The 2001-2009 presidency of George W. Bush ends in less than a week, so it's appropriate to evaluate the Bush years and his economic legacy.Two foreign policy notes (which also affected economic conditions): History will determine whether the Iraq War did/did not further American interests of democracy and an enduring peace in the Middle East.
Also, President Bush effectively maintained the safety of the United States at home: there has not been another terrorist attack on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001.
**
As the Clinton administration ended, the United States entered the new century and decade with the strongest, most-resilient, most-adaptable, and technologically advanced economy on the face of the earth, according to an analysis by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Job growth had been enormous in the 'Roaring 90s' -- with more than 22 million jobs created in eight years. Median incomes were rising, poverty rates were at their lowest levels in decades. Business investment and new business formation were strong. The stock market was booming, capital markets were sound, and driven by the promise of new technologies, the United States was poised to enter a new phase of growth and development, with the benefits spread across its society.
**
The Bush administration began in 2001 with the passage of a $1.35 trillion tax cut -- a cut many economists and analysts felt was not necessary, given that the U.S. economy was already recovering from the mini 2001 recession.
Tax cut favored the rich
But the biggest problem with the tax cut was that it was tilted too much toward the rich and upper-income citizens -- Bush's political base -- and it almost guaranteed that, over time, broad-based demand would remain soft, and probably fail, in a few years.
Moreover, Bush's refusal to build on President Clinton's successful earned income tax credit (EITC) policies -- which literally lift millions of working poor / lower income adults and families out of poverty annually -- further prevented the bulk of society from benefiting as much as upper-income groups during his years.
President Bill Clinton favored the EITC because he believed that, "If you work hard, play by the rules, you ought to be able to live a decent life." President Bush disagreed with Clinton's policy, and sure enough, as his presidency continued, the decent life slipped away for many, typical citizens, including millions of working families.
Low job growth
Further, given a lack of legitimate engines of growth (new sectors), and the continuing march of globalization, low- to moderate-job growth -- job creation inadequate for sustainable U.S. GDP growth -- was almost guaranteed, as well, and this is exactly what transpired during the Bush years. President George W. Bush presided over the creation of fewer jobs in the U.S. economy in the modern era than any president since President Herbert Hoover, according to U.S. Labor Department data.
True, for a while, aided by lower interest rates, and dozens of new mortgage products, GDP growth hit adequate levels of 3.6%, 2.95%, and 2.8% in 2004-2006, but too often the consumption-led commerce gains were fueled by unsustainable sources: home-equity loans, refinances, and house sale gains, not job creation and new sectors of growth.
Massive budget deficits
Further, a debt trap began to build. Excessive homeowner borrowing increased private debt, and that fact, combined with public borrowing to pay for defense spending for the Iraq War and the War on Terror -- Bush opposed tax increases to pay for the increased defense spending -- meant the United States was piling-up debt at a record rate, in just about every corner of its economy: private, public, corporate. At the end of President Clinton's presidency, the federal government was running a yearly budget surplus, and the national debt was about $6 trillion. At the end of President Bush's presidency, the federal government will run a record budget deficit of more than $1 trillion this year, fiscal 2009, and the national debt has grown to $10.6 trillion.
In short, Bush's tax cut massively benefited upper income citizens at the expense of both squandering the budget surplus achieved during the Clinton presidency and jeopardizing the nation's financial health.
No energy policy
Further, Bush had no energy policy, preferring to 'let the market determine the price for oil' and the kinds of cars auto makers want to manufacture. Bush also opposed Democratic Party efforts to make domestic vehicles more fuel-efficient. As a result, when emerging market oil demand and investor speculation pushed oil over $80 per barrel in 2007 and then over $100 in 2008, high energy costs squeezed disposable income further, almost guaranteeing a recession. The recession appeared, starting in late 2007, aggravated if not outright triggered by the U.S.'s third oil shock in 35 years. Further, sales of less-efficient U.S. manufactured cars and SUVs slumped badly. And by the end of 2008, Detroit's auto makers, devoid of stylish, high-m.p.g. vehicles, would need a massive government loan to avoid bankruptcy.
