The Pro-Growth Party?

A few months ago I found a nice little graph comparing Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth under Democrats and under Republicans. It compared the two parties and the results were startling.

I have not been able to find that graph yet, but here are pretty much that same facts laid out in a slightly different form.

I do not stand behind all of the statistics, but they look pretty close to what I have seen before. Thanks to the folks here for the chart (note: I know nothing about the site other than that the facts look correct so I grabbed them).

Just to be sure I did run a few numbers on my own from FRED data. If one uses 12 years from both Democrats and Republicans one finds some interesting numbers. These numbers use the most recent period of 24 years with an even 12 year split, 1977-2000.

Democrats (Carter and Clinton) - Real GDP Growth was = 3.56

and

Republicans (Reagan and Bush Sr.) - Real GDP Growth was = 3.0

Basically the idea that one party is pro-growth and the other anti-growth does not hold up under the scrutiny of the numbers. If one were to dig deeper one would find median income growth is higher under Democrats, welfare roles decrease at a greater rate, and poverty on average falls more.

Although it may seem that I am advocating Democratic superiority - I am NOT. Because I think that parts of New Deal liberalism went too far in pushing top down regulation. What I am advocating is that the political discourse in this country get away from the partisan growth argument because there is not clear Republican victory. This point will be quite relevant in the pro-fiscal stimulus v. ant-fiscal stimulus debate that has already begun amongst bloggers and lawmakers.

