That is what the NYT says, although it's not clear what they meant. Job growth has actually been pretty bad through most of President Bush's time in office, so what does it mean that he was riding high on claims of solid job growth?
Here's the rate of job growth for the administrations since 1960:
Kennedy-Johnson 3.27%
Nixon-Ford 4.93%
Carter 3.06%
Reagan 2.06%
Bush I 0.60%
Clinton 2.38%
Bush II 0.59%
So President Bush comes in dead last in job creation, even falling behind his dad's dismal record. So, is the NYT pulling our leg when they say he was riding high? Are they making reference to the use of illicit substances? Or is this just a really badly informed article?
Unlike many news organizations, the Prospect has remained staunchly committed to keeping our journalism free and accessible to all. We believe that independent journalism is crucial for a functioning democracy—but quality reporting comes at a cost. From Trump’s threat to the free press to Musk’s influence on our democracy, there is too much at stake in 2025 to stop now.
We’re behind on our goal to raise $75,000 to continue delivering the hard-hitting investigative journalism you’ve come to expect from us. Your support helps us maintain our independence and dig deeper into the stories that matter most.
We need you to make a year-end contribution today. Any amount helps secure our future and ensure we can continue holding power to account.