To be sure, the oil patch states of Texas and Oklahoma boomed, but every other region of the country suffered economically during the Bush years. Further, when the housing bubble burst and hundreds of billions of mortgage-backed securities went bad, the financial crisis began, spread around the world, and the U.S. recession deepened, with corporate revenue and earnings declining and job lay-offs mounting. More than 2.6 million jobs were lost in 2008 alone, and the unemployment rate, which stood at 4.2% when President Clinton left office in January 2001, has rocketed to 7.2% in January 2009, as President Bush leaves office.
Another stat for the ages: The current recession is already the worst since the 1981-1982 Reagan recession and many economists say the U.S. will be fortunate to enter a recovery by Q4 2009. Very fortunate.
And the stock market? Even after discounting for the overvalued stock market at the end of the Clinton Administration in January 2001, the stock market has still declined, in real terms, as President Bush leaves office in January 2009. That's eight years, no gain in Dow. Further, the Dow is currently trading around 8,000 and many economists say the U.S. will be lucky if it ends 2009 at that level.
There were some economic successes during the 'Bush 43' era: trade ties were expanded, exports rose, and inflation remained low/moderate through his eight years. And, as noted, one segment of society (upper-income citizens) saw an increase in wealth.
But those few positives in no way blot-out the Bush Administration's many failures: scant job creation, unemployment high and rising, declining real median incomes, record budget deficits, record home foreclosures, a large trade deficit, no energy policy, no health care policy, and increasing poverty rates, among other problems. Add on to the above two other unknowns: two wars.
As noted, it's too soon tell if President Bush's foreign policy will further American interests of democracy and an enduring peace in the Middle East, so his foreign policy performance is inconclusive. But on economic policy, President George W. Bush has performed abysmally, and he will most likely rank as the United States' worst president on economic policy since President Herbert Hoover.
- -
Financial Editor Joseph Lazzaro is writing a book on the U.S. presidency and the U.S. economy.











Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1-15-2009 @ 7:36PM
Raffi said...
He did put a stop to the environmental hysteria and garbage Kyoto treaty that does nothing for the environment and would have created a greater economy decline. He also deserves credit for improving our relations with Asian democracies without pissing off the Chinese.
1-15-2009 @ 7:13PM
Dan Moore said...
This is absurd, for a blogger who is obviously a left-wing radical, to present this piece as an "objective" review of Bush's economic policies.
For starters, Clinton benefitted from being the man in the white house when the internet came to prominence, Al Gore had nothing to do with that, and it was no magic act on Clinton's part. But the US entered a recession before he even left office. (Remember the dot.com bust?). The current economic woes were completely driven by the greedy oil speculators, (no, Bush wasn't in on it, Hillary made more $$ on oil than Bush). It started with Katrina, which let the oil companies know we still would buy oil even when it tripled in price. (We have no choice). The killing blow to the economy, was the Democrat policies of forcing banks to make sub-prime loans to people who had NO qualifications for purchasing homes! Read all about this all over the web! Do NOT listen to jerks who cannot present a fair, objective article.
Just WAIT and see where the new administration takes us! You'll beg for more Bush...
1-15-2009 @ 7:41PM
LastGiantRobot said...
Agreed, this is a rant piece and needs to be presented as an op-ed rather than as a geniune objective piece of journalism. He has his right to be heard but bloggingstocks has lost some degree of journalistic integrity with this.
1-15-2009 @ 8:17PM
Iridium said...
The decade of descent began in 1992. While the bogus market of the '90s created overnight millionares and millions of low skill high net worth internet jobs; the '90s saw the complete destruction of the core fundamental of a healthy economy, small business main street.
The United States handed its economy to China on a silver platter during the Clinton administration along with planting he seeds of our financial destruction.
During the Clinton years health care and the college education exploded in cost, far past the rate of inflation creating a situation of insanity. A standard test that cost $20 in 1992 exploded to a cost of $120 by 1999.
