I've read this kind of quote from voters in Nevada, Michigan, Iowa and New Hampshire. If you are a Hillary supporter, do you recognize this sentiment?
At North Las Vegas’ Rancho High School, Maria Arqueta, a 46-year-old recently laid-off restaurant worker and former Culinary worker, said she sided with Clinton primarily because she hopes a Hillary Clinton administration could restore the upbeat economy of Bill Clinton’s presidency.
Echoing the same theme, Planet Hollywood porter Javier Martinez said: “When her husband was in office, things were good for us.”
Las Vegas Sun: Culinary Caucus
Bill and Hillary Clinton perpetuate this myth when they reference the "good old times" of the Clinton Era. The fact is - presidents have very little control over the economy. That Clinton takes credit for the booming economy in the 1990s demonstrates a fundamental bankruptcy of her campaign. She is literally promising something that she cannot deliver. Hillary supporters - don't you find this problematic?
Quite simply, Presidents have very little effect on the economy. Instead, they are at the mercy of the business cycle:
Fiscal policy is less effective than monetary policy for another reason as well. Whereas the Chairman of the Fed has only to make a few phone calls to turn the economy on a dime, the government must take long, slow and uncertain action. Suppose the president wants to pass a budget filled with deficit spending. First he has to campaign to get the nation behind it. Then he has to make deals and twist arms in Congress to win support for it. If either of these efforts fail, then his budget won't get passed at all. If he is lucky enough to win plausible support, then the budget must be debated in Congress. Members of Congress will make extensive and profound changes to his original budget proposal. Lobbyists will make further changes in conference committee. (The power of lobbyists is not to be underestimated -- their control over the budget is near absolute.) When the final budget is passed, it often bears little resemblance to what the president requested. Then the bill has to be put into effect; this happens in next fiscal year. Bids for government projects must be received and evaluated, contracts awarded, and implementation begun. The effects of fiscal spending may take years to have an effect on the economy.
In recent decades, the president has been relegated to an increasingly minor role in fiscal policy. If Congress is controlled by the other party, then he even becomes a mere figurehead. For example, House Democrats declared seven of Reagan's eight budgets "Dead on Arrival" upon submission. Reagan lobbied Congress, and not Congress Reagan, for the final result. The same problem confronted Bill Clinton when the Republicans took over Congress in 1994. The only real power that Clinton had was the threat of the veto; he could block legislation, but he couldn't actively shape it. And Congress has literally thousands of staff and lobbyists working on the budget; the president only has a small office. Congress dominates the budget process.
Which begs the question: what, exactly, can a president do to influence the economy? His role in determining monetary policy is limited to nominating the members of the Federal Reserve Board. His role in determining fiscal policy is limited to cheerleading budgets through Congress. Sometimes, presidents have promoted projects that have long-term economic impact. Eisenhower, for example, oversaw the interstate highway program, one of the most far-reaching economic endeavors in U.S. history. But it took years, even decades, for the full impact of this program to unfold. Likewise, Clinton's "Reinventing government" project is computerizing the federal bureaucracy and cutting the number of federal employees in an effort to reduce and improve government. But again, the full effects of these programs will not be felt until well after Clinton leaves office.
So the belief that presidents are to blame for the economy, especially the current economy, is regrettably uninformed. Unfortunately, it is a belief that many Americans share. Carter was evicted by the voters for a "misery index" that was really beyond his control; Bush was also fired for a recession that just happened to occur in the middle of his re-election campaign. Neither deserved his fate on those grounds alone.
Myth of Presidential Responsibility for the Economy
The fact is that any hope that electing Hillary will in any way restore the economy is, at best, wishful thinking. For Hillary to run her campaign with the implicit promise of restoring the "good old times" of the 1990s economy is, at best, a promise to extend the deregultory, tax-cutting Bush Economy with an added element of a pork-laden fiscal policy.
I don't expect her campaign to stop pretending that her election will magically eliminate the business cycles. But I would expect her supporters to be smarter than to continue to perpetuate this myth - it only sets Hillary up for defeat in 2012.
Now, I know for some of the more "sophisticated" Hillary supporters, the claim is that her specific policies, if enacted, can fix the flaws of this economy. Specifically, Hillary talks about the mortgage and foreclosure crisis - but her plan for a mortgage rate freeze has recently been panned as the dumbest solution to the housing crisis. I've never heard any Hillary supporter convincingly and substantively describe how she is going to translate her "experience" into an economic turnaround, or how any of her economic policies will be more than a short-term, quick shot of adrenaline to a fundamentally broken economy.
So, Hillary-fans - have at it - where's the beef?