Those two charts showed that the current recovery was very weak compared to the boom of the early 1980s.

But perhaps that was an unfair comparison. Maybe the Reagan recovery started strong and then hit a wall. Or maybe the Obama recovery was the economic equivalent of a late bloomer.

So let’s look at the same charts, but add an extra year of data. Does it make a difference?

Meh…not so much.

Let’s start with the GDP data. The comparison is striking. Under Reagan’s policies, the economy skyrocketed.  Heck, the chart prepared by the Minneapolis Fed doesn’t even go high enough to show how well the economy performed during the 1980s.

Under Obama’s policies, by contrast, we’ve just barely gotten back to where we were when the recession began. Unlike past recessions, we haven’t enjoyed a strong bounce. And this means we haven’t recovered the output that was lost during the downturn.

This is a damning indictment of Obamanomics

Indeed, I made this point several months ago when analyzing some work by Nobel laureate Robert Lucas. And it’s been highlighted more recently by James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute and the news pages of the Wall Street Journal.

Unfortunately, the jobs chart is probably even more discouraging. As you can see, employment is still far below where it started.

This is in stark contrast to the jobs boom during the Reagan years.

So what does this mean? How do we measure the human cost of the foregone growth and jobs that haven’t been created?

Writing in today’s Wall Street Journal, former Senator Phil Gramm and budgetary expert Mike Solon compare the current recovery to the post-war average as well as to what happened under Reagan.

If in this “recovery” our economy had grown and generated jobs at the average rate achieved following the 10 previous postwar recessions, GDP per person would be $4,528 higher and 13.7 million more Americans would be working today. …President Ronald Reagan’s policies ignited a recovery so powerful that if it were being repeated today, real per capita GDP would be $5,694 higher than it is now—an extra $22,776 for a family of four. Some 16.9 million more Americans would have jobs.

By the way, the Gramm-Solon column also addresses the argument that this recovery is anemic because the downturn was caused by a financial crisis. That’s certainly a reasonable argument, but they point out that Reagan had to deal with the damage caused by high inflation, which certainly wreaked havoc with parts of the financial system. They also compare today’s weak recovery to the boom that followed the financial crisis of 1907.

But I want to make a different point. As I’ve written before, Obama is not responsible for the current downturn. Yes, he was a Senator and he was part of the bipartisan consensus for easy money, Fannie/Freddie subsidies, bailout-fueled moral hazard, and a playing field tilted in favor of debt, but his share of the blame wouldn’t even merit an asterisk.

My problem with Obama is that he hasn’t fixed any of the problems. Instead, he has kept in place all of the bad policies – and in some cases made them worse. Indeed, I challenge anyone to identify a meaningful difference between the economic policy of Obama and the economic policy of Bush.

• Bush increased government spending. Obama has been increasing government spending.
• Bush adopted Keynesian “stimulus” policies. Obama adopted Keynesian “stimulus” policies.
• Bush bailed out politically connected companies. Obama has been bailing out politically connected companies.
• Bush supported the Fed’s easy-money policy. Obama has been supporting the Fed’s easy-money policy.
• Bush created a new healthcare entitlement. Obama created a new healthcare entitlement.
• Bush imposed costly new regulations on the financial sector. Obama imposed costly new regulations on the financial sector.

I could continue, but you probably get the  point. On economic issues, the only real difference is that Bush cut taxes and Obama is in favor of higher taxes. Though even that difference is somewhat overblown since Obama’s tax policies – up to this point – haven’t had a big impact on the overall tax burden (though that could change if his plans for higher tax rates ever go into effect).

This is why I always tell people not to pay attention to party labels. Bigger government doesn’t work, regardless of whether a politician is a Republican or Democrat. The problem isn’t Obamanomics, it’s Bushobamanomics. But since that’s a bit awkward, let’s just call it statism.

When Chavez, aided by the American Left, offered low cost heating oil to America as a political move intended to undermine then Republican President George Bush, Mitt Romney joined with the Left in praising the deal. And Romney didn’t stop there. Emphasis mine.

Joseph P. Kennedy II, chairman of the nonprofit Citizens Energy, which is helping to administer the discounted oil, said it was unfair to criticize Chávez’s motives when other oil-providing nations had given no aid. … In Venezuela, “you have a country led by somebody who cares for the poor.”

