First the Truth...
The historical unemployment rates during the Clinton and Bush presidencies are shown to the left. Note that the unemployment rate throughout Clinton's presidency drops precipitously from 1992 to 2000. During this period the government was administered by a moderate Democrat (Clinton) and a split congress (Republican House, Democrat Senate).
The data show that In 2000, a full year before Bush takes office, the unemployment rate begins to rise sharply (not due to any policy failure on the part of President Clinton or Congress but more likely attributable to the dotcom meltdown). No matter what the cause, that the rise in unemployment occurred on President Clinton's watch is inarguable.
The data then show that shortly after the Bush administration took office, the increase in unemployment rate was reversed. The reverse coincides precisely to the enactment of the Bush administration's [temporary] tax cuts. Finally, the data show that shortly after the Democrats took over both houses of congress (2006) the decline in unemployment rate flattens then begins to climb steeply upward. The unemployment rate today stands at 6.1%.
Next, look at employment.
Like the unemployment rate above, the employment data show a similar profile. In the year 2000, one year before the Bush administration takes office, the employment rate begins to fall precipitously. And, like the unemployment rate, this is most likely attributable to the bursting of the dotcom bubble. Its nadir occurs around 2002 and begins to rise. As with unemployment, the rise in employment follows closely on the heels of the Bush tax cuts.
In 2005, employment peaks and then, in 2006 begins to decline rapidly.
What are we to make of these data?
...Then Opinion: To the extent that [un]employment statistics are a harbinger of recession, the Bush administration can not be held responsible for the economic downturn that began in [March of] 2000 and plagued much of the Bush administration's first term.
If anything, these data suggest that the economy does best when each house of congress is controlled by an opposing party, i.e., a split-congress. Indeed, the rapid rise in unemployment and decrease in employment seen when Democrats gained both houses of congress in 2006 should give us all pause.
From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time
-- F.A. Hayak
-- F.A. Hayak