MSNBC proudly announced that 79 metro areas are in an economic recovery, although most states are still in a recession. Of the 11 states in recovery, nine went red last election. Iowa went solidly for Obama, but Indiana went for him by a percentage point.
Washington, DC is also in a recovery; MSNBC euphemistically declared that this is due to “stimulus mnoey,” although a more apt description may be that the federal government takes care of its own and will use the force of law to ensure the security of its own jobs. While MSNBC attributes the recovery among the states to oil and gas economies as well as a more stable housing cycle, it ignores the incredibly strong correlation between state-wide politics and economic recovery. Even the less-populous (and often, more conservative) areas are doing better in those states. Conservative and libertarian principles (right-to-work laws, minimal government interference in business, and business-friendly laws) currently correlate very strongly with economic recovery.
Hey, why don’t you do the same comparison for the 2000 and 2004 elections? Show which were doing just fine under Clinton (pretty much all of them) and how they fared under Bush 2 (almost all in recession). While you’re at it maybe you could show the budget deficit change and Federal Government spending during the 2 administrations.
Look at the spending trends since WWII and ask “How much does the Federal Government spend per citizen each year?” From Truman through Bush Sr. federal spending rose about $115 per year per citizen (use the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and adjust for inflation). The annual change in spending never deviated very far from this linear trend. The person, or party, in office made little difference in spending.
After more than 40 years of nearly linear increase the pattern changed at the start of the Clinton administration. During this time, spending per person actually decreased! Under Clinton, Federal spending decreased roughly $18 per year per citizen. Tax payers were saving $166 per citizen over the spending before he started.
Under GW Bush that pattern reversed, leading to the fastest increase in spending since the beginning of WWII. Under Bush, federal spending increased by over $250 per year per citizen. That means, under GW Bush, the average family’s taxes are increased by over $750 per year (before the bailout.) In the first four years of GW Bush’s administration, spending increased by roughly $1000 per citizen, or more than $3000 for a family of three. (The typical American family is 3 people – man, woman, and one child).
It has been claimed by GW Bush and Reagan that tax cuts improve the economy. It has been claimed by GW Bush and FDR that increased spending will improve the economy. (So Bush cut taxes AND increased spending.) But during the Clinton years spending fell and taxes rose slightly while most economic indicators improved consistently for eight years. During the first three years of the GW Bush administration, spending increased at the fastest pace since 1942 and taxes dropped, while most economic indicators languished.
Prior to GW Bush the largest spending increase ($222 per person in 1939) was during the Great Depression, America’s worst economic crisis. The average spending increase during the Great Depression was $85 per person. That’s much less than the $250 to $309 spending increase per citizen per year under GW Bush.
Now, about the Dems being the “tax and spend” party… shouldn’t we rename the GOP to the “spend, cut, spend, tax, spend, tax more and spend even more” party?