Skip to main content

Bushies Are Really Sucking On The Crack Pipe

Now they're claiming that the Bush economy is stronger than Clinton's.

The White House says the economic surge that began five and a half years ago on President Bush's watch is more robust than the much-touted expansion during the Clinton administration.

"This is a much stronger expansion in a lot of ways," White House spokesman Tony Fratto told The Examiner. "It's much deeper and more measured."

Fratto's assertion was disputed by Gene Sperling, economic adviser to presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, who spoke to The Examiner in his capacity as former National Economic Adviser to President Bill Clinton.

"That's a rather absurd claim," said Sperling, a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress. "In terms of job creation, in terms of wage growth, in terms of business investment, in terms of poverty, there's absolutely no comparison."

"The expansion during the 90s was exceptionally strong," he said. "And this has been a historically weak expansion in virtually all of those measures."

That is clearly some prime rock they're smoking over there at 1600 Penn.

Look, one of the things about a strong economy is that you don't need to repeat over-and-over again that the economy is strong. People will either feel it or they don't. They felt it during the Clinton years, and while the Bush era has not been as dismal a failure as his father's, it's more or less staying in place and not the boom we saw under President Clinton. That's why only 38% approve of the Bush administration's handling of the economy (which are about the same Thirty Percenters who think things are going well in Iraq).