Dean Baker is confused by today's New York Times article saying "Mr. Bush has spent years presiding over an economic climate of growth that would be the envy of most presidents. Yet much to the consternation of his political advisers, he has had trouble getting credit for it, in large part because Americans were consumed by the war in Iraq." The question is, which presidents, exactly, would Bush's record of growth be the envy of? Dean has collected the data on this growth rates since Kennedy, and I've turned it into a handy graph for you:
As you can see, the only recent president who's presided over a more anemic economy than George W. Bush is...George H.W Bush. And it may indeed be the case, as the Times implies, the Bush 43's economic record is the envy of Bush 41. But that's not "most." And it's really not clear why Bush's growth numbers would be the envy of all these other presidents who saw more rapid expansion under their leadership.My Commenters Are Smarter Than I Update: In comments, Cervantes writes:
As you can see, the only recent president who's presided over a more anemic economy than George W. Bush is...George H.W Bush. And it may indeed be the case, as the Times implies, the Bush 43's economic record is the envy of Bush 41. But that's not "most." And it's really not clear why Bush's growth numbers would be the envy of all these other presidents who saw more rapid expansion under their leadership.My Commenters Are Smarter Than I Update: In comments, Cervantes writes:Quite a coinky dink, here's Abramovitz in the WaPo today, also the first sentence of his SOTU preview:For years, President Bush and his advisers expressed frustration that the White House received little credit for the nation's strong economic performance because of public discontent about the Iraq war.Is it possible that both intrepid reporters talked to the same anonymous high administration official, wrote down what said anonymous HAO said, and presented it as the centerpiece of their own "reporting," without bothering to check if it was, you know, true? Naaahhhh.
