'Splain
Why did I make these last two posts [1] [2]?

You'll recall that a few days ago I posted some information from buzzflash.com, which was subsequently discussed by Michael Hanscom. Buzzflash presented several graphs that looked at economic performance from a presidential point of view. Here's an example:



Taking the previous links, some of this information can be presented in textual form as follows:

Year	President	Surplus (Deficit)
1989	GHW Bush	-152.5
1990	GHW Bush	-221.2
1991	GHW Bush	-269.3
1992	GHW Bush	-290.4
1993	Clinton	-255.1
1994	Clinton	-203.2
1995	Clinton	-164.0
1996	Clinton	-107.5
1997	Clinton	-22.0
1998	Clinton	69.2
1999	Clinton	125.6
2000	Clinton	236.4
2001	GW Bush	127.3
2002	GW Bush	-157.8

So, the obvious conclusion is that the Democrats slowly brought the budget into alignment, but the spend-happy Republicans messed things up again.

But let's look at the data another way, using Speakers of the House:

Year	Speaker	Surplus (Deficit)
1989	Wright/Foley	-152.5
1990	Foley	-221.2
1991	Foley	-269.3
1992	Foley	-290.4
1993	Foley	-255.1
1994	Foley	-203.2
1995	Gingrich	-164.0
1996	Gingrich	-107.5
1997	Gingrich	-22.0
1998	Gingrich	69.2
1999	Hastert	125.6
2000	Hastert	236.4
2001	Hastert	127.3
2002	Hastert	-157.8

In this version, Republican Gingrich emerges as the budget balancing hero who was finally done in by his Republican successor Hastert.

Valid arguments exist on either side as to whether the President or the Speaker of the House is more responsible for a national budget. In a Constitutional sense, the House is responsible for initiating the budget, but in practice it is the President who gets the ball rolling.

Just noting that there are multiple ways to look at data. You could also chart by Chairman of the Federal Reserve, but Greenspan was Chairman during this entire period. (Hmm...when did he marry Andrea Mitchell? Is that a valid data point?)

It's probably good that I forgot all of the econometrics that I never learned...