There are some powerful economic statistics out there that argue clearly in favor of Democratic administrations and policies. I'd like to add data that I hadn't seen before which I hope contributes in some small way to the picture of an economically bankrupt Republican ideology.
I should emphasize that I'm no economist, and welcome any corrections.
First, context:
In the main thread, Kos reposted the statistics on job creation during Republican and Democratic administrations over the last 70 years, which show that time and again Democratic administrations beat Republican administrations in job creation. (And the closest Republican, Nixon, was the most liberal economically.)
jfern also posted a link to data on the national debt which quantifies how, beginning with Reagan, Republican administrations have all indulged in wildly irresponsible deficit spending, while the lone Democratic administration began paying back the debt.*
So here's my small addition: Consumer spending by the top 20% income bracket has been decreasing steadily since at least 1985. The extra money is going into savings (and, I'm guessing, nonconsumer assets like homes). Money parked in savings or long-term investments is important for the economy, but it does not stimulate the economy as much as consumer spending does. It isn't inert, but it is less, uh, ert, because the money doesn't flow as quickly through the economy providing income for services rendered. This is a basic tenet of Keynesian economics.
The data, from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditures Survey 1984-2002:
- : 74%
- : 73%
- : 70%
- : 68%
- : 66%
To oversimplify, it used to be the case that 74% of an extra dollar in the pocket in the richest 20% would quickly go back into the economy in the form of payment for goods and services. Now, 66% of that dollar goes quickly back into the consumer economy. The stimulus effect is diminished.
One may argue that this is moot, because it's always been the case that an extra dollar in the hands of a poor person has always been more likely to quickly go back into the consumer economy, thus stimulating the economy to a greater extent. I don't think there's any question that extra after-tax money for the poor and middle class provides a greater stimulative effect, but that doesn't make my point moot. What I think this data suggests is that an already bad policy, on moral and economic grounds, is getting increasingly bad.
This would help to explain why Bush's huge tax cuts have had much less effect than Reagan's tax cuts did. He wanted to duplicate Reagan's debt-for-growth trade-off, but couldn't. And why? Simple: the rich in 2001 were relatively much richer than in 1985. Even after buying the Mercedes and the latest electronic gadgets, there is more money left over that gets parked in securities. Republicans might argue that they are victims of their own success...but that's only if you measure success by how well the top 20% are doing.
.
*Note to a gilas girl: not all deficit-spending is bad. It was great for Roosevelt both before and during WWII, for example.