Home » Blogs » mediamechanic's blog

History proves Economy always does better with a Democratic White House

Submitted by mediamechanic on November 7, 2008 - 11:36am

Conventional wisdom dictates that Democrats are considered (by most Americans) to be better with the economy than Republicans. But have you ever wondered why that is? Conventional Wisdom also states that Democrats typically favor "growing the size of the government". But is that actually true?

The answers may or may not surprise you. CW is proven 100% correct when it comes to the economy - History shows that the U.S. economy (by all measurable standards) does better under Democratic management than Republican.

Although, when it comes to the size of the federal government or increased spending, who is actually better or worse? In this regard, CW is proven wrong by history. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics & the Bureau of Economic Analysis - historically, it is Democrats NOT Republicans which cut spending and decrease the size of the federal government (looking back at the last 50-100 years worth of data).

See for yourself:

DATA TABLE.

Acronyms: BLS = U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; BEA = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Metric

Source of data/
analysis

Average under
Democratic
Presidents/
Administrations

Average under
Republican
Presidents/
Administrations

Who measured better
on this metric? 

Average Ranking (lower the
number the better) for
highest GDP growth,
real disposable personal
income, employment/
unemployment, deficit reduction
1953-2001

Average rank calculated
from ranking data from
Dan Ackman, Forbes.com

Overall rank: 4.58
(top 3 are Democrats)

GDP rank: 3.8

Real Disposable
Personal Income
rank: 5.0

Employment rank: 4.6

Deficit Reduction
rank: 4.2

Overall rank: 6.44
(Reagan is #4)

GDP rank: 7.2

Real Disposable
Personal Income
rank: 6.0

Employment rank: 6.4

Deficit reduction
rank: 6.38

Democratic
Presidents

[Also see this data
comparison from Michael
Kinsley in the
Washington Post]

Real Disposable Personal
Income Growth per year
1953-2001

Dan Ackman, Forbes.com

3.65%

3.08%

Democratic
Presidents

Employment gains per year
1953-2001

Dan Ackman, Forbes.com

1.684 million/year

1.279 million/year

Democratic
Presidents

Unemployment:
1962-2001

P.L.A., using data
from the BLS

5.1 %

6.75 %

Democratic
Presidents

Unemployment:
1947-2001
Assuming that each President's
policies took effect 1 year after
his inauguration

Larry Bartels, Los
Angeles Times

4.8 %

6.3 %

Democratic
Presidents
(trend similar if 2
year shift assumed)

Average After-Tax Return on
Tangible Capital:
Jan 1952 - June 2004

Roger Altman,
Wall Street Journal
(data from Federal Reserve)

4.3%

3.2%

Democratic
Presidents
[For a Bush I + Bush II
vs. Clinton comparison,
see here]

GDP growth:
1962-2001

P.L.A., using data
from the BEA

3.9 %

2.9 %

Democratic
Presidents

GDP growth:
1930-2000

Carol Vinzant
in Slate

5.4%

1.6 %

Democratic
Presidents

Inflation:
1962-2001

P.L.A., using data
from the BLS

4.26 %

4.96 %

Democratic
Presidents

Percentage growth in
Total Federal Spending:
1962-2001

P.L.A., using data
from the U.S. Govt.
Budget 2003

6.96 %

7.57 %

Democratic
Presidents if lower
Govt. spending is
better; Republican
Presidents if higher
spending is better

Percentage growth in
Non-Defense Federal Spending:
1962-2001

P.L.A., using data
from the U.S. Govt.
Budget 2003

8.34 %

   

Non-defense Federal
Government Employees:
1962-2001

P.L.A., using data
from the U.S. Govt.
Budget 2003

Rose by 59,000
(16 % of total rise
over 40 years)

Rose by 310,000
(84% of total rise
over 40 years)

Democratic
Presidents
(assuming smaller
Govt. is better)

Yearly budget deficit:
1962-2001

P.L.A., using data
from the U.S. Govt.
Budget 2003

$36 billion

$190 billion

Democratic
Presidents

Increase in National Debt:
1962-2001

P.L.A., using data
from the U.S. Govt.
Budget 2003

See follow-up by P.L.A.
solidifying the
conclusions

Total debt
increased by
$0.72 trillion
(20 years)

Total debt
increased by
$3.8 trillion
(20 years)

Democratic
Presidents

Annual stock market return:
1927 (through) 1998

Reported by
CNN Money

~ 11%
(value weighted CRSP
index minus 3 month
Treasury Bill)

~ 2%
(value weighted CRSP
index minus 3 month
Treasury Bill)

Democratic
Presidents

Annual stock market return:
(1900) 1927 - 2000

Carol Vinzant
in Slate

12.3 % (S&P 500)

8.0 % (S&P 500)

Democratic
Presidents

Annual stock market return:
(1900) 1927 - 2000

Carol Vinzant
in Slate

Democratic Senate
10.5 % (S&P 500)
Democratic House
10.9 % (S&P 500)

Republican Senate
9.4 % (S&P 500)
Republican House
8.1 % (S&P 500)

Democratic
Senate or
House (but see article
for qualifications)

Annual stock market return:
(1900) 1927 - 2000

Stock Traders' Almanac
as reported by
Carol Vinzant in Slate

13.4 % (Dow)

8.1 % (Dow)

Democratic
Presidents

Rankings for highest GDP growth,
biggest increase in jobs, biggest
increase in personal disposable
income after taxes, biggest rise in
hourly wages, lowest Misery Index
(inflation plus unemployment), etc.
(until 2001)

Washington Monthly

N/A.
But all these best case
metrics were under
Democratic Presidents

N/A

Democratic
Presidents

.

.

.

.

.

District spending by Congress:
1995 - 2001

Associated Press
report: 1, 2

Democratic districts:
$3.9 billion in 1995 to
$5.2 billion in 2001
(34% increase)

Republican districts:
$3.9 billion in 1995 to
$5.8 billion in 2001
(52% increase)

Hard to say who is
better but certainly NOT Republicans who shifted spending to RICHER districts from POORER

So the next time a Republican tries to claim that Democrats are "tax & spenders who only grow the size of the Federal Government" - tell them to prove it. Because the facts just don't support it.

Democrats are not only FACTUALLY better for the economy, but they also decrease spending & government growth MORE than Republicans do.

You are entitled to your own opinion - but NOT your own facts.

Like this article? Visit MIDDLE MAJORITY for more!

»