Economic Comparison

The following is an objective analysis of Republicans and Democrats when it comes to management of the economy, including the U.S. budget. As a general rule Republican states have better employment, income equality, and debt but Democrat states have better median income. Debt, deficits, employment, income equality, and median incomes have all done better when Republicans ran Congress from 1995-2006 than when Democrats ran Congress from 2007-10.

For purposes of conciseness, only the top 20 states are shown for state comparisons, see main articles for full rankings. Also, there were several major changes in control of Congress from 1990-2015. In the 1994 elections Republicans took control of the 104th Congress, and were seated on January 3rd, 1995. In the 2000 elections Democrats gained control of the Senate during the 107th Congress when James Jeffords switched parties, and were seated on January 3rd, 2001. In the 2002 elections Republicans regained control of the 108th Congress and were seated on January 3rd, 2003. In the 2006 elections Democrats took control of the 110th Congress and were seated on January 3rd, 2007. In the 2010 elections Republicans took control of the House for the 112th Congress and were seated on January 3rd, 2011.

As a general rule, budgets are passed by the previous year's Congress. For example, the 1993-94 Democratic Congress passed the 1995 budget because it was in office until January 3rd, 1995. The 2005-06 Republican Congress passed the 2007 budget because it was in office until January 3rd, 2007. For this reason, when charting issues specific to the budget such as debt or deficits, years are marked one year later than when Congress changed, to reflect which party passed that year's budget. However, when charting issues specific to legislation passed (such as employment) the regular years are used, to reflect which party was passing that year's legislation.

For a discussion of why the minimum wage harms the poor, see Minimum Wage.

Control of Congress
The debt grew far slower when Republicans ran Congress than when Democrats were in charge, growing 4.11 times as fast under the Democrat Congress from 2007 to 2010 as the Republican Congress from 1995 to 2006.




 * 1995-2006 Republican Congress: Debt grew from $4.798 to $8.677 trillion in 12 years, an average of $323.26 billion per year. (1/3/1995 to 1/3/2007)
 * 2007-2010 Democrat Congress: Debt grew from $8.677 to $14.000 trillion in 4 years, an average of $1,330.75 billion per year. (1/3/2007 to 1/3/2011)
 * 2011-2014 Split Congress: Debt grew from $14.000 trillion to $17.536 trillion in 3.5 years, an average of $1,035.00 billion per year. (1/3/2011 to 6/13/2014).

However, this pattern is consistent throughout history, and not confined to only the past two decades. Debt dropped under the Republican Congress from 1900-10, but skyrocketed under Democrats from 1911-18, and then dropped under Republicans from 1919-30. Debt increased under the long period of Democratic control of Congress from 1931-94 but then dropped, as previously mentioned, once Republicans took control of Congress from 1995-2006. This pattern is evident from over a century of history; debt consistently drops when Republicans run Congress and increases once Democrats gain control.

State Comparison

 * Main Article: State Debt

States with the lowest debt per capita tend to be Republican states. State debt is based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau as are population totals. The following is a ranking of states by debt per capita, current as of 2013 (the most recent year for state debt data), their Democratic advantage according to Gallup, Representatives/Senators in Congress by party, party breakdown in the state legislature, and how they voted in the 2012 presidential election. Ultimately 16 of the 20 states with lowest debt per capita had Republican advantages according to Gallup polling, while 16 of the 20 states with highest debt per capita had Democratic advantages. For full rankings of all states, see State Debt.

President
Obama has grown the debt over twice as fast as Bush, $7 trillion in just five years. To quote CBS, “The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.” According to the Debt to the Penny calculator at TreasuryDirect.gov, the public debt has grown 2.09 times as fast under Obama as it did under Bush, and 7.11 times as fast as it did under Clinton.


