Now let's turn to the jobs lost during the recession. We once again calculated the numbers in the way most favorable to Boehner -- from the peak of employment (January 2008) to the lowest point (February 2010). Here are the figures:
January 2008: 137,996,000 people employed February 2010: 129,246,000 people employed Decrease during the roughly two-year period: 8,750,000 people
That's almost 9 million jobs lost -- almost twice what Boehner had said on the Today Show.
Don't you love the way politicians throw numbers around without checking the facts? (Many times, of course, they are well aware of the facts and are just baldly lying.) Thus far, since the Bush tax cuts began in June, 2001 to the time at which PolitiFact's analysis ends, February 2010, or less than nine years, the economy actually lost about 2.8 million jobs, by the CES statistics. (Boehner's claim for jobs created by the Bush tax cuts was for ten years.)
As it turns out, Boehner got his figures as provided by that paragon of intelligence, Michael Steele, and from a different set of economic numbers, the "Current Population Survey" or CPS data, and those figures more or less bear him out, to some extent:
June 2001: 136,873,000 people employed January 2008: 146,407,000 people employed Increase over about six and a half years: 9,534,000 people
January 2008: 146,407,000 people employed February 2010: 138,698,000 people employed Decrease over about two years: 7,709,000 people
So using the CPS figures, Boehner actually underestimated the jobs created after the passage of the Bush tax cuts, rather than overestimating them. And his number of jobs lost in the recession was closer to the CPS number than to the CES number.
PolitiFact does not stress the main point here, that Boehner was making his claim of job growth owing to the Bush tax cuts for a span of ten years, and that even by the CPS numbers, only about 1.75 million jobs have been created (thus far). His figures for jobs lost during the recession, while somewhat inaccurate by either measure, are somewhat closer to the mark, but so what? Bush caused the economic and regulatory climate which led to the recession, did he not?
PolitiFact does in fact examine the job creation numbers over a much wider time frame encompassing various recent presidents, citing numbers from Gary Burtless, a labor economist with the Brookings Institution. Burtless looks at the first 81 months of several presidencies, examining only those presidents who served two terms:
Employment under Bush grew by 4.5 percent using CES and 7 percent using CPS, whereas employment grew by double digits under presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, and also under the combined eight-year administrations of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, who finished Nixon's term after he resigned, and John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. Only under Eisenhower was job growth more sluggish than it was under George W. Bush, and even then, it was only the case using one of the two BLS statistics. (Burtless did not compare job growth during the administrations of George H.W. Bush or Jimmy Carter because they served only one term each.)
Where does all this leave us? First, under the most common yardstick for measuring employment -- the CES data -- Boehner's claim is significantly overstated. Second, while Boehner is closer when using a different statistic, it's only more accurate if he uses a time period much different than the one he stated in the interview. And third, his suggestion that the tax cuts are primarily responsible for subsequent job growth is contentious at best (and the job growth he points to is modest compared to previous administrations).
So the numbers Boehner offers are accurate only with significant adjustments. Overall, we find his statement too flawed to give it a rating higher than False.
Score one for PolitiFact. It's good to see centrist news and politics websites which claim to discern the truth of politicians' statements get it right.
Let's look at a similar, but more devastating analysis by Jay Bookman, The Laffer Curve in Real Life, Atlanta Journal Constitution, September 15, 2010. There is no better way to describe this analysis -- and it is devastating to any who would maintain that supply side economics and tax cuts for the rich are good for the economy -- than to make an extensive quote from the article:
So how do we gauge the effectiveness of supply-side theory in practice? I propose we look at three specific measures:
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
4
2
2
