come from the deliberate
misleading representation of the facts by certain politically
motivated media outlets.
In forums on the
internet a person
claimed the tax rate was above 90% before Reagan, and America had the
ride of a lifetime.
The person I
replied to cited a
source for a supposed “90% tax”. The source is:
http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal%20Tax%20Brackets.pdf
Apparently
what that document says is "percent of annual income taxed",
which is NOT the same as a tax rate. What that meant was that for
people earning more than $400,000 annually 91% of their income was
the base for which the tax was applicable. In other words they did
NOT pay 91% of their income, but rather that they could be taxed on
91% of their income. If you earned $400,001 you would thus pay taxes
on $364,000.19. (That by-the-way was the highest in the 1960s.)
So
that there is the "maximum taxable income" (the amount of
income allowed to be taxed on. It sets aside the difference as an
amount of one's income that is not to be considered taxable. Think
"deductions".)
And there is the "tax rate",
which is the percent of the taxable income paid as a tax.
So
if you earned $400,001, in 1960 (and filed jointly as married), you
would pay (let's just say 45%) tax rate on $364,000.19. Which would
be $163,800.09 (rounding up to the nearest penny) paid to the IRS.
Clearly you can see that that is NOT 90% of your income.
Realistically, if you earned $400,001 in a year, you pay your taxes
and have $236,200.91 that you keep. That's 59% of your income you
keep, not 9%. Now remember that's in the 1960s and that's assuming
the worst case scenario. Honestly, most people would have paid MUCH
less than that, in the same bracket.
Citation
of
Sources
Further reading on each President found in this
analysis;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ford
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
Further reading on how monetary inflation works;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation
For unemployment rates by year;
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm
For the Budget Deficit / Surplus, by year;
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/browse.html
select “Summary Tables PDF”
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/browse.html
select “Summary Tables PDF”
www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=5163&type=0&sequence=0
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
select
table 1.1 Summaries PDF
For National Debt, by year;
U.S. Department of Justice, Department of The
Treasury
www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm
(select; 2000 – 2006 & 1950 – 1999)
For the Gross Domestic Product, by year;
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic
Analysis
www.bea.gov/azindex/index.htm
(Select; “H”,
“current-dollar
and real GDP” downloadable .xls type file.)
For the Percent of Change in GDP from previous
year,
each year;
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic
Analysis
www.bea.gov/azindex/index.htm
(select; “H”, “percent change from preceding
period” downloadable .xls type file.)
For inflation rates, by year;
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
http://www.bls.gov/bls/inflation.htm
(select; “CPI
inflation
calculator”)
Input $1, then select the starting year and the
following year (for example: $1 / 1960 / 1961. The result being the
value of $1 in 1960 equals $1.01 in 1961).
Just for the fun of learning how to calculate a GDP;
www.brazosport.cc.tx.us/~econ/arch/GDPcalc.html
For
National Median Household Total Debt
https://www.census.gov/people/wealth/files/Debt%20Highlights%202011.pdf
For
National Median Household Income
1:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
2:
ftp://ftp2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/techdocs/cpsmar14.pdf
3:
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-income-households.html
4:
(for 2013 and 2014) –
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-252.pdf