Rasmussen and Fox TV released a poll that says that 38% of Americans believe a depression (not just recession) is somewhat likely.
More interesting to me, they asked whether private companies, Congress, or the president has the most to do with creating new jobs. I find it amusing when pollsters ask for opinions on something that is purely factual. Only 5% got the right answer and said it is the president.
For the evidence that Democratic presidents create jobs, read on...
It is a simple matter to go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and look up the number of private-sector jobs each month since 1939.
Do we find a correlation between annual job growth and whether the president is Democratic or Republican? We sure do:
Annual
Job Party President
Growth
8.8% Dem Roosevelt (1939-war)
3.5% Dem Johnson
3.3% Dem Carter
2.6% Dem Clinton
2.6% Dem Roosevelt (wartime)
2.4% Dem Truman
2.3% Rep Reagan
2.1% Rep Nixon
2.1% Dem Kennedy
0.8% Rep Ford
0.5% Rep Eisenhower
0.4% Rep Bush I
0.0% Rep Bush II (updated 4/3/2009)
UPDATE as of Oct 6:
Now that we have had 10 straight months of losing private sector jobs — a total loss of 983,000 jobs — Bush II has dropped to having the worst job creation record of any president since records were kept. Since he came into office, private jobs have been created at a rate of only 0.36%/year, which is now below his father’s record of 0.39%/year. Both rates are well below the population growth rate of 0.94%/year. We are almost 5 million jobs short of keeping up with population growth during this administration. The table above originally had Bush II just above Eisenhower, but it has been adjusted based on the latest numbers.
UPDATE as of April 3, 2009:
With today's final job numbers for January, we can now close the books on Bush II. After eight years, the number of private-sector jobs saw a net increase of a paltry 159,000. One month later, we were well below where we had been in January, 2001.
To put Bush's performance in perspective, Clinton had 74 out of 96 months that each beat Bush's eight-year total (Bush had only 16 such months). Over eight years, Clinton added almost 21 million private-sector jobs.
Imagine where we would be today if 21 million more people had jobs!
Bush II's numbers come out to an average rate of increase of 0.02% per year, well below the previous record of 0.39% per year set by Bush I. It is also far below the rate of population increase of 0.94% per year. The country added 22 million people while Bush was in office, and we have not created jobs for any of them. This record is dismal compared to the worst Democratic rate since numbers were tracked, Kennedy's 2.1% per year.
End of UPDATES.
The correlation jumps out at you. Almost every Democratic president has been more successful at creating jobs than almost every Republican president, for as far back as statistics are available.
How does the president make a difference? I can tell you that Bush II has made a difference by vetoing a labor bill and a children's health bill. He has made a difference by having his friends in the Senate filibuster a minimum wage bill (McCain joined on that), an energy bill twice (McCain skipped out on those votes), and a Medicare prescription drug bill (McCain skipped out again). Bush has made a difference by giving breaks to the rich, who don't need it.
Republicans believe in the trickle down theory. They think that if you help the rich and the big corporations, that they will use a portion of the money to hire more people, causing money to trickle down to the middle and lower classes. It has never worked, as the table above shows.
Democrats, you might say, believe in trickle up theory. Help the lower and middle classes. Help the people who spend every dollar of their paycheck. They will buy more goods -- goods they needed but could not afford without help. Companies will have to hire more people to produce and sell the additional goods. Those new workers will buy yet more goods, extending the cycle. This works.
How about Congress? Do they make a difference? Perhaps some, but not as much as the President. We can make a similar table for each Congress since 1939.
The worst Congress in history for job creation was the 107th (2001-2002), with a Republican president, Republican House, and split/Democratic Senate.
There were five Congresses during which we had a net loss of jobs. Four of the five were under Republican presidents. On the other hand, three of the five were under a Democratic House. Three of the five were under a Republican Senate. The correlation is not good for Congress, but it is for the president.
The 12 best Congresses for job creation were under a Democratic House. On the other hand only 8 of 35 Congresses in this period had a Republican House, so that does not say much.
Average job growth under Republican Houses has been 1.1%/year. The average under Democratic Houses has been 2.5%. For Republican Senates it has been 1.6%, while for Democratic Senates it has been 2.6% (excluding the 107th split Senate). This makes a Democratic Congress look good, but the difference is not as big as that between Democratic presidents (3.6%) and Republican presidents (1.1%).
Best of all is to have a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress. When the president and both houses of Congress are Democratic, annual job growth has been 3.7%.
Private companies, of course, are directly responsible for creating the jobs; but the number of jobs they create is going to depend on their budget. If the government follows trickle down theory, it will not do as much to put those companies in a position to be able to add to their payrolls as if it follows trickle up theory.
If you want to end this recession (or depression?), you need to create jobs. To create jobs, we need a Democratic president.