Aa
Facts show Dems are job creators
I delivered the faculty graduation address last weekend at the University of California, Berkeley’s Goldman School of Public Policy. It’s one of the nation’s best and the reason is its emphasis on rigorous data analysis. Any public policy wonk worth her salt must be focused on data in order to replicate policy successes.
So if we all agree that the nation’s biggest problem is a lack of jobs, we should entrust a respected nonpartisan policy source to examine the economic data, right? The policy analysis should review which laboratory was most successful in creating jobs over a sustained period.
And then we should emulate those policies, right?
If Republican tax cuts create more jobs than Democratic investment, by all means let’s cut taxes! If Republican financial deregulation creates more jobs than Democratic consumer protection, then go ahead, deregulate away!
Which is exactly why the data from Bloomberg’s BGOV Barometer last week will shock many people. Bloomberg studied the past 50 years of U.S. job creation, under Democratic and Republican presidents. The facts: For the near half-century following the Kennedy administration, Democrats created nearly twice as many private-sector jobs as Republicans. Even though Democrats held the presidency for only 23 years compared with 28 years of Republican rule.
Private-sector payrolls increased by 42 million jobs under Democratic administrations, and 24 million under Republican ones. That’s an average of 150,000 new paychecks a month under Democrats and 71,000 per month under Republicans.
Let’s look at some other indicators. How about investing in the stock market? Again, Bloomberg analyzed the data. Investing $1,000 in a hypothetical fund that tracks the Standard & Poor’s 500 index over the past 50 years would have returned $10,920 when Democrats held the White House. The return when Republicans were in power? $2,087.
Annualized returns were 11 percent for the Democrats, 2.7 percent for the Republicans.
What about gross domestic product growth? Through 2008, real GDP grew faster under Democratic administrations — 4.1 percent to 2.7 percent for the GOP.
Income growth? Under Democrats, the real median income over the past 50 years grew at 2.2 percent. Republicans? 0.6 percent.
Number of Americans in poverty? By now you see the pattern. The poverty rate declined under President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society programs from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent by 1970.
A more recent example compares Bill Clinton with George W. Bush. Under Clinton, Americans living in poverty decreased by nearly 20 percent. Under Bush, this number rose by 21 percent.
When President Barack Obama took office, he inherited an economy that was losing an average of 750,000 jobs a month. As of April, private-sector jobs have now recovered to the number we had when he started. That’s 4.2 million jobs in the past 26 months.
So why the high unemployment rate? Largely because of public-sector job cuts — most in states that saw new GOP governors and legislatures elected in 2010 slash budgets for teachers, public safety and other service functions. Without these cuts, the Labor Department estimates our unemployment rate would be at 7.1 percent. Not the 8.1 percent it’s at now.
Under Bush, we experienced the most tepid job growth in eight decades — a dismal 2 percent over his two terms. When Mitt Romney says that Obama “isn’t working,” he neglects to mention that the Romney economic policies — more tax cuts, more deregulation, more cuts to government, the typical policy positions of the GOP for the past 50 years — have been described as “Bush on steroids.” What part of that suggests that Romney’s solutions would fare any better?
I can hear the right’s reaction now: The Bloomberg studies are too broad! Or the Labor Department numbers are too narrow! Bloomberg needs to account for geopolitical events! Whatever.
Believe me, I understand one’s gut desire to defend one’s party — even in the face of bad facts. Been guilty of it myself.
Eventually, however, individual excuses wear thin when you put together all the objective evidence. Concentrating wealth in the hands of the few and deregulating financial institutions and practices lead to speculative bubbles that eventually burst — and that brings the whole country down.
“In God we trust,” one often repeated maxim says, “all others bring data.” It’s too bad data often have no bearing on which policies get proposed or adopted. I hope that future public policy students don’t throw their hands up in dismay as they witness reflexive dismissal of jobs data from many on the far right.
Or maybe they should just become accountants — at least numbers don’t lie.