Metric	Source of data/ analysis	Average under Democratic Presidents/ Administrations	Average under Republican Presidents/ Administrations	Who measured better on this metric? (See critiques page)
Average Ranking (lower the number the better) for highest GDP growth, real disposable personal income, employment/ unemployment, deficit reduction 1953-2001	Average rank calculated from ranking data from Dan Ackman, Forbes.com	Overall rank: 4.58 (top 3 are Democrats) GDP rank: 3.8 Real Disposable Personal Income rank: 5.0 Employment rank: 4.6 Deficit Reduction rank: 4.2	Overall rank: 6.44 (Reagan is #4) GDP rank: 7.2 Real Disposable Personal Income rank: 6.0 Employment rank: 6.4 Deficit reduction rank: 6.38	Democratic Presidents [Also see this data comparison from Michael Kinsley in the Washington Post]
Real Disposable Personal Income Growth per year 1953-2001	Dan Ackman, Forbes.com	3.65%	3.08%	Democratic Presidents
Employment gains per year 1953-2001	Dan Ackman, Forbes.com	1.684 million/year	1.279 million/year	Democratic Presidents
Unemployment: 1962-2001	P.L.A., using data from the BLS	5.1 %	6.75 %	Democratic Presidents
Unemployment: 1947-2001 Assuming that each President's policies took effect 1 year after his inauguration	Larry Bartels, Los Angeles Times	4.8 %	6.3 %	Democratic Presidents (trend similar if 2 year shift assumed)
Unemployment: 1948-2001 Assuming Presidents are also responsible for economic performance 3-5 years after they leave office	CalPundit, using data from the BLS	3-yr lag: 5.06 % 4-yr lag: 5.04 % 5-yr lag: 5.01%	3-yr lag: 6.16 % 4-yr lag: 6.18 % 5-yr lag: 6.21 %	Democratic Presidents
Average After-Tax Return on Tangible Capital: Jan 1952 - June 2004	Roger Altman, Wall Street Journal (data from Federal Reserve)	4.3%	3.2%	Democratic Presidents [For a Bush I + Bush II vs. Clinton comparison, see here]
GDP growth: 1962-2001	P.L.A., using data from the BEA	3.9 %	2.9 %	Democratic Presidents
GDP growth: 1948 - 2001 Assuming Presidents are also responsible for economic performance 3-5 years after they leave office	CalPundit, using data from the BEA	3-yr lag: 3.56 % 4-yr lag: 3.78 % 5-yr lag: 3.71 %	3-yr lag: 3.35 % 4-yr lag: 3.16 % 5-yr lag: 3.21 %	Democratic Presidents
GDP growth: 1930-2000	Carol Vinzant in Slate	5.4%	1.6 %	Democratic Presidents
Inflation: 1962-2001	P.L.A., using data from the BLS	4.26 %	4.96 %	Democratic Presidents
Inflation: 1948-2001 Assuming Presidents are also responsible for economic performance 3-5 years after they leave office	CalPundit, using CPI data from Economagic	3-yr lag: 3.33 % 4-yr lag: 3.07 % 5-yr lag: 3.20 %	3-yr lag: 4.36 % 4-yr lag: 4.60 % 5-yr lag: 4.48 %	Democratic Presidents
Percentage growth in Total Federal Spending: 1962-2001	P.L.A., using data from the U.S. Govt. Budget 2003	6.96 %	7.57 %	Democratic Presidents if lower Govt. spending is better; Republican Presidents if higher spending is better NEW Note, however, that total spending other than for Medicare and Social Security has been dropping since 1983 (CalPundit using U.S. Govt. Budget data). The decrease was more significant in the 90s under Clinton.
Percentage growth in Non-Defense Federal Spending: 1962-2001	P.L.A., using data from the U.S. Govt. Budget 2003	8.34 %	10.08 %	Democratic Presidents if lower Govt. spending is better; Republican Presidents if higher spending is better NEW Note, however, that total spending other than for Medicare and Social Security has been dropping since 1983 (CalPundit using U.S. Govt. Budget data). The decrease was more significant in the 90s under Clinton.
Non-defense Federal Government Employees: 1962-2001	P.L.A., using data from the U.S. Govt. Budget 2003	Rose by 59,000 (16 % of total rise over 40 years)	Rose by 310,000 (84% of total rise over 40 years)	Democratic Presidents (assuming smaller Govt. is better)
Yearly budget deficit: 1962-2001	P.L.A., using data from the U.S. Govt. Budget 2003	$36 billion	$190 billion	Democratic Presidents
Increase in National Debt: 1962-2001	P.L.A., using data from the U.S. Govt. Budget 2003 See follow-up by P.L.A. solidifying the conclusions	Total debt increased by $0.72 trillion (20 years)	Total debt increased by $3.8 trillion (20 years)	Democratic Presidents
Annual stock market return: 1927 (through) 1998	Pedro Santa-Clara and Rossen Valkanov Research Paper, UCLA (via Atrios) Results are "statistically significant" Also reported by CNN Money	~ 11% (value weighted CRSP index minus 3 month Treasury Bill)	~ 2% (value weighted CRSP index minus 3 month Treasury Bill)	Democratic Presidents (Delta increases to 16% for equal-weighted case) The study says: "The difference comes from higher real stock returns and lower real interest rates, is statistically significant, and is robust in subsamples. The difference in returns is not explained by business-cycle variables related to expected returns, and is not concentrated around election dates. There is no difference in the riskiness of the stock market across presidencies that could justify a risk premium."
Annual stock market return: (1900) 1927 - 2000	Carol Vinzant in Slate	12.3 % (S&P 500)	8.0 % (S&P 500)	Democratic Presidents
Annual stock market return: (1900) 1927 - 2000	Carol Vinzant in Slate	Democratic Senate 10.5 % (S&P 500) Democratic House 10.9 % (S&P 500)	Republican Senate 9.4 % (S&P 500) Republican House 8.1 % (S&P 500)	Democratic Senate or House (but see article for qualifications)
Annual stock market return: (1900) 1927 - 2000	Stock Traders' Almanac as reported by Carol Vinzant in Slate	13.4 % (Dow)	8.1 % (Dow)	Democratic Presidents
Rankings for highest GDP growth, biggest increase in jobs, biggest increase in personal disposable income after taxes, biggest rise in hourly wages, lowest Misery Index (inflation plus unemployment), etc. (until 2001)	Arthur Blaustein, Mother Jones	N/A. But all these best case metrics were under Democratic Presidents	N/A	Democratic Presidents
.	.	.	.	.
District spending by Congress: 1995 - 2001	Associated Press report: 1, 2	Democratic districts: $3.9 billion in 1995 to $5.2 billion in 2001 (34% increase)	Republican districts: $3.9 billion in 1995 to $5.8 billion in 2001 (52% increase)	Hard to say who is better but certainly not Republicans, who shifted spending to RICHER districts from poorer.