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

Employment-Population Ratio and Averages by Majority Party, January 1995 - Oct 2014

{Click on graph or here to enlarge}

That is a graph of the Employment-Population ratio from January 1995 – October 2014, correlated with Majority Party (red to show when Republicans held 2+ of the House, Senate, and Presidency, and blue to show when Democrats held 2+ of the House, Senate, and Presidency).

If you prefer to look only at who held the Presidency, please note that
the WORST month under George W. Bush
was better than
the BEST month under Barack H. Obama!

However, I don’t like to look only at who held the Presidency…

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).

Hence, I think it is best to 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.

Democrats have held majority control since January 3, 2007 and will hold it until January 3, 2015, when Republicans will hold the House and take back the Senate, and with it take back overall majority control.

Over the 144 consecutive months of Republican majority control (January 1995 – December 2006), the average Employment-Population ratio was 63.3%, and it NEVER dropped below 62% during those 144 consecutive months of Republican majority control.

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 64 consecutive months (WELL OVER FIVE YEARS) July 2009 – Oct 2014!

For 12 straight years (144 consecutive months) of Republican majority control (1/3/1995-1/3/2007), even in the wake of the Dot Com bust, the 9/11/2001 attacks, and two wars, the Employment-Population Ratio NEVER went below 62%.

Then the Democrats took control of both houses of Congress, passed a bill to raise the minimum wage 3 times in 3 years, and now the Employment-Population Ratio has been below 62% for 74 consecutive months (OVER SIX STRAIGHT YEARS) September 2008 – October 2014!

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

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.

If one insists on only comparing Presidents, here is the ranking of average Employment-Population Ratio by Presidency for the last six Presidents:

63.4% Clinton Presidency (January 1993 – December 2000 data)
62.7% G.W.Bush Presidency (January 2001 – December 2008)
62.2% G.H.W.Bush Presidency (January 1989 – December 1992)
59.9% Reagan Presidency (January 1981 – December 1988)
59.1% Carter Presidency (January 1977- December 1980)
58.7% Obama Presidency (January 2009 – October 2014)

Employment under Obama is officially worse than employment under Carter!

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 59.2% (like it was in Oct 2014), then 4.2% 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 Oct 2014 was 248,657,000.

4.2% * 248,657,000 = 10,443,594

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 over 10.4 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, Employment-Population Ratio through Oct 2014

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, through Oct 2014

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 59.7 58.7 58.5 63.3 59.2 -4.1
DEM-GOP Difference -3.6 -4.4 -4.2 -4.5

You can count on the White House putting out a tweet and a graph like this every month:

White House Graph July 2014

Our businesses have added:

9.9 million jobs over 53 months ✓

2.5 million over the past year ✓

198,000 in July ✓

But let’s take note of a few facts.

On 1/3/2007:
1) Democrats took control of the Senate & House
2) Then-Senator @BarackObama became part of the MAJORITY party
3) George W. Bush became part of the MINORITY party

So let’s look at that graph in perspective and on a larger time scale:

Monthly change in Private Sector Employment, January 1995 - Oct 2014, Line Graph

The huge job losses of the so-called “Great Recession” happened while Barack Obama was in the MAJORITY party, and George W. Bush was either in the MINORITY party or NOT EVEN SERVING IN ELECTED OFFICE ANYMORE.

Returning to a “status quo” level of job growth is not sufficient, because it does not regain the jobs which were lost. As shown farther above, under GOP majorities we went 144 consecutive months with Employment at or above 62%, while under DEM majorities we have now gone (through Oct) 74 consecutive months with Employment BELOW 62%!

If you think those graphs published by the White House Twitter account mean that employment now is better than it was under President Bush, THINK AGAIN!! The Democrats’ Employment Deception

The Democrats and the Barack Obama White House are not telling “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”.   They are publishing graphs which are a derivative of a subset of data, and ignore population growth.

And if you think that deficits now are better than they were under President Bush, THINK AGAIN!!  The Democrats’ Deficit Deception

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

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

  1. Miri says:

    Excellent analysis, once again, Red Pill. I hope this means that we can look forward to things getting better, now that Republicans have the reins for (at least) the next two years.

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 )

Connecting to %s