The Clinton Manufacturing Recession - Bush inherited this job-challenged economy.

National Review Online ^ | May 16, 2003 | Greg Kaza

[ReleaseTheHounds]

Gross Domestic Product has expanded six consecutive quarters and industrial production grew in 2002. But total non-farm payroll employment has declined by 2.1 million jobs since its peak in March 2001, leading critics to pin the decrease on President Bush and to describe the current economic situation as a “jobless recovery.”

But closer examination of the employment data shows that if blame is to be awarded, it should go to ex-President Clinton. The data also reveal the need for the Bush tax cut.

Job losses are concentrated in the economy’s manufacturing private industry sector, which peaked in April 1998 on Clinton’s watch. In the ensuing five years, 2.6 million manufacturing jobs (14 percent) have disappeared.

You can call this the Clinton Manufacturing Recession — and it's the major reason why total non-farm employment has not grown.

The services-producing sector — 82 percent of the economy — has created 353,000 new jobs under President Bush since reaching a trough in December 2001. Job growth is spread across two private-industry sectors: services and the sector that includes finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE).

The National Bureau of Economic Research, the official arbiter of cyclical turning points, has said the economy reached a peak in March 2001. FIRE employment was 7.6 million in March 2001 and has grown to 7.8 million as of April 2003. Services employment was 41 million in March 2001 and has edged up to 41.4 million as of last month.

Growth in the services sector under President Bush has been greatest in the area of health and education. Gains have also occurred in engineering and management services, a hi-tech component. Government employment, counted in the services-producing sector, has also grown, but the largest gains are in non-federal employment.

Not every services-producing industry sector has grown under President Bush. Declines occurred in retail and wholesale trade, as well as transportation and public utilities. But these drop-offs pale in comparison with the manufacturing job losses that started under Clinton.

Nondurable manufacturing employment peaked at 7.9 million workers in January 1995. Components that peaked under Clinton included: food and kindred products (October 1995); textile mill products (November 1994); printing and publishing (May 1998); and rubber and miscellaneous plastics (February 2000). Many of these jobs were once concentrated in the South.

Durable manufacturing peaked at 11.2 million workers in April 1998. Components that peaked under Clinton included: lumber and wood (February 2000); furniture and fixtures (July 2000); primary metals (January 1998); fabricated metals (July 2000); industrial machinery and equipment (March 1998); electronic and other electrical equipment (November 2000); transportation equipment (October 1998); instruments and related products (March 1998); and miscellaneous manufacturing (April 1998). Some of the largest durables goods employment is in the upper Midwest.

No manufacturing component has peaked under President Bush. Stone, clay, and glass — a durable component — peaked in January 2001, the month Clinton left office. Six other manufacturing components peaked pre-1993.

President Bush inherited an economy on the brink of recession. Employment in the goods-producing sector (manufacturing, construction, mining) and industrial production peaked under Clinton. GDP contracted for three quarters in 2001 but has expanded for six quarters under President Bush. Yet total non-farm employment has not grown due to manufacturing job losses. Far from a “jobless recovery,” the economy is suffering from the Clinton Manufacturing Recession, and is in need of fiscal stimulus.

[Maximum Leader]

Well the trouble with "free trade" and open immigration is that both parties are on the same side.

In a two party system, if a problem can't be blamed on the other party, then it isn't considered a problem.

[A. Pole]

It is true that the current problems are a result of Clintons policies and in fact the real results of his policies has yet to bear fruit-the worst is yet to come! However, Bush is in pratice following the same policies as Clinton.

And those policies started before Clinton. Ross Perot was debating them in 1992.

[Princeliberty]

Yes Bush, as in the current form of the policies.

You had some things like border with Mexico not
being properly controlled never been so open
as it began to be under Bush Sr.
Further, some of the things like trade
with China began because of the cold war,
but rather than end them when the cold war ended
they were changed into an effort to support
Big Business and Globalism at the expense of
US national interests.
Starting with Bush Sr. and continued by
Clinton and Bush Jr. the US has never before been
governed by policies that have so little concern
for the welfare of the United States.

[Freee-dame]

bump

[A. Pole]

In a two party system, if a problem can't be blamed on the other party, then it isn't considered a problem.

It is not so hard to blame on the other party anyway. People have short memory.

[arasina]

I think the whole economy started downward under Clinton's attack on Microsoft.

I noticed that as well but no one has ever agreed with me when I have mentioned it. They couldn't connect any dots.

[waterstraat]

Bush is to blame. Bush could create over one million american jobs in one day, if he suspended the H1-B and L-1 visa programs. Bush could also propose legislation to end outsourcing, or tax it, and end tax benefits of companies who replace american factories with foreign ones. If Bush did not support the elimination of american jobs, he would have done something about it, it is so easy to do.

[Bill Davis FR]

THANK GOD FOR NAFTA, A GOAL OF CLINTON AND REPUBLICANS...CORPORATIONS FOLLOW CHEAP LABOR....