Lansner: Obama lacks the jobs to be rehired

President Obama may get only half of his presidential wish because job growth is half what winners get.

Frequent readers of this column recall that I pledged to look at longer-term patterns during an election year that I fear will sadly focus on shorter-term blips.

In this June 6, 2012, photo, President Barack Obama speaks in Beverly Hills, Calif.

CAROLYN KASTER, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

ADVERTISEMENT

Recently, we learned that national job growth -- from May to June -- didn't grow as fast as hoped or expected. Predictably, the 30-day trend was wrung through an avalanche of overanalysis and spin -- both from the political and business perspective.

You know, "What does this mean to Obama's reelection chances?" to "Is another recession coming?"

Thinking of my pledge, I chose to put the federal job data into my trusty spreadsheet and take a snapshot at a slightly wider angle.

My longer-term lens -- year-over-year change? shows U.S. economy added 1.78 million jobs -- a 1.4 percent growth rate -- from May 2011 to May 2012. Hey, that's progress -- though, in our wacky political climate I'm sure somebody could demonize job growth.

But how does this hiring pace rate, historically speaking?

Poorly.

There have been 13 presidential elections since 1960 ?and in the Aprils before Election Day, average year-to-year job growth rate was 2.2 percent. So, job creation under Obama is below average, by this measure.

Since 1960, six times the "ruling party" held the White House; seven times it switched hands. And, if "It's the economy, stupid," job growth matters.

In years when the ruling party held the White House -- 1964, 1972, 1984, 1988, 1996 and 2004 -- you see that year-over-year job growth five months before Election Day was averaging 2.9 percent.

So, Obama is running, job-wise, at half speed.

Only one election year -- 2004, when the younger George Bush won re-election over Democrat John Kerry -- was the White House held with slower than the current job growth (It was 1.2 percent in April 2004!)

O.K., one could argue that Americans have short memories -- and that the momentum of recent jobs data is more critical.

Again, I'll rely on my year-over-year data -- and simply review swings in the pace of job growth. Or, in the case of Obama, the lack of momentum.

Since January, the year-over-year job growth rate has slipped 0.1 percentage point. Not a headline-grabbing dip. But in presidential election years since 1960, it's a short list of occurrences when the year started out with slipping job growth.

?In 2008, annualized job growth fell 0.8 percentage points from January to May -- and Obama went on to take the White House from the GOP.

?In 1980, job growth slipped 1.5 percentage points in the first four months -- and Republican Ronald Reagan stopped Jimmy Carter's reelection bid.

?In 1960, there was a 1.7 percentage point drop in job growth as that year started -- and John Kennedy won back the White House for the Democrats over Richard Nixon.

That's three out of three losses for the ruling party lacking job-creation mojo as the election neared. Personally, that's disappointing. I voted for Obama back in 2008 ? and will likely do so again in November.

But my trusty spreadsheet tells me that the current job growth looks anemic in both its scope and momentum ? and that's bad news for Obama's shot at holding the White House.

Just for fun, I wondered if the voters ? assuming they're voting economically focused -- got the business results they seem to want. If the economy was progressing enough, would they be blessed with future prosperity by essentially endorsing the current policies at the ballot box?

So, I looked at job growth for the year after the election.

Remember, six times the party in power held the White House since 1960 ? and we'll argue that was in part a voter bet that the solid economic times around Election Day would continue.

Curiously, job growth in those situations continued only three times. Overall, those six years after these "reelections" ? for the party, if not the person -- averaged a 0.2 percent yearly rate of jobs decline.

Lesson? History's a guide, not a guarantee.

Contact the writer: jlansner@ocregister.com or 949-777-6727

blagojevich new mexico state kevin rose sessions march madness scores doonesbury padma lakshmi