 * Bill Clinton: Debt grew from $4.411 to $5.728 trillion in 7.5 years, an average of $493.18 billion per year. (9/30/1993 to 1/20/2001)
 * George W. Bush: Debt grew from $5.728 to $10.627 trillion in 8 years, an average of $1,677.63 billion per year. (1/20/2001 to 1/20/2009)
 * Barack Obama: Debt grew from $10.627 to $17.536 trillion in 5.5 years, an average of $3,507.23 billion per year. (1/20/2009 to 6/13/2014)

Debt Limit
Back in 2006 when Bush was president, Obama was happy to criticize Bush for raising the debt limit, saying:

"The fact that we're here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means 'The buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."

But Obama went even farther in 2006, vowing not to increase the debt limit if elected. "America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit", Obama said. PolitiFact has correctly labeled this a Full Flop.

Since then Obama has called for raising the debt limit multiple times without any spending cuts whatsoever. In fact Obama has raised the debt limit more than any other president in history.

Control of Congress
Obama early in 2009 promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. In fact the deficit skyrocketed, more than doubling, during that time. Obama on the campaign trail was happy to criticize Bush for increasing the debt, even though the largest spending increase came from the 2008 budget after Democrats controlled Congress at the end of Bush's term, saying:

"The problem is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years, is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first forty-two presidents – number forty-three added $4 trillion all by his lonesome – so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we’re going to have to pay back - $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic!"

The 2006 Republican Congress was in office until January 2007, and passed the 2007 budget. Similarly, the Democrat 111th Congress was in office until January 2011 and passed the 2011 budget.

Deficits were dropping under the Republicans who ran Congress until the 2008 budget, the first one passed by a Democrat Congress following their victories in the 2006 elections. Under George W. Bush, the highest deficit was $458.6 billion and under a Republican Congress never more than $412.7 billion. Democrats tripled the deficit in 2009 to $1,412.7 billion. The only reason the deficit dropped in 2013 was the government shutdown resulting from Republicans who refused to write Obama the blank check he wanted. Government spending has declined as the result of a government shutdown under Obama, just as it did after Republicans shut down government under Bill Clinton.

The last deficit passed by a fully Republican Congress was the 2007 deficit of $160.7 billion. Obama in 2009 increased that over 800% to $1,412.7 billion. Obama didn't just break this promise, he obliterated it. To quote Timothy Lee of the Center for Individual Freedom,

"Thus, the 'halved' 2013 deficit over which Obama brags is larger than the largest deficit of any president who preceded him. Even at the height of World War II in 1943, the deficit only reached $737 billion in current dollars. Even excluding the 2009 deficit, which Obama’s dwindling number of shock troops falsely attribute entirely to George W. Bush, that leaves Obama with a four-year average deficit of $1.153 trillion. Include the 2009 deficit, two-thirds of which occurred after he was inaugurated, and his average rises to $1.231 trillion.  To provide additional context, the eight-year average Bush deficit that Obama labeled 'unpatriotic' was just $297 billion.  Even being charitable to Obama by removing the 2001 budget surplus from Bush’s tally and adding the entire 2009 deficit to it, he still averaged just $511 billion. In other words, even in its most unfairly charitable light, Obama’s average deficit is more than double that of his all-purpose scapegoat predecessor."

As pointed out by PolitiFact and the Washington Post Fact Checker, Obama voted for the same spending he attempts to blame on George W. Bush. But even the fact checkers overlook that spending blamed on Bush the last two years was actually passed by a Democratic Congress (including Obama), and that the Democrats overrode Bush's vetoes on hundreds of billions of dollars in spending he didn't approve of.

In actuality, deficits were dropping under the Republicans who ran Congress until the 2008 budget, the first one passed by a Democrat Congress following their victories in the 2006 elections. The 2006 Republican Congress was in office until January 2007, and passed the 2007 budget. Similarly, the Democrat 111th Congress was in office until January 2011 and passed the 2011 budget.

