In some sense, the President is fortunate. I predicted a long time ago that he would win re-election if the unemployment rate was under 8 percent.
Well, the new numbers just came out and the joblessness rate is 7.9 percent.
So even though his stimulus failed, and even though his class-warfare tax policy is like a dark cloud over the economy, and even though his plans to further increase the burden of government spending will accelerate America’s descent a Greek-style fiscal quagmire, he may dodge the proverbial bullet.
You can see my latest election prediction by clicking here, and you can even cast a vote in my reader poll, but let’s set aside the crystal ball nonsense and focus on public policy.
Here are four images that summarize Obama’s dismal performance.
We’ll start with a chart showing what President Obama claimed would happen to unemployment if we enacted his so-called stimulus compared to the actual real-world results.
As you can see, the joblessness rate currently is more than 2-1/2 percentage points higher than Obama claimed it would be if we implemented his Keynesian plan.
Now let’s look at some updated images of how this “recovery” compares to previous recoveries in the past six decades, based on data from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank. We’ll start with the unemployment rate. Take a wild guess which President has presided over the red line at the bottom.
Previously, I’ve compared Obamanomics and Reaganomics, but this image may be even better because it shows all business cycles and confirms that the Obama years have been the worst in post-World War II history.
And we see something similar if we look at GDP growth. Once again, go out on a limb and guess who is responsible for the weakest recovery since World War II.
Last but not least, this info-graphic is a bit dated, but Obama’s dismal track record would not change if we added the past few months of data.
Defenders of the White House argue that all these bad numbers are a legacy of the dismal situation that Obama inherited. That’s partially true. Obama should not be blamed for the depth of a recession that began before he took office.
But he should be held at least somewhat accountable for an anemic recovery. Particularly since he promised “hope” and “change” and then continued the big-spending, pro-cronyism policies of the Bush years.
The moral of the story, needless to say, is that free markets and small government are the keys to growth and prosperity.
[…] stimulus scheme had to be enacted to supposedly save the nation from another depression, but unemployment soared beyond administration projections and cronies got rich from […]
[…] charts show both employment and output for every one of those business cycles. You can click to see larger versions, but all you need to know is that the current business cycle is the red line – and it happens […]
Base of current actions to past Presidents is irrelevant in particular avenues…
[…] A Four-Picture Indictment: Final Pre-Election Jobs Report Is Not Good News for Obama […]
The recovery is slow because the economy has transitioned into a lower growth trendline. So even when the economy “recovers” the new standard of growth will be lower. That is the essence of why America is now on an irreversible decline path where an ever more stressed electorate turns to ever more “government help”. Many factors will be blamed, but not the flatter effort-reward curves that are Obama’s essence which he portrays as “fairness” –at least not by a successful majority. Even those who believe in this “fairness” will be ultimately subject to the cruel effect of their mandatory compassion. The relentless compounding of slow growth rates into decline: The Argentinization of America.
Always like checking in with you and I’m Romney/Ryan passionately, but in fairness, the Rogoff graphs of financial crises is a compelling indication that they deserve their own standard:
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=graph+financial+crises&hl=en&sa=X&tbo=d&rlz=1T4ADFA_enUS460US461&biw=1600&bih=1073&tbm=isch&tbnid=UcwzLlBCaFhb-M:&imgrefurl=http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2012/09/employment-losses-comparing-financial.html&docid=yIBFwLgVPGsIPM&imgurl=http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zkELPgQLZvc/UGCU-QQ8FNI/AAAAAAAARak/9l1-6CqYs-U/s1600/rr_employment.jpg&w=1002&h=602&ei=xk-UUKGaAqrp0gGIq4GADA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=837&vpy=642&dur=1370&hovh=174&hovw=290&tx=158&ty=128&sig=109795066575914444026&page=1&tbnh=135&tbnw=225&start=0&ndsp=45&ved=1t:429,r:22,s:20,i:205
Finland is still recovering from it’s 1992 financial crisis.
I think you should put 1929-1940 on the graph, too, at least.
My belief is we are doing pretty well relatively, thanks to TARP and Bernanke, while we’d be doing twice as well if McCain had won in 2008; Obama has wasted the stimulus of political patronage.
This is kind of skewed, what about the Congress?!
[…] We have not seen any progress in job creation, in fact President Obama’s job gain total stands at $0.1 million, which is lower than George H.W. Bush, John F. Kennedy, or Harry […]
Good summary & conclusion, though the last picture should be updated I guess.
[…] Daniel J. Mitchell, yet another reason America needs Mitt Romney. America can’t take another four years of a […]
“I seriously doubt whether Obama – or Romney – can produce the jobs they both talk about.”
I think you’re right…though someone who’s built a successful business certainly has an edge in economic matters than a second-rate ex law professor and “community organizer”. But fortunately, government doesn’t have to produce jobs. That’s not government’s job. Its job is to GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY so people who CAN provide jobs have the opportunity to do so.
And I *KNOW* which candidate is more likely to get the hell out of the way of the private sector and stop coddling the public sector.
Ok, I see everyone’s point, but it is up to the companies to hire or fire. Without new regulation from the Federal Government, what role does it legally or morally have in the free market. Both side, they have spent over 1 billon dollars on this election. So, by that alone, the companies have funds to hire, they just choose not to. The free market regulated or not, has to make their minds up, not the or any President.
Well, Obama reserves the right to select data points that put the best spin on his tenure. He’s like the rock climber who falls off El Capitan and for 3,200 feet says “So far, so good!”
Unfortunately for both the climber and Obama, it’s not the fall that kills you–its’ the sudden stop at the end.
“I seriously doubt whether Obama – or Romney – can produce the jobs they both talk about.”
Mike
We ABSOLUTELY know that Obama cannot deliver… I don’t believe that we can stand four more years of Obama learning more about his naive inability to lead this country as its president.
Reblogged this on YouViewed/Editorial and commented:
Add your thoughts here… (optional)Read this before you vote .
The first chart would be even worse if the civilian participation rate decline was taken into account.
[…] …is not good news for Obama. […]
Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times Blog said this was good news for Obama. I linked your article for these liberals at the Arkansas Times Blog so you could set them straight. Great article Dan.
Publius, you are correct that he has created more than 100,000 jobs while in office. To address your confusion, the chart doesn’t say jobs created, but rather, jobs gained while in office. This would therefore mean the total created in conjunction with the total lost. When you add in the lost jobs, his total gained is about 100,000. The Democrats touted at their convention that they’d created 5 million jobs, but of course ignored the reality that 5 million jobs had been lost since Obama took office. Hope that clears it up for you.
We can make excuses for Obama all day long…hell, he does so why not others. Regardless of whether the economy is “global” or not — and since all countries have, do and will continue to trade with one another, the economy has been global to one extent or another for centuries – Obama’s “job” was to focus on the American economy, make America’ economy the strongest in the world. He has not done that. Instead he focused on Healthcare through Reed and Pelosi, he focused on golf games, expensive vacations for wife and kids, on making it harder for small businesses to start, on placating the unions and their cronies, on spending money the country doesn’t have, on his unearned Nobel Prize.
TiredofObamaApologists
Is the last picture saying only 100,000 jobs have been created under Obama because that isn’t true. (not defending, just confused).
Whilst Obama has not met his election promises – particlularly on jobs, it needs to be remembered when drawing comparisons with earlier Presidential success, that we are now working and living in a global economy.
I seriously doubt whether Obama – or Romney – can produce the jobs they both talk about.
[…] charts in Dan Mitchell's survey of the current so-called "recovery" are yet another thing which should have long ago doomed Barack […]