Jennifer Granholm is the former governor of Michigan, serving from 2003 to 2011. She is now host of “The War Room” on Current TV. She is also a visiting public policy and law professor at the University of California, Berkeley.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=F7EA59CC-CC7E-483E-AF96-16E5675A8555
So if we all agree that the nation’s biggest problem is a lack of jobs, we should entrust a respected nonpartisan policy source to examine the economic data, right? The policy analysis should review which laboratory was most successful in creating jobs over a sustained period.
And then we should emulate those policies, right?
If Republican tax cuts create more jobs than Democratic investment, by all means let’s cut taxes! If Republican financial deregulation creates more jobs than Democratic consumer protection, then go ahead, deregulate away!
Which is exactly why the data from Bloomberg’s BGOV Barometer last week will shock many people. Bloomberg studied the past 50 years of U.S. job creation, under Democratic and Republican presidents. The facts: For the near half-century following the Kennedy administration, Democrats created nearly twice as many private-sector jobs as Republicans. Even though Democrats held the presidency for only 23 years compared with 28 years of Republican rule.
Private-sector payrolls increased by 42 million jobs under Democratic administrations, and 24 million under Republican ones. That’s an average of 150,000 new paychecks a month under Democrats and 71,000 per month under Republicans.
Let’s look at some other indicators. How about investing in the stock market? Again, Bloomberg analyzed the data. Investing $1,000 in a hypothetical fund that tracks the Standard & Poor’s 500 index over the past 50 years would have returned $10,920 when Democrats held the White House. The return when Republicans were in power? $2,087.
Annualized returns were 11 percent for the Democrats, 2.7 percent for the Republicans.
What about gross domestic product growth? Through 2008, real GDP grew faster under Democratic administrations — 4.1 percent to 2.7 percent for the GOP.
Income growth? Under Democrats, the real median income over the past 50 years grew at 2.2 percent. Republicans? 0.6 percent.
Number of Americans in poverty? By now you see the pattern. The poverty rate declined under President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society programs from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent by 1970.
A more recent example compares Bill Clinton with George W. Bush. Under Clinton, Americans living in poverty decreased by nearly 20 percent. Under Bush, this number rose by 21 percent.
When President Barack Obama took office, he inherited an economy that was losing an average of 750,000 jobs a month. As of April, private-sector jobs have now recovered to the number we had when he started. That’s 4.2 million jobs in the past 26 months.
So why the high unemployment rate? Largely because of public-sector job cuts — most in states that saw new GOP governors and legislatures elected in 2010 slash budgets for teachers, public safety and other service functions. Without these cuts, the Labor Department estimates our unemployment rate would be at 7.1 percent. Not the 8.1 percent it’s at now.
Under Bush, we experienced the most tepid job growth in eight decades — a dismal 2 percent over his two terms. When Mitt Romney says that Obama “isn’t working,” he neglects to mention that the Romney economic policies — more tax cuts, more deregulation, more cuts to government, the typical policy positions of the GOP for the past 50 years — have been described as “Bush on steroids.” What part of that suggests that Romney’s solutions would fare any better?
I can hear the right’s reaction now: The Bloomberg studies are too broad! Or the Labor Department numbers are too narrow! Bloomberg needs to account for geopolitical events! Whatever.
Believe me, I understand one’s gut desire to defend one’s party — even in the face of bad facts. Been guilty of it myself.
Eventually, however, individual excuses wear thin when you put together all the objective evidence. Concentrating wealth in the hands of the few and deregulating financial institutions and practices lead to speculative bubbles that eventually burst — and that brings the whole country down.
“In God we trust,” one often repeated maxim says, “all others bring data.” It’s too bad data often have no bearing on which policies get proposed or adopted. I hope that future public policy students don’t throw their hands up in dismay as they witness reflexive dismissal of jobs data from many on the far right.
Or maybe they should just become accountants — at least numbers don’t lie.