Governor Mitt Romney yesterday hailed the accord, though he declined to discuss Chávez. “I’m delighted to hear we’ll be able to purchase oil at a lower price than the market for our citizens,” he said.

This via page 84 of a recently leaked McCain oppo research file on Romney from 2008.

“Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican like President Bush, cheered the agreement during a Statehouse news conference, saying, ‘I want to say thanks to Congressman Delahunt and all of those around the world working to get lower-priced energy to us.’” (Mark Jewell, “Venezuela To Provide Discounted Heating Oil To Massachusetts,” The Associated Press, 11/22/05)

Independent analysts pronounced it a political move to hurt Bush and also help to empower Chavez to take control of a significant number of oil fields down the road.

“The plan in Massachusetts is ‘eminently a political move’ designed to compromise the White House’s domestic position, said Patrick Esteruelas, an analyst with the New York-based Eurasia Group. He said it was also a way to emphasize what Chavez has long cited as the failings of U.S. policy. The initiative is part of a larger effort by Chavez to use Venezuela’s surging oil wealth to extend the country’s influence.” (Mark Jewell, “Venezuela To Provide Discounted Heating Oil To Massachusetts,” The Associated Press, 11/22/05)

Chavez went on to make a move on more American and European oil fields just two years later.

The accompanying parade, the Rose Parade, predates the game, dating way back to 1890. It’s a tradition that normally goes off without a hitch–that is, until this year, when “Occupy the Rose Parade” has decided to disrupt the festivities.

Peter Thottam, right

Led by Peter Thottam, who we will return to in a moment, the Occupy the Rose Parade activists will follow the long parade with their own demonstration. It won’t be the first time that Thottam has tried to disrupt the parade.

In 2008, he–along with supporters from the Los Angeles National Impeachment Center–worked with Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, and Iraq Veterans Against the War to try to make a statement about impeaching Bush and Cheney.

But this year, Thottam obtained approval for a protest to follow the parade. At the parade’s conclusion, his group plans to pilot an “Octupy Octupus,” a puppet made from recycled plastic bags and bamboo that takes 40 people to operate. The organizers say that the puppet symbolizes Wall Street’s tentacles, strangling American politics.

To prepare for the Occupiers, who will include Sheehan and filmmaker Michael Moore, the City of Pasadena had to double its police presence to deal with the supposedly peaceful protestors.

Thottam makes clear that his beef is with the parade, not the game. “A total of nine floats are underwritten by banks. We believe the parade has not only been corporatized but militarized,” Thottam told the local press.

Of course, what particularly bothers Thottam are the Obama administration’s foreign wars, and the fact that J.R. Martinez, a wounded veteran, is leading the parade.

“You have a grand marshal who is an Iraq soldier and we have nothing against him, but those two wars–Iraq and Afghanistan–were wrong and the government took money away from social services to fight those wars.”

Thottam wasn’t always so “supportive” of the troops. In March 2003, he headed a radical anti-war group, known as Answer L.A. The war in Iraq was being waged, according to Thottam at the time, not for democracy or to remove a tyrant, but for “empire” and “oil,” he told The Boston Herald as he protested the war outside of the 75th Academy Awards.

Thottam appears to have contempt for the kind of rule of law that American soldiers like J.R. Martinez and others sought to promote abroad.

In June 2003, Thottam was arrested for theft in Mexico. The incident was written up in an August 2003 article by The Village Voice. Thottam spent four nights with thirteen other prisoners in a crowded Mexican prison cell. A friend came to the rescue and posted the $1,100 bail and Thottam, in his words, “hightailed” it out of the country. Thottam claims that he was looking for a lost guide book when he nearly stepped out of the store with a pair socks in hand. In 2004, Thottam was later caught shoplifting at a clothing store on the East Coast, according to court documents filed by his estranged brother and sister.

Thottam was also convicted that year of petty theft in Irvine, CA, for stealing $71 worth of books from a bookstore. He was placed on probation for one year, and ordered to complete 20 hours of community service and pay $130 in fines and fees by an Orange County court.

But Thottam, who graduated from UC Berkeley Law in 1999 and passed the bar in 2000, failed to disclose the theft and had his law license suspsended in 2008.

Here’s how the California bar described it.

