The 'recovery' that isn't
Here's more proof - not that any is needed - that the Obama recoveryless recovery is not really a mystery if you look at the numbers.
"There is much more work that remains to be done to repair the damage caused by the financial crisis and deep recession," wrote Alan Krueger.
Obama himself has used this excuse. "From the moment we first took action to prevent another Great Depression, we knew the road to recovery would not be easy; we knew it would take time," he said last week.
But the history of economic cycles suggests that the exact opposite should have happened.
"Typically following a recession, the economy rebounds strongly," Richmond Federal Reserve President Jeffrey Lacker noted in the bank's quarterly journal.
What's more, deeper recessions tend to produce strong recoveries.
"You can't find a single deep recession that has been followed by a moderate recovery," Dean Maki, chief U.S. economist at Barclays Capital, said back in August 2009.
The 1957-58, 1973-74 and 1981-82 recessions were the sharpest post-war slumps until the Great Recession. From those lows, the economy rose 15%, 18.5% and 19.6% over the next 11 quarters, respectively, vs. just 6.8% for the Obama recovery.
![]()
The president and his economic advisers also initially expected a solid recovery this time around.
Obama's first budget in February 2009, forecast "rapid growth" that "is expected to push down the unemployment rate ... to 5% by the end of 2013." That month, Obama told the public that the $830 billion stimulus plan would "ignite spending by businesses and consumers" and "usher in a new wave of innovation, activity and construction."
The administration's August 2009 budget update claimed that "once the recovery takes hold, it is expected to gain momentum as time passes."
And as the true depth of the recession became clear over the next several months, the White House continued to promise a solid recovery.
That's only a third of the growth coming out of this recession than we typically experience coming out of a deep recession.
The difference is that the policies implemented by Barack Obama have actually made things worse rather than better. If he had done nothing, chances are the economy would have come roaring back as it has in the past. The housing market would have bottomed out and home values would have begun to rise. Business, unhindered by Obama regulations would have boomed. Hiring would have been brisk.
The fact that the economy is growing at all is a testament to the productivity of the American worker and the genius of our entrepreneurial society. But what might have been if Obama had even made modest tax cuts and spending reductions will always haunt us.
FOLLOW US ON
Recent Articles
- The Death of the Center-Left in America
- ‘Make Peace, You Fools! What Else Can You Do?’
- When Nuclear Regulation Goes Awry
- The Danger of Nothing
- A New Pope With Courage
- Not in Kansas Any More
- Democrats Dying on the Most Desolate Hills
- If She’s an Astronaut … I’m a Jet Fighter Pilot
- Is the Jihadist Trojan Horse Winning?
- Who Has the Best American Autobiography?
Blog Posts
- Celebrate Earth Day by not burning a Tesla
- Minnesota state bureaucrat charged with vandalizing Teslas to the tune of $20,000 is let off scot-free
- Trump’s plan for Gaza vs. the New York Times
- What’s next for Syria?
- Tulsi Gabbard's latest Biden revelation
- Mexican ammo wranglers
- Rep. Jamie 'Maryland Man' Raskin also threatens Trump supporters
- The eight narrative fallacies that drive American politics
- Summertime reality twisted into climate exasperation
- Life discovered on a distant planet?
- The answer is not blowing in the wind
- Letitia James: it's either/or
- Harvard elitism meets Donald Trump
- The GEC is finally more than mostly dead
- We're not the same