It’s the Economy, Stupid
This week’s Courier Herald column:
The year was 1992. The economy had stalled following the economic uncertainty that had surrounded the Gulf War and the after effects of the savings & loan crisis. A President that had received a 90% job approval rating just a year earlier was struggling to remain competitive in his bid for re-election. James Carville, a political consultant that had advised Zell Miller was on his way to becoming a national powerbroker by creating a campaign that would eventually overtake a once popular president.
Carville had a simple three-point outline of how Bill Clinton’s message would be presented to the American People. History has boiled that down to one that has resonated long after the campaign was over: “It’s the economy, stupid”.
Simple yet blunt, the message was not to overthink the message or strategy. America had been in a recession and Americans were feeling pain. Worse, economic pain gets projected on anxiety for the future. People too often tend to believe that the future portends a long term extension of the present.
It wasn’t difficult to cast that narrative with a willing press. Like it or not, bad news sells. Journalists have no issues framing and selling anecdotes of hard times as data. It didn’t matter that the recession was actually over by the spring of 1991.
So when the economy is roaring with economic statistics not seen since the Reagan era, surely campaigns are all about the economy and how the state and country are on the right track, right? Right?
No, this isn’t our first rodeo. For some reason, tying excellent economic news to Republicans running for re-election doesn’t make for page 1-A stories or those that lead off the 6pm news broadcasts.
So, for those of you that may have missed it, let’s roll off a few facts and statistics.
In April, for the first time on record, there were six million jobs open, surpassing the number of people looking for work. By October, the number of jobs available had expanded to seven million. Unemployment nationally is at a five decade low. In Georgia, unemployment is at 3.7%, with a record 4.6 million Georgians employed.
Many on the left predicted economic gloom and “Armageddon” if Congress passed and President Trump signed tax cuts into law. Instead, the economy grew at 4.2 percent in the 2nd quarter and 3.5% in the third quarter. That’s about one percent higher than was predicted a year earlier.
The growing economy has actually meant more revenue for the U.S. treasury. That’s correct, despite the tax cuts on businesses and 90% of individual tax payers, the federal government has taken in more money this year than last. The debate over the Laffer curve remains alive and well.
Most importantly, wages are rising at the fastest rate in a decade, and are increasing above the rate of inflation. Even better, income of the bottom 10% of wage earners is rising the fastest of all. That’s what a working economy looks like, when it works for everyone and everyone works.
So what has the major narrative been going into this election? It certainly hasn’t been a referendum on the national economy or Georgia fully funding education while building a rainy day fund of $2.5 Billion and passing the largest tax cut in history.
Instead, we’ve received a steady diet of biographies of challengers devoid of skepticism. “Policy” stories have actually just been a focus on wedge issues from a press that still can’t believe their readers and viewers can’t see the President for the person they believe he is.
As this column is syndicated throughout the week across multiple outlets, some will read it before they go to the polls, and some after. Many will know the outcomes from Tuesday before these words are read.
If this election was really about the economy, then Republicans will/would have fared well across the state and country. For too many that have covered the election, the narrative has been about literally anything else. For the voters, every election is their own Rorschach test. Each gets to tell us what the election was about, one vote at a time.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Oh there’s gloom on the horizon, Trump (and the rest of the “Grand Old Party”) will blame Demonrats.
Deficits matter.
Chickens come home to roost.
I’m not stupid, you’re stupid.
Wasn’t it
“I’m here with Stupid”?
Bush in 1992 was the last GOP candidate I supported for President. I appreciated his unpopular tax increase that put a widening deficit in check.
The economy is going very well. Who knew the difference between eight totally crappy Obama economy years and these glorious times is a percent more growth for one-half year. A totally amazing turnaround.
Tough times ahead though. The GOP says we’ve got to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid since we can’t just keep printing money and giving most of it to the rich forever. Or maybe we can.
The media is focusing on the number one threat to the country, immigration and a criminal element that includes Democratic mobs, as articulated at every opportunity by the nation’s nationalist leader. MAGA.
I remember Republicans screaming and crying because the deficit was rising.
You know, i bet a similar column was run when Bush was president. Guess what happened? Deja vu, baby!