Under George W. Bush, the highest deficit was $458.6 billion and under a Republican Congress never more than $412.7 billion. Democrats tripled the deficit in 2009 to $1,412.7 billion. The only reason the deficit dropped in 2013 was the government shutdown resulting from Republicans who refused to write Obama the blank check he wanted. Government spending has declined as the result of a government shutdown under Obama, just as it did after Republicans shut down government under Bill Clinton.

State Comparison
States with the lowest unemployment rates tend to be Republican states. The following are the top 10 states for unemployment rate, current as of November 2014, their Democratic advantage according to Gallup, Representatives/Senators in Congress by party, party breakdown in the state legislature, and how they voted in the 2012 presidential election. Ultimately 14 of the 20 states with lowest unemployment rates had Republican advantages according to Gallup polling.

Determination of whether a state is Republican or Democrat is based solely on the Gallup data (Democrat Advantage), the state's ratios for Congress, the state legislature, and 2012 presidential election results are merely provided for informational purposes. For example, Colorado, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Virginia all voted for Obama in 2012 but Gallup polling reveals they are primarily Republican, and thus they are labeled Republican here, particularly since their legislative elections reveal them to be Republican. On the other hand Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin have elected more Republicans at both the state and federal levels than Democrats, but are labeled as Democrat states because Gallup polling shows they have Democrat Advantages. States which could be classified as definite swing states include Colorado, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

NOTES:


 * Nebraska's state legislature is Nonpartisan/Unicameral and thus party breakdown cannot be provided, this is indicated by "NP".
 * Since Independents overwhelmingly caucus as Democrats, they were classified as Democrats when counting Congress/State Legislature ratios. The only state really affected by this was Vermont which had 11 Independents at the state level and 1 at the federal level.
 * A "T" at the end of a rank indicates a tie between states for that rank.

Control of Congress
Total employment fared far better when Republicans ran Congress from 1995-2000 and 2003-06 than periods when Democrats did, particularly 2007-10, although 1990-94 was not that bad a stretch by Democrats since it ended on a positive note. Also provided is historical labor force data for additional context.

To be precise, total employment grew 0.71% per year over 3 years under the Democrat Congress budgets of 1979-81, grew 2.37% per year over 6 years under the split Congress budgets of 1982-87, grew 1.24% per year over 8 years under the Democrat Congress budgets of 1988-95, grew 1.46% per year over 6 years under the Republican Congress budgets of 1997-2002, grew 0.87% per year over 2 years under the split Congress budgets of 2003-04, grew 1.42% per year over 4 years under the Republican Congress budgets of 2004-08, dropped 0.92% under the Democrat Congress budgets of 2008-11, and rose 1.55% per year over 3 years under the split Congress budgets of 2012-14.

Control of Congress
The Employment-Population Ratio measures the percentage of the U.S. population with jobs. Employment as measured by the Employment-Population Ratio fared better when Republicans ran Congress from 1995-2006 than when Democrats did from 2007-10.


 * 1995-2006 Republican Congress: Employment rose from 63.0% to 63.3% in 12 years, .025% per year. (01/1995 to 01/2007)
 * 2007-2010 Democrat Congress: Employment dropped from 63.3% to 58.3% in 4 years, 1.25% per year. (01/2007 to 01/2011)

“About 58.6% of the civilian population over age 16 had a job as of April, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. This rate -- officially called the 'employment-population ratio' -- has been stuck in that range for several years. The last time it was this low was in 1983.” -Annalynn Kurtz, CNN, June 2013

State Comparison
States with the highest employment population ratios tend to be Republican states. The following is a ranking of states by employment population ratio, current as of December 2014, their Democratic advantage according to Gallup, Representatives/Senators in Congress by party, party breakdown in the state legislature, and how they voted in the 2012 presidential election. Ultimately 14 of the 20 states with highest employment population ratios had Republican advantages according to Gallup polling.



Control of Congress
As of August 2013, American incomes had fallen 6% since 2007 when Democrats took control of Congress. Median incomes, adjusted for inflation, have dropped from $29,913 in 2007 and $28,685 in 2008, to $27,851 in 2013, the last year for which data is available.

