Bush vs. Clinton: An Economic Performance - Essay Example

"According to public opinion polls, most Americans feel the U.S. economy has been moving in the wrong direction. Indeed, an analysis of several important economic indicators shows they're right. In apples-to-apples comparisons of annualized data, these indicators of the country's economic well-being show mostly negative change during President George W. Bush's administration, compared to mostly positive change during President Bill Clinton's administration. Presidents obviously do not control everything that happens on their watch.

But it is fair -- and entirely appropriate -- to judge how they play the economic hands they are dealt. Bush's economic policies have diverged dramatically from Clinton's, and PPI believes the disparities in economic outcomes under each administration are attributable at least in part to those policy choices". (Bush vs. Clinton: An Economic Performance) There are also differences in terms of Debt Reduction of the two administrations of Bush and Clinton. "The national debt is the net amount of debt held by the federal government ($3.

9 trillion in 2003).5 It increased under both administrations (in today's dollars). But under Clinton the debt rose more slowly and GDP rose faster than under Bush. The result is that the ratio of debt to GDP went down an average of 3.89 percent per year during the Clinton years, but has gone up an average of 0.94 percent per year during the Bush years". (Debt Reduction Relative to GDP4) While comparing employment opportunities of Bush and Clinton Administration, it is categorically clear that "Employment was the third measure Forbes used to judge economic performance.

How many people hold full time jobs. When Clinton took office there were 109 million jobs in the U.S. Three-and-a-half years later, there were 120 million, or a net growth of 11 million jobs. In raw numbers, this is the most prodigious record of job creation in modern history. In percentage terms, it trails only Jimmy Carter's accomplishment of adding 10 million jobs in the late seventies. Bush's record on employment is equally legendary though for the opposite reason. When he took office, there were 132 million jobs in the U.S. Today, more than three-and-a-half years later, there are just over 131 million for a net loss of one million jobs.

The standard-and truthful-rebuke is that Bush has been the first president since Herbert Hoover to have presided over a net loss of jobs. As with GDP, Bush is now out trying to claim heroic results for a recent short period but the odium of the larger failure, especially when put into historical context, is inescapable. Clinton 3; Bush 0" (Evaluating Bush's Economic Performance: A Field Guide for the Perplexed) "When it comes to inflation, Bush faced a huge increase in worldwide oil prices, but Clinton did not.

In the consumer price index that excludes energy prices, inflation averaged 2.1 percent in the past four years, down from 2.9 percent in 1993-96.When calculating real incomes, however, nominal increases in wage and benefits are reduced by total inflation, including higher energy prices. This would seem to put the past four year