Way back in February, CNN ran a feature about Bush’s job losses and noted that this president had the worst record on employment of any president in seven decades. Labor Secretary Elaine Chao was on hand to insist we’re all looking at the wrong numbers.
Judy Woodruff: “I want to cite the one economic analyst with Credit Suisse First Boston. He said, these are his words, quote, ‘very disappointing; we’re not getting the jobs to replace the stimulus in the economy which will fade once the first quarter ends.’ Another economist said, ‘It’s the weakest job-creation rate relative to economic growth on record.'”
Chao: “Well, the stock market is, after all, the final arbiter.”
Well, Elaine, it’s funny you should say that…
I can appreciate why the administration would want to downplay virtually every economic indicator available. Jobs, budget deficit, trade deficit, poverty rate, tax burdens on the middle class, class gap, etc. all point to a failed economic agenda.
But never mind all that, Elaine Chao said, let’s only look at the stock market. Fine.
The day the Labor Secretary said those words, the market closed at 10,511.77, which was over 200 points lower than when Bush took office. Chao undoubtedly thought the market would close the gap further before Election Day, which is why she insisted this number is “the final arbiter” on Bush’s successful stewardship of the economy.
We now know, however, that things didn’t work out that way. Not even close.
As I write this, the market is at about 9920. That’s about 600 points lower than when Chao said this was the only number that matters and about 800 points lower than when Bush took office. Indeed, chances are Bush will likely be one of the rarest of presidents — fewer jobs than when he started and a lower stock market at the end of his term than when it started.
In fact, while many realize that Bush’s job creation record is the worst in 70 years, it’s easy to forget that stock market performance under Bush is among the worst of any president since the days of Herbert Hoover.
Just for the sake of comparison, the stock market went up 148% under Reagan. Under Clinton, it grew 187%. Bush only has one term under his belt, but at -7% so far, he has a long way to go.
Of course, since Republican administrations have consistently under-performed Democratic administrations on stock market growth, Bush’s troubles shouldn’t be a big surprise, but I doubt many expected the market to do this poorly over a four-year stretch.
I wonder who the “Excuse Presidency” will blame for this one?