Median income of American families most definitely fared better with Republicans running Congress than Democrats. Income levels were dropping under the Democratic Congress from 1975-80 until Republicans took control of the Senate and presidency (Reagan) which was accompanied by a rise in incomes until 1989, close to the time Democrats took back control of Congress from 1987-94. During this time incomes remained largely stagnant until 1995-2006 and the Republican takeover of Congress.

“President Obama took office in the first quarter of 2009, when median household income was $54,797.63. As of the last quarter of 2011, median household income was $52,377.21.” -Catherine Rampell, New York Times, April 2012

To be specific, incomes as adjusted in 2014 dollars to reflect inflation, rose by $935 under the 1948-1951 Democratic Congress, or $233.8 on average over 4 years. Incomes rose by $626 under the 1952-43 Republican Congress, or $156.5 on average over 2 years. Incomes rose by $3,938 under the 1954-79 Democratic Congress, or $151.5 on average over 26 years. Incomes rose by $1,033 under the 1980-85 split Congress, or $172.2 on average over 6 years. Incomes rose by $2,790 under the 1986-1995 Democratic Congress, or $279.0 on average over 10 years. Incomes rose by $3,434 under the 1996-2001 Republican Congress, or $572.3 on average over 6 years. Incomes DROPPED by $147 under the 2002-03 split Congress, or $73.5 on average over 2 years. Incomes rose by $1,218 under the 2004-07 Republican Congress, or $304.5 on average over 4 years. Incomes DROPPED by $2,413 under the 2008-11 Democratic Congress, or $603.3 on average over 4 years. Incomes rose by $769 under the 2012-14 split Congress, or $256.3 on average over 3 years.

In total, median income as adjusted in 2014 dollars to reflect inflation rose by $119.32 on average over 44 years under Democratic Congresses. Median incomes rose by $439.83 on average over 12 years under Republican Congresses. Median incomes rose by 150.45 on average over 11 years under split Congresses.

If not accounting for inflation, and simply taking the Census Bureau median incomes in current dollars, median incomes rose by

State Comparison

 * See also State Median Income

States with the highest median incomes tend to be Democratic states. The following is a ranking of states by median household income current as of 2011, their Democratic advantage according to Gallup, Representatives/Senators in Congress by party, party breakdown in the state legislature, and how they voted in the 2012 presidential election. Ultimately 13 of the 20 states with the highest median incomes had Democratic advantages according to Gallup polling.

Control of Congress

 * See also GINI Index

The following is a straightforward analysis of how income equality has changed by party control of Congress. Data is based on the U.S. Census Bureau's GINI Index Ratios, which date back to 1947. The GINI Index is the most commonly used measure of income inequality, where a lower number indicates less income inequality (for example, 0 where be perfect income equality) and a higher number indicates greater income inequality (for example, 1.000 would be massive income inequality).

Income inequality decreased under Republicans from 1948-51 by .013, or .00325 per year over 4 years. Income inequality decreased under Republicans from 1952-53 by .004, or .002 per year over 2 years. Income inequality increased under Democrats from 1954-79 by .006, or .000231 per year over 26 years. Income inequality increased under a split Congress from 1980-85 by .024, or .004 per year over 6 years. Income inequality increased under Democrats from 1986-95 by .032, or .0032 per year over 10 years. Income inequality increased under Republicans from 1996-2001 by .014, or .0023 per year over 6 years. Income inequality increased under a split Congress from 2002-03 by .001, or .0005 per year over 2 years. Income inequality decreased under Republicans from 2004-07 by .004, or .002 per year over 4 years. Income inequality increased under Democrats from 2008-11 by .018, or .0045 per year over 4 years. Income inequality increased under a split Congress from 2012-14 by .002, or .00067 per year over 3 years.

