Arthur L. Blaustein: Economy has fared better under Dem presidents
[Arthur L. Blaustein was chairman of the President's National Advisory Council on Economic Opportunity during the Carter administration and was appointed to the board of the National Endowment for the Humanities by Bill Clinton. He teaches public policy and economic development at UC Berkeley. His most recent books are "Make a Difference - America's Guide to Volunteering and Community Service" and "The American Promise."]
Most Americans have one eye on the nation's financial crises and the other on the presidential election. And they are asking themselves, "Is John McCain or Barack Obama, the Democrats or the Republicans, better for the economic health of the country as well as for my own financial well-being?" That is the defining question of this election.
A businessman who voted for George Bush twice, and Bill Clinton in '96, told me, "Barack Obama sounds really impressive, and I have to admit that the goals of his social programs - particularly health care, education and the environment - seem good. But I'm worried the Democrats can't manage the economy as well, and they'll get into my wallet."
This sentiment is not rare. In past elections, pollsters have found that many voters believe that the Republicans do better with the economy. But is it true?
Let's look at the record.
During the 20th century, the Dow Jones industrial average rose 7.3 percent per year on average under Republican presidents. Under Democrats, it rose 10.3 percent - which means that investors gained a whopping 41 percent more. And the stock market declined further during George Bush's two terms.
Moreover, according to research from Professor Larry Bartels of Princeton, real middle class wage growth is double when a Democrat is president, contrasted to that growth under a Republican president.
Since World War II, Democratic presidents have increased the national debt by an average of 3.7 percent per year, and Republican presidents have increased it an average of 10.1 percent. During the same time period, the unemployment rate was, on average, 4.8 percent under Democratic presidents; it was 6.3 percent under Republicans.
That's the historical record.
Read entire article at San Francisco Chronicle
Most Americans have one eye on the nation's financial crises and the other on the presidential election. And they are asking themselves, "Is John McCain or Barack Obama, the Democrats or the Republicans, better for the economic health of the country as well as for my own financial well-being?" That is the defining question of this election.
A businessman who voted for George Bush twice, and Bill Clinton in '96, told me, "Barack Obama sounds really impressive, and I have to admit that the goals of his social programs - particularly health care, education and the environment - seem good. But I'm worried the Democrats can't manage the economy as well, and they'll get into my wallet."
This sentiment is not rare. In past elections, pollsters have found that many voters believe that the Republicans do better with the economy. But is it true?
Let's look at the record.
During the 20th century, the Dow Jones industrial average rose 7.3 percent per year on average under Republican presidents. Under Democrats, it rose 10.3 percent - which means that investors gained a whopping 41 percent more. And the stock market declined further during George Bush's two terms.
Moreover, according to research from Professor Larry Bartels of Princeton, real middle class wage growth is double when a Democrat is president, contrasted to that growth under a Republican president.
Since World War II, Democratic presidents have increased the national debt by an average of 3.7 percent per year, and Republican presidents have increased it an average of 10.1 percent. During the same time period, the unemployment rate was, on average, 4.8 percent under Democratic presidents; it was 6.3 percent under Republicans.
That's the historical record.