Employment-Population Ratio, Correlated with Majority Party, Jan 1995 – Jan 2014

Employment-Population Ratio and Averages, January 1995 - January 2014

{Click on graph or here to enlarge}

All laws (including but not limited to appropriations bills, tax law changes, minimum wage changes, etc.) have to be passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate, and then signed by the President (unless a Presidential veto is overruled by 2/3 votes in both the House and Senate).

Give the majority of the credit and/or blame for the economy to the party which holds majority control (2+ out of 3) of the House, Senate, and Presidency.

Republicans held majority control from January 3, 1995 to January 3, 2007.

Over those 144 consecutive months, the average Employment-Population ratio was 63.3%.

Even though President Bush had truly “inherited” the Dot Com Bust and the 9/11/2001 attacks which were a “double whammy” to our economy, the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts turned the economy around… after those tax cuts, employment (and tax revenues) went up each year, so much so that by December 2006, the last of those 144 consecutive months that Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency, the Employment-Population Ratio was slightly above that 12 year average, coming in at 63.4%.

THAT is what (then-Senator) Obama and his fellow Democrats “inherited” from Bush and the outgoing Republican majority on January 3, 2007!

Harry Reid took control of the Senate (along with then-Senators Obama, Biden, Clinton, Kerry, Durbin, Schumer, etc.), and Nancy Pelosi took control of the House, on January 3, 2007.

The new Democrat majority inherited a good economy and a shrinking deficit:

December 2006 Employment-Population ratio: 63.4%

December 2006 Unemployment:4.4%

FY 2007 budget deficit: less than $161 Billion.

The Bush Tax Cut recovery, which raised both employment levels (from 62.0% in September 2003 to 63.4% in December 2006) and revenues (FY 2007 revenues were up a whopping 44% larger than FY 2003 revenues!) came to a sudden end when Democrats took control of both houses Congress on January 3, 2007.

What did Democrats do?

On January 5, 2007, just two days into the new Democrat majority, Democrats introduced a bill to raise the minimum wage three times in three years. That bill was eventually passed as a rider to troop funding (the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007), and the minimum wage was raised three times in three years, from $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour (a more than 40% increase in 3 years).

Each time that the Democrat majority raised the minimum wage, employment dropped.

The Democrat majority raised the minimum wage:

1) Up $0.70 to $5.85 per hour on 2007-07-24,
2) up $0.70 to $6.55 per hour on 2008-07-24,
3) up $0.70 to $7.25 per hour on 2009-07-24.

… and the Employment-Population Ratio dropped to:

62.9% in July 2007,
62.2% in July 2008,
59.3% in July 2009,

and has been BELOW 59.0% for 53 consecutive months (nearly FOUR AND HALF YEARS) September 2009 – January 2014!

(And of course, Obama and many Democrats want to foolishly raise the minimum wage AGAIN now, to $10.10/hr!)

Democrats opposed Republican attempts to reform Fannie and Freddie before it was too late, falsely accusing the Republicans of racism (a so-called “political lynching of Franklin Raines”, who is black), and falsely claiming that there were no “safety and soundness issues” at Fannie/Freddie.

Meanwhile, Senator Obama came in the top 3 of Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008, exceeded only by Chris Dodd and John Kerry, and if you consider that Obama was only campaigning for Federal office for five of those 20 years (2004-2008), whereas Dodd and Kerry covered all 20 of those years (1989-2008), Obama’s per year receipts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions easily tops the list!

Repeating for emphasis, Barack Obama received from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac more campaign contributions per year than any other member of Congress.

The Democrat majority (including Barack Obama) roughly tripled the deficit in FY 2008 (From $160.7 Billion in FY 2007 to $458.6 Billion in FY 2008).

The Democrat majority (including Barack Obama) roughly tripled the deficit AGAIN in FY 2009 (From $458.6 Billion in FY 2008 to $1,412.7 Billion (a.k.a. $1.413 Trillion) in FY 2009).

The Democrat majority passed TARP. Obama voted in favor of TARP, and…

On 1/13/09, Obama asked W to request $350 Billion in TARP funds. (Bush got the blame, Obama got the money!)

