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?
If you enjoyed this article, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. For over 30 years, The American Prospect has delivered independent reporting that exposes corporate power, investigates political corruption, and analyzes threats to our democracy. Unlike many media outlets, we’re not owned by billionaires or corporations—we’re powered by readers like you.
Today’s independent journalism faces unprecedented challenges. Your support makes our reporting possible and keeps our work free and accessible to all. Whether it’s $5 or $50, every contribution helps sustain our nonprofit newsroom.
Join our community of supporters and make a donation today to help keep independent journalism thriving.
Copyright 2025 | The American Prospect, Inc. | All Rights Reserved