“Facing congressional opposition, Bush held townhall style meetings across the U.S. in order to increase public support for his plan for a $1.35 trillion tax cut program—one of the largest tax cuts in U.S. history.[54] Bush argued that unspent government funds should be returned to taxpayers, saying “the surplus is not the government’s money. The surplus is the people’s money.”[54] Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan warned of a recession and Bush stated that a tax cut would stimulate the economy and create jobs.[106] ..
By October 2008, due to increases in spending,[117] the national debt had risen to $11.3 trillion,[118] an increase of over 100 percent from 2000 when the debt was only $5.6 trillion.[119][120]
In December 2007, the United States entered the longest post–World War II recession,[99] which included a housing market correction, a subprime mortgage crisis, soaring oil prices, and a declining dollar value.[124] In February, 63,000 jobs were lost, a five-year record.[12”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush
And I get accused of living in the past. The economy is more noticeable to the average Joe or Josephine voter when it is down. Besides this a president’s influence on the economy is the equivalent of changing the current around a steam driven dreadnought. It eventually has an effect but many other factors are out of their hands.
Nah, this year the mantra should be:
Sex sells.
Xenophobia votes.
Expect at least a 10% stock drop When the bells open Wed. if the democrats take the house.
Chef, you may be right on the stock drop but I think it is already cooked in. If the Dems get the Senate I agree with you it would be a negative surprise. I don’t think that will happen.
Once the election is over, the market should resume its upward move Earnings are great. Pro business policies.
As a matter of fact I don’t NOT have effusive praise for Obama and his policies. I have effusive praise for the Fed Lowering rates to zero which was the main cause of a big rebound. If you invested after the worst 10 year period in history, your returns were going to be impressive if an empty chair was president if you ask me.
Negative polices from Washington did not help.
Did Obama’s 242 tax increases help create jobs jobs? If so, how? Did his massive increase in government regulations help create jobs? If so, how?
I appreciate you pointing out examples of pro- growth polices from the Obama administration. I have not seen anyone do so in 10 years but I hope you can. Thanks.
Can you cite some sourcing please? Thanks
Source….does anyone need sourcing for the Fed lowering rates?
It is well known.
The worst 10- year period in the history of US investing is called the lost decade. From 2000-2009…i.
http://www.investingparexc.com/2018/05/28/revisiting-lost-decade-stocks/
One paragraph of a long article — Let’s revisit that lost decade – this time with investing dollars. If we invest $15,000 in an S&P 500 Index Fund in March 2000 and ignore dividends, our portfolio will be worth $15,013 by September 2012. Essentially zero gain for a bit more than 12 years of investing.
Thank you for the link.
Link is wrong…or cherry picked
The link is a fact. The only cherry pick is that 10- year period highlighted (from 2000-2010) happens to be the worst 10- year period in US history for stocks.
You had two 50% bear market drops in a short period of time, which is very unusual. It is not meant to be political. And Clinton or Bush were not the causes. High prices at the end of 2000 and an absurd amount of debt and lousy lending policies finally exploded after building for 30 years…
Obama’s policies simply were not pro- growth. Not much argument to it in my humble opinion. If some future president comes in and raises taxes hugely and increases regulations in a huge way, guess what? The economy will sputter.
2001-2009? Hmm. That was GWB.
That’s not DTM’s point. Basically he states because of the DotCom bust to the the housing crash, which caused rate of return of stocks and bonds to have its worse stretch in history that even if a chair was president, they would have as good of a rate of return as Obama. That is only a particle truth.
If you invested money the day before the crash in a straight S&P fund you would as of Aug 2017 have a 7.5% return, and today would be even higher. I have already posted the link above.
I don’t disagree with your figure. From 2009 till today that is spot on. What are you arguing? I am not sure why you disagree with mine. They are spot on too.
Thank you Ellynn. You are exactly right. Charlie Brown or even Bernie Sanders could have been sitting in the White House in March of 2009 and the returns would have been superb. Obama’s economic policies didn’t help. Neither did his healthcare bill. They slowed down the recovery.
If you invested at the end of 1974, regardless of Nixon or Carter, your returns would have been superb. Prices were so low.
Anyone investing today will have more muted returns going forward because prices have rebounded from extraordinarily low levels.
Why are so many folks complaining when more folks are working, have higher wages, less folks on food stamps, etc? Things are darn good right now.