Clinton also brought us the greatest ammount of lawsuits in history and the entitlement society that blossomed from the dotcom boom where everyone could get rich. The decade of BS that allowed a internet company that sold dirty socks to get $250 million in venture capital funding.
Bush was just as bad in regard to the economy by failing to hold Wall Street traders and Hospital executives responsible for creating huge bubbles. Oversight completley disappeared and we are paying the price.
To blame Bush and only Bush is very shortsighted. The real problem is the shadow government run by the globalists looking to tear down our borders. The billionares running investment banks that drive prices up to enrich themselves.
We needed to let every company in danger of failing, fail. We need to bring back small business and small government. It is the only solution and Obama is the worst man for the job that has ever been in the position to sit in it. Our economy will fall further than the 1930's because of the decisions made by Bush and Obama.
1-15-2009 @ 8:26PM
Sidewinder said...
Bush is the worst president i've ever seen.
Dot.com burst was NOT driven by economy, but by overpriced valuations - purely stock market problem. Did you loose your job then or now ??
He couldn't get handle on oil speculations because he had no energy policy. That's a quote from Dow Chemical CEO. Why blame Hilary ?
And let's not forget 2 wars that we are still waiting for good results to show up. Assuming they will eventually, which I doubt.
1-16-2009 @ 1:50AM
John C. said...
Saddam Hussein were alive and well and lit the oil fields on fire once again....this recession we are in could have been THE greater depression....think massive price action on oil, it was at 140 over the summer, could have shot up 2x or 3x if something were to happen in the middle east. This would surely destroy industry. Not only would familes lose jobs they wouldnt even be able to get to the unemployment line. 9/11 was enough to wreak havoc on our market as well as the currency, at a time when were experiencing a recession. There is a thing called speculative attack. Surely the online stock gurus and finance guys know their cash flows, but a majority of them do not know economics, the study of the scarcity of resources. On a federal level, the macroeconomic scale comes more into play. The flow of money around the world is a very delicate system. If something were to happen where our country was backed into a corner and were unable to react, we, all long with the modern world, would be finished. Oil is gold. It is a speculative medium of exchange. Our country and financial system would not be able to grow if unpredictable terrorist leaders such as Saddam Hussein, would be able to profit off of our demise. People don't think or talk about this topic at all, because it sounds bad. "At War for Oil", it is about control. Sure we have the greatest military in the world, we have power, freedom and safety. They are taken for granted. Electric cars are a great idea, and it would be wonderful for the environment. But every smaller country will be behind in that energy race. Oil will still have an important impact in their economies as ours for some time. But the topic of concern is one that would never be let into the media's hands due to its complexity and nature....If oil was so high, our growth and currency would fall. Businesses would be unable to function due to financial losses. Our people would lose jobs. The most powerful country in the world would be vulnerable to attack, just as we were attacked 7 years ago. Currencies would rally against the dollar. The shit hits the fan though when you cant even fly the jets, fly the helicopters, drive the tanks or keep others off of our soil, because you have no fuel. It is made more and more expensive the more you buy it, just like going to the pump. Puttin out the fires in Kuwait during the Gulf war took over a year to the tune of about 6 billion barrels per day...gone. Every country would hurt. It would be WWIII, and our weapons would be rendered useless. It would be interesting to see if geopolitics, grand strategy, new world order, speculative attack, short run competition and game theory could be understood well enough to be translated to the american people, but then they wouldnt knwo who to vote for. Bombs away.
1-15-2009 @ 8:53PM
Mike said...
I agree that everyone in the gov't let us down. Democrats / Republicans, I don't trust either of them. Hopefully Obama is different, I'm not betting on it though.
1-16-2009 @ 6:06AM
steve bourg said...