After practicing law for several years, Thottam enrolled in an MBA program at UC Irvine. He decided to transfer after a year and tried to return his textbooks, worth hundreds of dollars, to the Irvine bookstore for full price. When the bookstore refused, Thottam became upset and took two other books, worth $71 from the store.

At the time, he was under a great deal of stress because his mother had had one leg amputated for gangrene but refused to allow doctors to remove the other diseased leg. She died a few weeks later of septicemia, gangrene of the lower extremities. Thottam admitted taking the books and told police about the stress he was under.

He failed to appear in court for the criminal matter and a bench warrant was issued. He ultimately pleaded guilty to misdemeanor petty theft but did not report the conviction to the State Bar.

On March 11th, 2007 Thottam spoke at one of many 9/11 Truth conventions. You can watch him talk about the strategy behind 9/11 denial here in his own words. He coordinated with other Truthers to disrupt Bill Maher’s show on October 23, 2007, and he is pictured here, next to a sign saying that “World Trade Building 7 Didn’t Just Blow Itself Up!”

In 2010, Thottam ran for the Democratic nomination for California’s 53rd Assembly seat. He cited his background as “a financial analyst,” a skill he had purportedly learedn from his father, who he watched suffer a bankruptcy in early 1990s. Thottam argued that the example had taught him to be better with money and to plan for the future.

However, as the Daily Kos points out:

But in at least two of his jobs in the financial realm, Thottam was fired.

From 1999 to 2001 Thottam worked for the Silicon Valley law firm of Wilson, Sonshani, Goodrich & Rosati before he was fired for “performance-based” reasons, according to the company as reported in an April 2002 article published by the Communications Workers of America.

In the article about the stigma workers carry for being fired rather than being laid off, Thottam claimed he was actually laid off.

Thottam subsequently went to work for the prestigious law firm of O’Melveny & Myers in San Francisco from 2001 to 2002. Again, Thottam claimed he was laid off according to a March 2002 article in the Daily Journal; the company responded in the article by saying the firm had suffered no layoffs and was, in fact, hiring.

Thottam’s skills were so bad at managing finances that his own siblings fought over his handling of his late mother’s will. That may be a common occurrence among families, but the charges leveled by family members were particularly severe. According to the Daily Breeze:

Allegations leveled against Thottam by his siblings in court documents related to the trust set up for them include:

That his brother and sister, Jameson and Elizabeth, were “considering removing Peter as a co-trustee because Peter lost $800,000 playing the stock market and misappropriated rents” from a property belonging to the trust “to cover margin calls on his personal stock account.”

That he was “an unsuitable trustee because he was convicted of shoplifting from the UC Irvine bookstore and was previously caught shoplifting from a clothing store on the East Coast and again shoplifting from a store in Mexico where he was subsequently placed in jail.”

Despite that history, Thottam still secured the endorsement the Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles.

And now, Thottam is inviting protestors from all around the world to descend on Pasadena. Are they aware of Thottam’s past?

Also funny to see that so many of the Occupy LA crowd would support Herman Cain for president. The even chanted “9-9-9!” Looks like Cain has crossover appeal that the GOP establishment has overlooked.

Occupy LA is backed and led by several out of the closet communists who are part of the Communist Party USA. For more info about them check out the link here.

The good news is that an AFP news story says the unemployment rate has dropped to 3.2 percent.

The bad news (from the U.S. perspective) is that the article was about Hong Kong, which continues to enjoy strong economic growth while America stagnates.

One reason for the divergence is found in the just-released 2011 edition of Economic Freedom of the World, published by Canada’s Fraser Institute in cooperation with groups like the Cato Institute.

Covering data through 2009, the new edition of EFW shows that Hong Kong retains its status as the world’s freest economy. On the other hand, the same report provides damning evidence of the negative impact of the Bush-Obama policies of bigger government and more intervention.

Here’s a relevant passage from the Executive Summary.

The world’s largest economy, the United States, has suffered one of the largest declines in economic freedom over the last 10 years, pushing it into tenth place. Much of this decline is a result of higher government spending and borrowing and lower scores for the legal structure and property rights components. Over the longer term, the summary chain-linked ratings of Venezuela, Zimbabwe, United States, and Malaysia fell by eight-tenths of a point or more between 1990 and 2009, causing their rankings to slip.

