We here at SDP have been debating concerning the recent economy. We have presented overwhelming evidence that the economy is very strong, and is stronger in many important measures than it has been in recent decades. In some it is stronger than ever before measured. We have focused on overall economic growth, job creation, and productivity. Another key indicator is the poverty rate for families. A lot of attention has been paid to the fact that the poverty rate inched up under the current administration. Bush's critics would argue that this administration is moving the country in a regressive direction. But the evidence tells a very different story. Consider the following chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Number of
poor Poverty
Year families rate for
Number of Poverty with female families
poor rate for (NSP) with female
families families householder householder
______________________________________________________________________
2004...... 7,854 10.2 3,973 28.4
2003...... 7,607 10.0 3,856 28.0
2002...... 7,229 9.6 3,613 26.5
2001...... 6,813 9.2 3,470 26.4
2000 12/.. 6,400 8.7 3,278 25.4
1999 11/.. 6,792 9.3 3,559 27.8
1998...... 7,186 10.0 3,831 29.9
1997...... 7,324 10.3 3,995 31.6
1996...... 7,708 11.0 4,167 32.6
1995...... 7,532 10.8 4,057 32.4
1994...... 8,053 11.6 4,232 34.6
1993 10/.. 8,393 12.3 4,424 35.6
Now its perfectly fair to point out the rise in the poverty rate in every year of Bush's first term. A defender might point out that there was a recession already in progress when Bush entered office, and that he had to deal with the economic effects of 9/11 as well as the bursting of the hi-tech bubble. But this in no way absolves the President of responsibility. Presidents are always responsible for the state of the nation on their watch.
But its just as fair to point out that the poverty rate was higher under the first five years of President Clinton than it was at any point in the Bush 41 presidency. Now its fairly obvious that these results are tied to the business cycle. Bill Clinton had the good luck to enter office just as a recovery got under way, and leave just before the next recession hit. I have argued previously that Clinton's stewardship of the economy was pretty good.
What you can't argue is that the poverty rate under Bush so far has been worse than that under Clinton as a whole. Both are clearly within the same general margins. Much the same is true of families with children.
Poverty Status Status of Families, by Type of Family, Presence
of Related Children, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1959 to 2004
(Numbers in thousands. Families as of March of the following year.)
____________________________________________________________________________
All families Married-couple families
_____________________________ _____________________________
Below poverty level Below poverty level
Year and ___________________ ___________________
characteristic Total Number Percent Total Number Percent
____________________________________________________________________________
ALL RACES -- Continued
With Children Under 18 Years
2004...... 39,710 5,847 14.7 27,412 1,915 7.0
2003...... 39,029 5,772 14.8 26,959 1,885 7.0
2002...... 38,846 5,397 13.9 27,052 1,831 6.8
2001...... 38,427 5,138 13.4 26,931 1,643 6.1
2000 12/.. 38,190 4,866 12.7 27,121 1,615 6.0
1999 11/.. 37,688 5,210 13.8 26,694 1,711 6.4
1998...... 37,268 5,628 15.1 26,226 1,822 6.9
1997...... 37,427 5,884 15.7 26,430 1,863 7.1
1996...... 37,204 6,131 16.5 26,184 1,964 7.5
1995...... 36,719 5,976 16.3 26,034 1,961 7.5
1994...... 36,782 6,408 17.4 26,367 2,197 8.3
1993 10/.. 36,456 6,751 18.5 26,121 2,363 9.0
Again we see a rise in the poverty rate under Bush as the recession occurs, and again that it is lower than under most of Clinton's presidency.
Numbers are not yet posted for 2005. Poverty rates are a lagging indicator of economic fortune. Given the strong growth and job creation, the rates will begin creeping down over the next several years. I predict that the average poverty rate for families with children under George W. Bush's presidency will be lower than under the two terms of William Jefferson Clinton. Maybe Bush is the enemy of the poor and the working class, but with enemies like this, who needs friends?
Recent Comments