The Democrat majority passed the $831B “Porkulus”. (On 2/17/09, Obama signed the $831B AARA

On 3/11/09, Obama signed the $410B OAA

On 6/24/09, Obama signed the multi-$B SAA, including “Cash For Clunkers”

ALL FY 2009 appropriations were passed by the Nancy Pelosi House of Representatives and the Harry Reid Senate, and the majority of FY 2009 appropriations were signed by Barack Hussein Obama, not George W. Bush. Anyone who tries to “Blame Bush!” for the FY 2009 is being dishonest. The overwhelming majority of responsibility for the FY 2009 deficit belongs to Democrats: Pelosi, Reid, and Obama.

The Democrat majority drove the economy into the ditch and then left it in the ditch for the last four years.

The Democrat majority drove the Employment-Population Ratio down under 59%, where it has stayed for NEARLY FOUR AND HALF YEARS. That hasn’t happened since the mid 70′s… more than a generation ago, and when less women were in the workforce.

Things are worse now than they were under Carter. Much worse.

If we had 63.4% employment today (like we had in December 2006 under Bush and the Republican Congress), instead of 58.8% (like it was in January 2014), then 4.6% more of our population would be employed.

How many people does that represent?

According to BLS table A-1, the civilian noninstitutional population age 16 years+ in January 2014 was 246,915,000.

4.6% * 246,915,000 = 11,358,090

If we had the same 63.4% level of employment now that we had during December 2006 (the last month of a Republican House, Republican Senate, and President Bush), then well over 11.3 Million more Americans would be employed right now!

Anyone who thinks that the last 4 years of Obama’s 5 years in the White House have been a “recovery” needs to consider this:

Reagan vs. Obama, E-P ratio

A few observations from that data:

1) What Ronald Reagan “inherited” from Jimmy Carter was worse than what Barack Obama “inherited” from George W. Bush.

2) Ronald Reagan began elected office in Washington, D.C. on the day he became President, so one can honestly say that he had nothing to do with what he “inherited”.

3) Barack Obama began elected office in Washington, D.C. more than 4 years before the day he became President. Obama was sworn in as a U.S. Senator on January 3, 2005. For Obama’s first 2 years as Senator, Democrats were the minority party, but on January 3, 2007, Democrats took majority control of the House and Senate, and therefore overall majority control of the three budget-making and economic policy-making bodies in Washington, D.C. – (the House, Senate, and Presidency). In the last month that Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency (after 144 straight months of Republican party majority control), the Employment-Population Ratio was 63.4%.

4) Barack Obama’s third and fourth years as U.S. Senator were as part of the majority party which drove budgets and economic policy, and drove the Employment-Population Ratio down to 60.6% the month Obama was inaugurated. So, one can’t honestly say that Obama had nothing to do with what he “inherited”. Obama played a very direct role in the multiple minimum wage hikes and record-breaking deficits of FY 2008 and FY 2009. Obama played a very direct role in the subprime mortgage crisis. Senator Obama topped the list of per year receipts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions.

5) In August, September, and November of their first year in the White House, Reagan and Obama had equivalent E-P ratios.

6) From there, things got worse for Reagan, while they leveled out for Obama.

7) The low point of the E-P ratio under Reagan came in February and March of his third year in office. After that, the effects of the Reagan Tax Cuts started to be seen in a steadily improving E-P ratio.

8) By September and October of Reagan’s third year in office, just 6 months after hitting the low point, the E-P ratio was back up to matching the values from those same months in Obama’s third year in office.

9) From there, Reagan’s E-P ratio continued to soar, while Obama’s E-P ratio has continued to stagnate. Often the only “improvement” has come from full-time jobs turning into a larger quantity of part-time jobs.

10) As a whole, under Barack Obama, the unemployed have NOT become employed… rather, they have left the workforce. For working women, “You’ve Gone a Long Way Back, Baby!”

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Employment-Population Ratio, Correlated with Majority Party, Jan 1995 – Jan 2014

  1. chrissythehyphenated says:

    This is the REAL reason Democrats are now singing the absurd “Unemployment is wonderful” song. I’m praying this wakes up more people.

  2. Pingback: Total Public Debt Outstanding Is Now More Than 2X, Debt Held by the Public Is Now More Than 2.5X, What They Were When Dems Took Control | I Took The Red Pill

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s