Dear Lazzaro,
You're wrong on almost every point. 1st, if Bush had "undone" Clinton's regulations that required banks and S&Ls to give huge % of loans to poor people, Bush would've been called racist forever. Besides the meltdown was not occurring. 2nd, Bush's tax rate cuts helped the economy grow beautifully. 41 Senate Dems often stopped any chance for spending slowdowns. But deficits as % of GDP were not large. Pelosi/Reid took over in Jan07 and "knocked-out" any chance for more drilling, or any meaningful further tax rate cuts. We are overtaxed, 35% or more of GDP, meaning much more for higher-earners. Gee, Lazzaro, do you think our Capitalism will be freed up by any meaningful reduction of that stifling %, or do you think it will continue to get worse and choke us to death? I think the latter, under Obama/Pelosi/Reid. I hope you're optimistic about them. I'm not.
1-15-2009 @ 10:55PM
dang said...
It amazes me that there are still people attempting to defend Bush. The fact is he has been president for 8 years. His party controlled both houses of congress for 6 of those years. He had far fewer restraints on his agenda than most presidents, and in fact vetoed fewer bills than any two term president in our history. The unnecessary war in Iraq, the shambles of an economy, the record deficit, are all products of his inept leadership. The only issue I have with the article above is that it gives Bush credit for keeping America safe. By this standard, every president before him did better. The worst attack on America in our history happened on his watch.
1-16-2009 @ 4:47AM
R. Ross said...
Dan Moore and other comments here take a predictable Republican slant on history, are they Fox Channel clones?
The US would be in decent, maybe good shape now if ....
1. Bush/Cheney and Republican pals DID NOT start a completely UNNECESSARY WAR !!! Iraq will cost, are you sitting down, well over $ 3 TRILLION by the time the borrowed money is paid back to Red China!!$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Thats about the value of EVERY HOME IN THE MIDWEST, FROM OHIO TO IOWA, AS IF THE GOP BURNT IT ALL DOWN !!! $$$$
2. If Bush/Cheney simply asked Americans to pay for the real war in Afgan. with slightly higher taxes, you know, in war time you give for the greater good.... daaaa
THE IRAQ WAR IS THE BIGGEST BLUNDER IN US HISTORY !!!
WE NEED AN IRAQ WAR SALES TAX, ETC. TO REMIND US WHAT WASTE THE GOP DID TO US !!
1-16-2009 @ 6:45PM
George said...
One can judge whether Lazarro is right on wrong by one major event on November 4, 2008. Bush's economic policies got a black man elected President when many thought that this would not happen in a lifetime. His economic policies were such a disaster that even some racist whites decided to vote for a black man..this is the only redeeming achievement of George "Dubya" Bush and Dick Chaney.
1-16-2009 @ 1:37PM
George said...
"This is absurd, for a blogger who is obviously a left-wing radical, to present this piece as an "objective" review of Bush's economic policies."
Typical right wing nonsense! Perhaps a deluded white southerner!
1-16-2009 @ 8:55AM
harley324 said...
steve bourg== you are wrong one of the worst thing's that has happened the last few years is when the democrats killed a bill that chuck hagel sponsered that would have not let the houseing boom ever happen, we never needed the low interest rates and the home loans with no down, if those people would not been able to buy the houses then and been forced to save to buy they would be buyers now and we never would have gone through the mess like we have now.
1-16-2009 @ 11:06AM
tomh1803 said...
Bush=Brave Hero!!
4-08-2009 @ 10:37PM
anthony said...
Ahh, the oh so ever common mantra heard from the left… Unfair tax cuts for the rich. Nothing peeves me more than this mantra. Not the tantrums over the war, not the “the right wants old people to die without healthcare”, or “the right wants the homeless to live on the streets” or even “the black children will starve under Bush” mantras but rather the “unfair tax cuts for the rich” mantra. Yup, that about takes us to a level of unprecedented stupidity, or, following the rules of political correctness shall I just say the mantra is perhaps just a reflection of our schools and the lack of the fundamentals taught in school, i.e. basic math? If you’re one of those folk who has insisted over the years that tax cuts favor only the rich, let me explain to you why your mantra is as big a fable as the sea nymph in Homer’s Iliad.
First off, here are the tables I'll use for my example and explanation. The table up top represents the income tax rate under Clinton while the table on the bottom represents the income tax rate under Bush.