In total, income inequality increased under Republicans by .016 over the 14 years they were in control, or .001143 on average per year. Income inequality increased under Democrats by .069 over the 44 years they were in control, or .001568 on average per year. Income inequality increased under a split Congress by .027 during the 11 years when there was a split Congress, or .002455 on average per year. So in conclusion, there is greatest increase in income inequality when there is a split Congress, and more when there is a Democratic Congress than when there is a Republican Congress.

Years where declines in income equality occurred have the numbers colored green. Years where no change occurred, the numbers are black. Years where increases in income equality occurred have the numbers colored red. The years themselves are colored in accordance with the party control of Congress that year, with blue for Democrats, red for Republicans, and black for a split Congress.

State Comparison
GOP states invariably have better income equality than Democrat states as seen from the GINI coefficient rankings. The following is a ranking of states by income equality according to the GINI Coefficient where a rank of 1 is most income equality and 50 is least income equality. Also shown are state Democratic advantages according to Gallup, Representatives/Senators in Congress by party, party breakdown in the state legislature, and how they voted in the 2012 presidential election. Ultimately 12 of the 20 states with most income equality had Republican advantages according to Gallup polling.

2008 Bailouts
The left’s attempts to excuse Obama’s responsibility for the so-called Bush Bailouts notwithstanding, it was Barack Obama back in January of 2009 who urged the Democratic Congress to pass the rest of the TARP/Bailout funds , spending that he has since disingenuously blamed on George W. Bush. Furthermore, it was only with Obama’s urging that Bush chose to seek the remainder of the Bailout funds even as Obama back in November 2008 privately urged Bush to seek more bailout funds for the auto industry. In fact Barack Obama as far back as September 2008 was pressuring Congress to pass the Bailouts regardless of oversight for how the funds were spent!

It was a 2008 Democrat-run Congress that passed the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) known as the Bailouts in the first place. Most House Republicans actually voted against the Bailouts, and the Bailouts were passed primarily by Democrats. In the House, 172 of 235 Democrats (73%) and 91 of 199 Republicans (46%) voted for the TARP, while in the Senate 41 of 51 Democrats (80%) and 34 of 49 Republicans (69%) did so. On a purely Republican vote the Bailouts would never have passed at all; Democrats bear the primary responsibility for them.

Obama's attempt to blame Bush for bailout spending is dishonest given that Obama himself voted for the bailouts and urged Bush and Congress to pass them at the time. Furthermore, the bailouts were primarily designed by the Democratic Congress with most House Republicans voting against them. That spending is primarily on Democrats, not Republicans.

2008 Stimulus
Despite being regularly labeled the "Bush Stimulus" the stimulus was actually designed primarily by the Democrats who ran Congress, not Republicans, and its original sponsor was Nancy Pelosi. Although the stimulus was passed bipartisanly, far more Republicans voted against it then Democrats. In the House 93% of Democrats (215 Yes, 6 No, 11 Not Voting) and 83% of Republicans (165 Yes, 28 No, 5 Not Voting) voted for the stimulus. In the Senate 94% of Democrats (47 Yes, 0 No, 3 Not Voting) and 67% of Republicans (32 Yes, 16 No, 0 Not Voting) voted for the Stimulus.

"After the early-morning report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that 80,000 jobs had disappeared in March, the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said she would propose a second economic stimulus package. Hers would supplement the $150 billion measure that includes the mailing of tax rebates to millions of Americans beginning next month... In separate statements Friday morning, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama supported another stimulus package and an extension of unemployment benefits, among other measures. In contrast, John McCain, acknowledging that 'many Americans are hurting,' said that lower taxes and less regulation would generate jobs."

-Louis Uchitelle, The New York Times

Democrats Overrode Bush's Vetoes
President Bush at the time actually vetoed a number of spending bills which Democrats passed over his vetoes, spending which now gets blamed upon Republicans.

