Comperative Job Growth...

Dean Baker wants to know: Does the Washington Post Work for the Bush Administration?

That is probably the question that most readers are asking after reading the headline of the article on the September jobs data, "Strong Jobs Report Eases Fears Over Economy's Health." As I and others have said, the September numbers were somewhat stronger that expected, and the upward revisions to July and August job numbers were good news, but 110,000 jobs as "strong?" Give me a break.

The economy created an average of 240,000 jobs a month during President Clinton's second term. That qualifies as "strong" job growth, not 110,000.

The article also allowed the Bush administration to do some unaswered boasting. Quoting the White House that the upward revision to the August data (from a loss to a gain) coupled with September's jobs numbers "means that we've had 49 consecutive months of job creation. And that's the longest uninterrupted job growth on record for our country."

While the statement is true, it is not terribly meaningful. Prior stretches of job creation were interrupted by short strikes. Since the White House is interested in records, the Post could have pointed out that the 0.64 percent annual rate of job growth since President Bush took office is also the slowest rate of job growth on record for any comparable period of time.

I've said many times that President Bush is not completely responsible for the weakness of the economy since he took office. However, when the tries to imply that the economy has been strong, he is not being honest.