Brendan Bordelon at the Corner notices that somebody is being a little bit less than subtle about 2016 now that the Battle of 14 is but a pleasant memory.
At an American Federation of Teachers event in Washington D.C., on Thursday, Vice President Joe Biden subtly undercut Hillary’s oft-repeated claim that the Clinton economy sustained a vibrant middle class.
“The fact is, the middle class started declining in the late 1980s,” he said. “All through the ’90s, with the exception of two years, the middle class was declining — except for the last two years.”
Not to go defending Bill Clinton too much here, but that’s a fairly difficult claim to defend. A quick look at the chart below gives a suitable snapshot view of the general trends in both GDP and median income over the decades in question.
Even the median income figure – which working class voters can relate too far more than GDP – tells a pretty clear tale. It was on the rise steadily from 1993 (when Clinton was sworn in) pretty much right through the end of the decade. It dipped for a few years following the attacks of 9/11, but then began creeping back up until the crash of 2007. (Since then it has just withered.) This may be a good talking point for Biden if he’s interested in overcoming the 50 point lead that Hillary has over him – assuming you could tie those numbers to her rather than her husband – but he’ll have a hard time drumming up any data to support it.
But in the end, how much credit can politicians really claim for the performance of the economy? They all try to do it of course, or blame their opponents for poor numbers, but the President can only do so much, and the effects are felt over long time spans. (Regulations or the lack thereof are their biggest weapons.) The economy is a complicated beast which is affected by any number of external factors. Yet politicians and the media stars who love them will continue to pitch these stories. Here’s the video of Biden for your weekend entertainment.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member