Specifically, in November 2007, the Democrat-run Congress passed the Water Resources Development Act, a $61 billion piece of environmental legislation replete with hundreds of earmarks, over George W. Bush’s veto. In May 2008, the 2007 Farm Bill titled the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act costing $307 billion, mostly on welfare spending (and potentially far more since it waived conventional ‘Pay-As-You-Go’ guidelines) was passed over Bush’s veto, but due to a clerical error it was sent back to Congress, and passed over Bush’s veto a second time in June 2008.

In July 2008 the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act was likewise passed over Bush’s veto, implementing changes to Medicare spending that George W. Bush warned would result in spiraling, out-of-control healthcare spending. Ultimately four of Bush’s vetoes were overridden by the Democrat-controlled 110th Congress, the most of any president since Ronald Reagan, and hundreds of billions of dollars of spending is blamed on Republicans that was vetoed by George W. Bush.

2009 Obama Stimulus
Obama's massive $831 billion so-called jobs bill, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act better known as the Stimulus, has proven a debacle. Despite the trillions of dollars of stimulus spending from 2008-10 student homelessness is at an all-time high, the labor force participation rate remains at a 30-year low, and the number of long-term unemployed has increased so much that Obama is calling for further extension of unemployment benefits for those unemployed so long they are no longer eligible. There are at least 13 million more people on food stamps than when Obama took office. At the time of its passage in January 2009 the Wall Street Journal reported on how much of the Stimulus bill's spending in the name of job creation was actually being used for pork, special interest earmarks benefiting every major liberal agenda of the past 40 years. Wall Street Journal analysis determined that only 12 cents of every dollar was spent on actual job creation:

“This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years. We've looked it over, and even we can't quite believe it. There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons… Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus.”

-The Wall Street Journal

As Republican Senator Tom Coburn pointed out, “This is about spending money we don't have for things we don't need.” Wasteful spending included $650 million in subsidies to switch television signals to digital, $335 million for STD research, $70 million for non-smoking programs, $50 million for the arts, and $25 million for ATV trails. Despite the bill's original projections that unemployment would stay below 8% if the Stimulus was passed the unemployment rate went above 10%.

“A way of looking at it is we have spent more in the first 23 or 24 days of this [Obama] administration, in other words, charged more, than it cost post-9/11 for the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq and the response to Katrina already.”

-Mitch McConnell, April 2009

According to page 4 of Obama's 2009 report, The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, “As Figure 1 shows, even with the large prototypical package, the unemployment rate in 2010Q4 is predicted to be approximately 7.0%, which is well below the approximately 8.8% that would result in the absence of a plan.” The chart then showed unemployment remaining below 8% if the Stimulus was passed, a claim that has failed to bear out in reality.

The Stimulus ended up on 2009 CBO projections before Obama took office only because Obama pressured Congress to pass the bill before he took office. Democrats have since used this fact to dishonestly claim that Obama reduced the deficit, when the 2009 Stimulus spending was clearly his own handiwork.

2009 Omnibus
The $410 billion bill was filled with pork; over 9,000 of the earmarks Obama campaigned against. Backtracking on his previous criticism of earmarks, Obama when signing the Omnibus defended earmarks when they're "done right." According to Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill at the time, Obama's rhetoric against earmarks at the time was received in Congress with "a roar of laughter -- because there were earmarks." Furthermore, some of the earmarks included were ones that Obama and members of his administration (including Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden) had sponsored before Obama became president. Only 24 Republicans, 16 in the House and 8 in the Senate, ended up voting for the corrupt and wasteful bill; it was passed primarily by the heavily Democratic Congress at the time.

2010 Obamacare
Obamacare is predicted by the Congressional Budget Office to cost $1.76 trillion over an 11-year period. Obama of course repeatedly called for the then-fully-Democrat Congress to pass Obamacare. That spending is entirely on him and Democrats, not Republicans.

Counties

 * Main Article: County Poverty

Democrats like to claim that the poorest counties are in Republican states, which is "technically" true - but despite the fact that they tend to be in red states, those counties voted for Obama.