Loading
Dear Editor:
I enjoyed your essay on the “Road to Prosperity.” However, you might have overstated just a tad a few points concerning George Bush.
As I recall, Bush did not leave office until January, 2009. Had the world ended in 2007, we all would have gone out with nice (but hardly bulging) portfolios and high-priced homes. Unfortunately, the Bush years were not over, and the recession was just beginning to hit.
As a result, the Bush years saw a decline in the Dow of about 2721 points (from 11,497 to 8776). So the “enriched school teachers and middle class retirees” you cited in 2007 actually saw their nest eggs not only not grow in eight years but saw them go down 23%!
Compare this to the Clinton years, when the Dow climbed from 3169 to 11,497 (growth of about 262%!). I will agree that during those years the school teachers and the retirees were “enriched” if they were invested in stocks.
As far as job growth, once again if 2007 had been the end for Bush, then he would have had a net growth in jobs that was not great but was not embarrassing. But once again, he still had two years to go. By the end of his presidency, he had overseen an overall growth in employment of 2.24%, one of the lowest on record.
Contrast that with Clinton who saw an employment growth of over 19% in his eight years.
So to say that George Bush brought back prosperity seems to be reaching just a bit, wouldn't you say? By the end of his presidency (remember, it was 2009), our entire economy was in chaos and on the brink of collapse. The recession that he and his team had been denying was in full force. And that's without even mentioning the housing market.
By the way, Lyndon Johnson had a job growth of 20% during his presidency as well as a healthy increase in the S&P of 40%. So maybe he wasn't a total stooge.
But hey, as they say, never let the facts get in the way of a good story! Wouldn't want to write that “The Road to Prosperity” actually led to a cliff.
Steve Del Viscio
Sarasota
Yes, you're right. From 2007 on, George Bush II was an economic disaster. He caved to Congresses (Democrats and Republicans) that continued to spend beyond our means. Indeed, he wasn't so swell on the spending side during both terms. But the facts of the overall message are still true: Tax-rate cuts stimulate the economy. Spending/borrowing beyond our means and government intervention do not. Oh, and let's not forget, Newt Gingrich's Contract with America made Bill Clinton's batting average better than it would have been. — Ed.
Your free article limit has been reached this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited digital access to our award-winning business news.
Join thousands of executives who rely on us for insights spanning Tampa Bay to Naples.
