Harris Bynum (Herald, Sept. 13) bemoaned the lack of math skills and focused on the federal deficit as the sole measure of the economic success of Bill Clinton, presumably to make the case that Hillary Clinton will increase the deficit like her husband did.
When viewed as the only measure of our economy, the deficit is staggering. However, reasonable economists and the Federal Reserve use the percentage of the federal deficit compared to the gross national product (GDP, the total of all goods and services produced) as the correct measure of the state of our economy.
In 1943, at the height of World War II, our deficit to GDP was 26.17 percent. By 1948 (Truman), we had a surplus. In 1968 (Johnson), we had a surplus. From then to 1980, it ranged between surplus and deficit and never exceeded 3 percent.
In 1983, Reagan passed his tax cuts, and it increased to 5.71 percent, the highest in over 40 years. By 1992 (George Bush), it was 4.4 percent of GDP.
Contrary to what Bynum says, Clinton diminished it to 1.32 percent by 1996; by 2000, when he was replaced by George W. Bush, there was a surplus. By 2004 (George W. Bush), it increased to 3.2 percent.
The great recession inherited by President Barack Obama increased it to a high of 9.8 percent in 2009, but it has decreased steadily to 2.78 percent in 2014, and in 2015, it was down to 2.43 percent, the lowest since Bill Clinton.
Every indicator says it will be lower in 2016.
On June 27, “CBS Money Watch” concluded that, while Hillary Clinton’s budget would increase the deficit by $1.9 trillion, “Donald Trump’s budget would add $10 trillion to the deficit,” doubling our current deficit.
Voters who are interested in our economy and the deficit should heed these numbers and vote accordingly. Focusing on the deficit alone is misleading when considering who to vote for and not a good display of reasonably clear math skills.
Bernard Anderson
Durango
Editor’s note: Bernard Anderson is a professor emiritus at Fort Lewis College.