Jennifer Granholm is the former governor of Michigan, serving from 2003 to 2011. She is now host of “The War Room” on Current TV. She is also a visiting public policy and law professor at the University of California, Berkeley.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=F7EA59CC-CC7E-483E-AF96-16E5675A8555
I agree it's a mess in large part because of corporations and politicians, but I also believe that individuals played a role as well. a smaller one albeit, not just in CA but everywhere. And I was quoting Jerry Brown when he indicated that it was in part, "the people's fault".
I don't live in CA, I live in TX, so yes I have heard of Enron. I have friends who worked for Enron who lost a huge part of their savings when Enron closed its doors. (being polite here).
The intent of my post was simply to refute the point of the article - CA has been under both democratic and republican governers for over a decade, and has not fared any better under a democrat than a republican. In MY Opinion.
I don't need a lecture about the collapse of the housing market and who is to blame - everyone is to blame. Some to a greater extent than others. I can list both the general and specific culprits, but this post would get painfully long.
I'm glad you're not struggling, but so many people are leaving CA because it has gotten too expensive to live there, and they don't have a choice in the matter.
I wasn't around when Jerry was governor in the 70's, but from what I've read he was well liked. Different time, different Jerry.
I live in California and the economy is not a mess because of the people.
It's the corporations who all the politicians have bowed under to and are now working for.
Have you heard of the Enron fiasco?
It's not the people struggling to get by.
The banks lied, are fraudulently foreclosing on people and yet Brown dares to blame it on the people living beyond their means
Give me a break.
Look at what Chase just lost !
I liked Brown when he was governor the first time around. Not anymore.
It's the corporations who all the politicians have bowed under to and are now working for.
Have you heard of the Enron fiasco?
It's not the people struggling to get by.
The banks lied, are fraudulently foreclosing on people and yet Brown dares to blame it on the people living beyond their means
Give me a break.
Look at what Chase just lost !
I liked Brown when he was governor the first time around. Not anymore.
Let's look at this in the micro sense for a moment.
I find it humorous that this speech was given at a University in California - the 40 billion dollar in debt California - the one with the democrat Governor Jerry Brown of California. And I don't doubt that alot of folks would like to blame Arnie for California's current woes, but hell, even Jerry Brown doesn't do that - In his most recent address, he was very blunt about the good people of CA "kicking the can down the road", and spending outside of their means. For years. Go back to Gray Davis - CA was billions of dollars in debt then - with yet another democrat Governor.
My point - California is the most populous state in the nation, and it's debt has increased exponentially; it's unemployment rate has increased, current jobs are going to be cut at an ever increasing rate, with no relief in sight.
The above article in MY opinion, was such a mish mash of figures, it was difficult to decipher. Just my opinion.
And now I am off to buy my #14 Welder's lenses that I have on hold and wait for the eclipse.
I find it humorous that this speech was given at a University in California - the 40 billion dollar in debt California - the one with the democrat Governor Jerry Brown of California. And I don't doubt that alot of folks would like to blame Arnie for California's current woes, but hell, even Jerry Brown doesn't do that - In his most recent address, he was very blunt about the good people of CA "kicking the can down the road", and spending outside of their means. For years. Go back to Gray Davis - CA was billions of dollars in debt then - with yet another democrat Governor.
My point - California is the most populous state in the nation, and it's debt has increased exponentially; it's unemployment rate has increased, current jobs are going to be cut at an ever increasing rate, with no relief in sight.
The above article in MY opinion, was such a mish mash of figures, it was difficult to decipher. Just my opinion.
And now I am off to buy my #14 Welder's lenses that I have on hold and wait for the eclipse.
So, only democrats are hiring people? Great study... wish this was on paper.
If you want to point fingers (which I wasn’t), fine point fingers. But at least be fair about it. If you want to blame Bush for the Crash, then Blame Bush for the Crash. But if you are going to Blame Bush, please be balanced enough to Blame “Yes We Can” Obama for the poor recovery.