This chart (click to enlarge), taken directly from the book, shows how the United States has been of the world’s five-worst performers over the past decade, putting America in a very unfortunate category.

And here’s a chart I created (click to enlarge) showing how the United States has declined relative to other nations. Simply stated, America is on the verge of falling out of the top 10, after being the 3rd-freest economy in the world at the end of the Clinton Administration.

Thanks George and Barack.

By the way, Hong Kong and Singapore are the top two nations, where they’ve ranked for quite some time. Here is the full top-10 list.

1. Hong Kong

2. Singapore

3. New Zealand

4. Switzerland

5. Australia

6. Canada

7. Chile

8. United Kingdom

9. Mauritius

10. United States

And here’s a video that uses the Economic Freedom of the World data to show how to restore economic growth. Simply stated, we know what will boost growth: small government and free markets. But politicians such as Obama don’t want to take their hands from around the throat of the economy.

By the way, just in case you think Economic Freedom of the World might be suspect because it is produced by free-market think tanks, we see a similar negative trend from other sources.

The World Economic Forum is a very pro-establishment organization, and the WEF’s Global Competitiveness Report also shows a quick drop in America’s status. Click to enlarge.

Makes you wonder where America will rank next year.

Democrats and liberals were upset that I blamed Obama for the downgrade, as you might expect. Republicans and conservatives, however, were agitated that my first sentence pointed out that Bush bore significant responsibility for the spending binge that created the fiscal crisis.

This got me thinking about the underlying causes of America’s long-term fiscal problems and whether it might be possible to come up with some sort of reasonable estimate on which Presidents are most responsible for fiscal crisis.

So I decided to look at the most recent long-run forecast from the Congressional Budget Office. As you might suspect, entitlement programs are THE reason why the United States is in deep trouble.

What does this allow us to say about various presidents? Well, it turns out that Social Security is a relatively minor part of the problem, so even though President Roosevelt’s policies exacerbated and extended the Great Depression, the program he created is only responsible for a small share of the fiscal crisis. To give the illusion of scientific exactitude, let’s assign FDR 13.2 percent of the blame.

The health care numbers are much harder to disentangle because it’s not apparent how much of the increase is due to Medicare, Medicaid, Bush’s prescription drug entitlement, and Obamacare. A healthcare policy wonk may know these numbers, but the CBO long-run forecast didn’t provide much detail.

So with a big caveat that these are just wild estimations, I feel reasonably comfortable in saying that both Bush and Obama made matters worse with their reckless entitlement expansions, but that they merely deepened a fiscal hole that was created when President Johnson imposed Medicare and Medicaid.

With that in mind (and ignoring, for the sake of simplicity, the role of other Presidents – such as Nixon – who expanded the size and scope of health entitlements), here is my ranking of presidential responsibility for America’s fiscal decline.

This does not mean, however, that it was unfair yesterday to apply the “Obama Downgrade” label.

In part, he is responsible because the downgrade from Standard & Poor happened on his watch. But the real reason he earned that label is that he doubled down on the reckless policies of his predecessors and demagogued against lawmakers such as Cong. Paul Ryan who actually have tried to solve the problem.

It seems this is the Democratic answer for every single issue, every problem, every debate.

This, of course, saddens me enormously.

And so, always ready to help, I am recommending a 12-Step program to help them overcome their anger, resentment, and obsession over the Bush tax cuts. Democrats really need a Higher Power on this.

First, when tax rates were lowered across-the-board in mid-2003, the incentive effect kicked in to jump-start the economy immediately. Over the next four and a half years, before the financial meltdown slammed the economy– and that was a credit event, not a fiscal one—8.2 million jobs were created.

Jobs essentially rose for about fifty consecutive months.

Non-farm payrolls rose from just under 130 million to just over 138 million. Don’t believe me? You can look it up. This sort of job creation is exactly what President Obama would love to see happen now.

And, while jobs rose, the government took in more revenues. As a share of GDP, revenues rose from 16.2 percent to 18.5 percent. Simply put, supply-side tax cuts were the single best economic policy President Bush implemented.

Elsewhere, President Bush overspent and overregulated. And yes, the dollar collapsed on his watch. And from Fannie Mae to the Federal Reserve, the housing bubble was born.

But the tax cuts? They worked. And that’s my point.