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

Employment-Population Ratio and Averages, January 1995 - June 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 of Republican majority control, the average Employment-Population ratio was 63.3%.

When George W. Bush first came to elected office in Washington, D.C., as President, he truly “inherited” the Dot Com Bust and the 9/11/2001 attacks which were a “double whammy” to our economy. Both employment and tax revenues declined in the wake of those two hits to our economy.

But the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts turned the economy around… after those tax cuts, both 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 the 12 year Republican-majority average (of 63.3%), coming in at 63.4%.

THAT is what (then-Senator) Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats “inherited” from George W. 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 date on which George W. Bush ceased to be in the majority party, and Barack H. Obama became part of the majority party, was January 3, 2007, NOT January 20, 2009!

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, representing 1.1% of GDP, significantly below the average FY 1947-2007 deficit of 1.6% of GDP, according to the data provided by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

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 at or BELOW 59.3% for 60 consecutive months (FIVE YEARS) July 2009 – June 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 (including Barack Obama) inherited the FY 2007 deficit of 1.1% of GDP, and increased the deficit to 9.8% of GDP in just TWO YEARS.

Obama, the Senator, played a very direct role in creating what Obama, the President, “inherited” from himself and his majority party. Barack Obama played a very direct role in creating the FY 2009 deficit that was nearly NINE TIMES the size of the FY 2007 deficit that he and his peers inherited from the outgoing Republican majority (again, FY 2007 was the last budget passed by a Republican House, Republican Senate, and Republican President).

1/3/2007 – 1/20/2009, George W. Bush was in the MINORITY party.
1/3/2007 – 1/20/2009, Barack H. Obama was in the MAJORITY party.
Yet Obama and the Democrats consistently want to “Blame BUSH!!!” for everything that happened in 2007, 2008 & 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 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.

The Democrat majority has now created the five biggest deficits since World War II, and have more than doubled the total national debt.

If we had 63.4% employment today (like we had in December 2006 under Bush and the Republican Congress), instead of 59.0% (like it was in June 2014), then 4.4% 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 June 2014 was 247,814,000.

4.4% * 247,814,000 = 10,903,816

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 nearly 11 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 sub-prime 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!”

Here’s a comparison of what happened to the Labor Force Participation Rate under Ronald Reagan vs. under Barack Obama:

Reagan vs. Obama, Labor Force Participation Rate


I’m a Factivist (story, Twitter hashtag).

On March 6, 2014, the Democrats asked their “Factivists” to retweet the following message:

The economy is bouncing back under President Obama http://bit.ly/MQPM2b #Factivist

March 6 The Unemployment Rate Fell to to the Lowest Level in 5 Years

First, note when that was posted at http://factivists.democrats.org/fact-unemployment/ … March 6, 2014. (Archived by me on 3/7/2014 at http://www.webcitation.org/6NtiNzekJ)

I find the timing of the Democrats’ posting VERY interesting, because while that claim (“The Unemployment Rate Fell to to the Lowest Level in 5 Years”) was technically true yesterday, the administration already knew that the reported unemployment number would be going UP today, to 6.7%.

So @TheDemocrats are encouraging their so-called “Factivists” to retweet an unemployment rate so-called “Fact” which is no longer true.

The fact is that under President George W. Bush with a Republican House and Republican Senate, the Employment-Population Ratio never went below 62.0%, and ended above average at 63.4% when President George W. Bush became part of the MINORITY party, and then-Senator Barack H. Obama became part of the MAJORITY party on 1/3/2007.

The fact is that under Barack H. Obama and Democrat majorities, the Employment-Population Ratio has now been below 59.0% for over 4.5 years. Employment now is NOT stronger than it was 5 years ago, and to suggest that it is, is a LIE.

The fact is that reported unemployment has decreased largely because of an unprecedented decrease in the Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR)… Millions of people who were unemployed have not become employed, but rather they have completely given up HOPE of finding a job and have dropped out of the workforce. That is why the Employment-Population Ratio is a much better reflection of the employment picture.


Then-Senator Obama was in the majority.
Then-President Bush was in the minority.

The Democrats and MSM attempt to “Blame Bush!” for the “Great Recession”, but that relies completely on fooling the public into blaming the minority for the actions of the majority.


(Most Common)
First Last Change
GOP Majority 1995-2006 63.3 63.1 62.7 63.0 63.4 0.4
DEM Majority 2007-2014 59.8 58.6 58.6 63.3 58.9 -4.4
Difference -3.5 -4.5 -4.1 -4.8
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Employment-Population Ratio, Correlated with Majority Party, Jan 1995 – June 2014

  1. Andrew Moore says:

    Great blog post. Thanks for sharing this valuable information.

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