Before the barrage of excuses hit, I agree with Teko “Eventually, however, individual excuses wear thin when you put together all the objective evidence”
Before the barrage of excuses hit, I agree with Teko “Eventually, however, individual excuses wear thin when you put together all the objective evidence”
Let's remember the reason for the unemplyment spike in 2009-present..THE ECONOMY crashed!.....At least we can say there is improvement. Even if it's not moving as fast as we want it to, it IS improving....
Correction "May 2012 unemployment -8.2% (latest projected figures) compared to May 2008 at 5.5%"
I meant to say, "compared to each year."
Or we can look at it this way.
May 2012 compared to May 2008> increase of 2.7
May 2011 compared to May 2008 > increase of 3.6
May 2010 compared to May 2008 > increase of 4.2
May 2009 compared to May 2008 > increase of 3.4
2 years 2009-2010 with major increase of 4.2% and 2 years of a slow down 2.7%. The bright side is we are showing an overall 1.5% improvement in the last 2 years. Still unacceptable but at least we are going in the right direction.
I meant to say, "compared to each year."
Or we can look at it this way.
May 2012 compared to May 2008> increase of 2.7
May 2011 compared to May 2008 > increase of 3.6
May 2010 compared to May 2008 > increase of 4.2
May 2009 compared to May 2008 > increase of 3.4
2 years 2009-2010 with major increase of 4.2% and 2 years of a slow down 2.7%. The bright side is we are showing an overall 1.5% improvement in the last 2 years. Still unacceptable but at least we are going in the right direction.
“Eventually, however, individual excuses wear thin when you put together all the objective evidence.”
This is the “objective evidence” (Keep in mind, I blame both Republicans and Democrats.) Even though we are moving in the right direction, it is at a Snail’s Pace and not much to get excited over.
May 2012 unemployment -8.2% (latest projected figures) compared to May 2008 at 5.5%
May 2011- 9.1 (decrease of .09%)
May 2010- 9.7 (decrease of 1.5%)
May 2009- 8.9 (decrease of .07%)
May 2008- 5.5 (increase of 2.7%)
Over all we are showing an increase of 2.7% unemployment rise from 05/08 – 05/12 compared to an increase of 4.2% unemployment rise from 05/08-05/10.
This is the “objective evidence” (Keep in mind, I blame both Republicans and Democrats.) Even though we are moving in the right direction, it is at a Snail’s Pace and not much to get excited over.
May 2012 unemployment -8.2% (latest projected figures) compared to May 2008 at 5.5%
May 2011- 9.1 (decrease of .09%)
May 2010- 9.7 (decrease of 1.5%)
May 2009- 8.9 (decrease of .07%)
May 2008- 5.5 (increase of 2.7%)
Over all we are showing an increase of 2.7% unemployment rise from 05/08 – 05/12 compared to an increase of 4.2% unemployment rise from 05/08-05/10.
I'm not defending "my" party...
I'm saying that it (the article) is biased when it clearly said it was "non-partisan".
That's all.....nothing more.
I'm saying that it (the article) is biased when it clearly said it was "non-partisan".
That's all.....nothing more.
Of course its partison brice. You really dont think republicans would say these things? The point is, is it true? The only thing that will prove that one way or the other is to research for fact. Should be easy enuff to do. He said himself.
Believe me, I understand one’s gut desire to defend one’s party — even in the face of bad facts. Been guilty of it myself.
Eventually, however, individual excuses wear thin when you put together all the objective evidence. Concentrating wealth in the hands of the few and deregulating financial institutions and practices lead to speculative bubbles that eventually burst — and that brings the whole country down.
Believe me, I understand one’s gut desire to defend one’s party — even in the face of bad facts. Been guilty of it myself.
Eventually, however, individual excuses wear thin when you put together all the objective evidence. Concentrating wealth in the hands of the few and deregulating financial institutions and practices lead to speculative bubbles that eventually burst — and that brings the whole country down.
Does the New York Mayor, Micheal Bloomberg have anything to do with the Bloomberg mentioned above? If so, can't really call his findings as "non-partisan". Maybe I misunderstood something, but you couldn't confuse Cal Berkeley as "partisan"?
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