1999
15% up to 43050
28% up to 104050
31% up to 158550
36% up to 283150
39.6% over 283150
2008
10% up to 16050
15% up to 65100
25% up to 131450
28% up to 200300
33% up to 357700
35% over 357700
I used filing jointly as a married couple for these examples. Just looking at the cuts percentage wise, we see that EVERYONE enjoyed a decrease in their taxes. In fact, if you were in the lowest bracket, you enjoyed the largest cut of everyone. That cut is 5%. If you were in the highest bracket, you enjoyed a cut of 4.6%. Last time I checked, 5% was more than 4.6%. Call me crazy but...
Next, let's take some examples of what you would have paid under Clinton and what you would have paid under Bush:
Under Clinton, if you made $35,000, a married couple would have paid a base income tax of $5250.00, not including the overage %. Under Bush, you would have paid $3500.00. That's a savings under Bush of $1750.00 or 5%. Is $35,000 considered rich for a working couple? I would hope not. Not by my standards anyway. In fact, as a married couple, under Bush, you have an additional $22,050 of extra earnings that you WOULD NOT pay taxes on. Under Clinton, that would be the lowest bracket or what is considered poor in this country. So in effect, you're not only saving more on a % basis under Bush, but you've got the ability to make more without additional taxes being tacked on! Next, let's take it up a notch. If you made $100,000 under Clinton as a married couple, your base income tax amount comes to $28,000. Under Bush, it would come to $25,000. That is a savings of $3000.00 under Bush. Now, you're probably jumping out of your seat with, "See, see, the rich save more!" Well, ah, yeah. Duh. That goes without saying since $100,000 is $65,000 more than $35,000. And lastly, if you're in the highest bracket, you save 4.6% under Bush and can earn more, just as you can in the lowest bracket and not get taxed on those additional earnings. This example was a comparison in what one would save under Clinton and Bush. There is NO doubt, as the numbers show, that one would save more or pay less in taxes under Bush. But that doens't examine whether or not the Bush tax cuts were for the rich or not, does it? No, it merely tells us what a married couple would pay under one president as opposed to another.
Now let's take a look at what a married couple actually pays in taxes, not as a percentage but in terms of actual dollars and see if the "tax cuts are for the rich" myth is dispelled or not:
Using our previous example of $35,000, under Bush you would pay $3500.00. or 10%. Fair enough. Now let's look at the rich guy. The rich guy or family rather, under Bush, with a salary of $400,000 would pay $140,000. Wow! That's a lot of money, isn't? Let's think about this. The rich family pays more in terms of a % and the rich family also pays more in terms of actual dollar outlay. Correct? Well, sure. $3500.00 for the person making $35,000 and $140,000 for the person making $400,000. Under both examples, each family saves more in taxes under Bush than Clinton but the question is, does the rich family save more than the poor family under Bush? Absolutely not. As a %, under Clinton, the poor family pays $1750.00 more. Under Clinton, the rich family pays $18,400 more in taxes. In both instances, the poor family is saving money and the rich family is saving money. In fact, the poor family, as a %, saves MORE than the rich family!!!! 5% compared to 4.6%. Now, you say to yourself, "yeah, but the rich family is saving over 18k! And the poor family is saving only 1.7k! Where's the fairness in that?" Okay, we'll let's look at the alternative. Let's say that the taxes of the highest bracket was not cut from 39.6% to 35%. Let's say instead that they were left as is. Is that fair? Your answer, "Well sure it is. They make more!" Okay, my answer, "If you get a tax cut, I want one too! Especially since I'm paying around $139k more than you are!!!" Oh... I see.
So we've come to the conclusion that not only did the lowest bracket get a higher cut in terms of a percentage but that the rich family pays WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY more in taxes both as a percentage and as a dollar amount. Again, the poor family pays 10% and the rich family pays 35%. That's 25% more than the poor family as a percentage AND the poor family pays almost $140k less than the rich family. So it goes without saying that if taxes are cut fairly, across the board for everyone, then the person who pays more is going to save more, right? Simple math people, simple math. So can someone please offer me an explanation on the validity of the "tax cuts are for the rich" mantra? Cause I'd love to hear it!