"Worse Than Jimmy Carter" Isn't That Bad

"Worse Than Jimmy Carter" Isn't That Bad

 

A few days ago Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan took a swipe at President Obama by saying “When it comes to jobs, President Obama makes the Jimmy Carter years look like good old days”.  I'm sure that was well-received by his audience, but the statement gives us a clear insight into the reality-challenged nature of the Republican campaign.
During the Carter years 1977-1980 our economy added 10.5 million new jobs; this gave Carter an average of 2.625 million jobs per year. There is only one president in the last 30 years under whose leadership more jobs were created, and Paul Ryan apparently didn't realize his name was not Reagan or Bush. The closest any of the Republicans came as far as average annual job creation during his tenure was Ronald Reagan, who lagged 25% behind Carter at an even 2 million jobs per year. Neither Bush senior or junior managed even one million jobs per year average annual growth.
Of course there are other areas where Jimmy Carter outperformed other presidents on the economy. In the area of gross domestic product growth only Ronald Reagan among the Republicans managed to squeak out a 3.4 to 3.25 percent win over Carter, a mere four tenths of one percent difference. As before, the Bushes lagged well behind in the low two percent range.

It is only in the area of average annual unemployment that the Bush family managed to outperform Jimmy Carter, but his 6.5% annual rate is still nearly ten points better than Reagan's 7.2% average yearly jobless rate.

One of the most valued measures of the health of the economy is the amount of new housing starts, which gives a solid barometer of consumer confidence. In this area Jimmy Carter beats them all, with an average of 1.69 million starts per year. For once a Bush comes in second, with George W. pulling 1.66 million per year.

Now, you may be thinking that I'm trying to make Republicans look bad with these comparisons to Jimmy Carter but that is not my purpose at all. Obviously even the worst among the five preceding presidents had some good stats; what I am demonstrating is that the Carter years were nowhere near the economic train wreck that the Republicans would have you believe, and I should know because I lived through it. What this comes down to is the fact that, contrary to Paul Ryan's jobs comment, there is definitely room to be "worse than Jimmy Carter" and still be pretty damn good.