Any president needs to be very careful about crowing about the stock market. Too many factors…Andrew was at least right about that. If the Fed keeps tightening too much, the market will get hit regardless of how good the growth polices are. The Fed seems to be doing just what they need to be doing. Inflation is quite low which is remarkably good. Probably not much need for too much more rate raises which may be really good for us for years to come.
Becoming energy independent the last 10 thanks to nothing from the Federal government has been a game changer.
We need growth to pay for all our the US’s promises or we are in trouble.. 2% GNP wont do it. We need 3% or more for years to come or things will be much more stressful. This is not political. It is simply the truth.
There was that small little drop at the end of GW’s term in 2008 that sorta wiped out several trillion in wealth, but hey even if you bought into the S&P 500 at the start of the crash you would be up
7 1/2%
right now. So your figures are wrong. The site you linked is wrong or doesnt really say that (my link also has video if you have a problem with reading comprehension) fyi…that was as of aug 2017
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/09/even-if-you-bought-just-as-the-global-financial-crisis-erupted-10-years-ago.html
Sorry Scott. You just don’t like the numbers. I aint making up a darn thing. Tell me how increased taxes and massive regulations create one job much less millions.
The stimulus package kept us from falling into the abyss. That and renewed and increased oversight of the financial sector might not have created jobs but they easily have saved a couple hundred thousand maybe more. Obama and democrats should have done much MORE not less. Oh, and this is my field of expertise so if you wanna go ’round with me on this one I am more than happy to play ball
Same Scott. Bring it on…
Remember where I said that was partially right.
We still needed the stimulus (which kept my employer afloat), the auto bailout, so the industry didn’t collapse taking out 100 of thousands of Midwest jobs on the parts/supple chain, the temporary reduction of SSI taxes in 2010, banking regulations (if only to restore consumer trust), and the grid lock created after 2011 to stabilize market trading. The market loves Washington gridlock since it don’t create any surprises for the market. They know what in general will happen long term and plan accordingly, which makes prices raise even more.
It wouldnt make much sense since the markets do way better under democrats than republicans…look it up. Google is your friend
But the gridlock…
https://apnews.com/c6e6b8a5995848ecabaaad30d70b649f?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=sendto_newslettertest&stream=top
Since 1946, there have been 18 midterm elections. Stocks were higher 12 months after every single one. Every single one. That’s 18 for 18. Even though we’ve had every possible political combination in the past 72 years. Republican president with Democratic Congress. Democratic president with Republican Congress. Republican president and Congress. Democratic president and Congress.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/opinion-this-is-what’s-happened-to-stocks-after-every-midterm-election-since-world-war-ii/ar-BBPmZiQ
Here we go again…
Again with feeling…Deficits dont matter. Dick Cheney had that one thing right. They dont really matter when you
– print your own currency
– owe any and all debts in that currency
– and require that the currency you create is the only means of a required transaction (paying taxes)
The only time they matter is when you have enough currency in the system as to create real shortages (not manufactured ones) and thus REAL inflation. The way you remove it is by taxation. Its not that hard, but people have been so mislead for so long that they get it very wrong to their own detriment. Rich people like to stay as rich or get richer and generally dont care who has to pay for them to stay that way
Republicans have known this for decades about the deficits and helping rich people stay rich and by extension line their own pockets (some democrats are adept at the practice as well). They run up the deficit with tax cuts at the top (that have the smallest multiplier of any government spending) and when democrats take power they have fits about the deficit. Its playing out now (again) in real time
Trickle Down Economics is one of the rare experiments we have been able to observe and know is a failure in real time. People forget that many of the laws of economics changed in 1972 when Nixon left the gold standard for good. Deficits not mattering was the biggest of those changes.
Charlie: When President Reagan died, the media were effusive in their praise of the man’s accomplishments. Yet, it was President Reagan who was the major reason for the recession which followed the Gulf War. Why? Because President Reagan caused the savings-and-loan debacle with deregulation. I even wrote Georgia columnist Bill Shipp and asked him why no one in the media had brought up this disaster. He wrote back that it was a good point, and he didn’t have an answer. In your column referenced above, you have repeated this oversight. In so doing, you are perpetuating the myth that mainstream media are not covering the economy. In fact, they did cover the economy during this recent campaign season. I saw multiple comments that the economy will play a positive factor in the possibilities for mid-term GOP successes. Please try to bring the GOP back to a principled conservatism, rather than being the party that is not the Democrats.