Politics

FACT CHECK: Why Bush’s Growth Forecast is a Stretch

Published

11 years ago

June 17, 2015

Republican presidential candidate, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush talks to members of the media after speaking to voters at the Derry Opera House, Tuesday, June 16, 2015, in Derry, N.H. Bush is campaigning in the nation’s earliest presidential primary state. (AP Photo/Jim Cole)

JOSH BOAK, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush says there’s “not a reason in the world” why the U.S. economy can’t grow at 4 percent annually.

Actually, there are a bunch of reasons it probably can’t.

Many economists say the U.S. economy is ill equipped to grow consistently at even close to 4 percent. Current forecasts put growth averaging half that rate. Any president, Republican or Democrat, would have to overcome decades-long trends that are largely beyond the control of the Oval Office.

Those trends include the retirements of the vast generation of baby boomers — an exodus that limits the number of workers in the economy. Rising automation and low-wage competition overseas are among other factors. A result has been meager income growth, which has cut into the consumer spending that drives most economic growth.

“It would require substantial changes in fiscal and regulatory policy that I don’t believe any president could reasonably expect to enact in one term,” said Robert Stein, an economist at First Trust Advisors who was a Treasury Department official during George W. Bush’s presidency.

In his campaign announcement on Monday, Jeb Bush said “there is not a reason in the world why we cannot grow at a rate of 4 percent a year. And that will be my goal as president – 4 percent growth, and the 19 million new jobs that come with it.”

The pledge originated from a plan by the George W. Bush Institute to achieve growth averaging 4 percent for a decade.

Conservative economists defend the target as aspirational, a pledge that would leave the economy better off even if the next president fell short.

“I’m less concerned about the number than the commitment to grow rapidly,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, an economist who has advised Republican presidential candidates and now serves as president of the American Action Forum.

The historical odds of doubling growth from its current level are low.

Only four of the 16 presidential terms since World War II have experienced annual economic growth averaging more than 4 percent after inflation, according to research published last year by Princeton University economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson.

President Harry Truman reaped the peace dividend as U.S. manufacturers helped rebuild nations devastated by World War II. The Kennedy and Johnson administrations enjoyed a boom because of tax cuts. And President Bill Clinton benefited during his second term from low interest rates and what eventually became a tech-stock bubble.

There are two primary ways to grow an economy faster: add more workers or increase their efficiency so that each hour on the job generates more income. Neither factor looks spectacular enough to deliver 4 percent growth, particularly since the share of Americans working has drifted downward as the number of retirees has increased.

“The demographics right now are for slowing population growth,” said Chad Stone, chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank.

The economy has 157.5 million workers, including the unemployed on the hunt for a job, according to the Labor Department. Their ranks increased just 0.3 percent in 2014, the best year for hiring since the late 1990s. When economic growth averaged roughly 4 percent during Clinton’s second term, the growth rate for the number of workers joining the economy averaged 1.5 percent, nearly five times higher than the current level.

Because baby boomers are starting to retire, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office expects the rate will remain low and hinder broader growth. The CBO in January estimated that growth would average just 2.1 percent annually from 2018 to 2025.

In theory, Bush as president could overcome that obstacle by welcoming substantially more immigrants in the United States. This would cause the growth rate of workers to rise much more quickly, said Michael Strain, deputy director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.

But efficiency gains — what economists call productivity — would still be a challenge.

For the past seven years, productivity growth has averaged a poky 1.4 percent, according to the Labor Department. That’s nearly half its rate between 2000 and 2007. Economists say it’s generally difficult for government policymakers to unleash sudden bursts of productivity.

One easy form of boosting productivity would involve government spending in infrastructure such as roads, bridges, ports and airports.

Josh Bivens, director of research at the liberal Economic Policy Institute, sees these investments as the “most reliable lever” to bolster productivity. Yet he notes that a 10-year, $2.5 trillion government infrastructure program would increase economic growth only 0.2 to 0.3 percent annually.

That increase would not be nearly enough to achieve consistent 4 percent growth after inflation.

And the Republican presidential candidates have been committed to finding ways to shrink government’s footprint instead of introducing new spending programs.

“There’s really no way,” Bivens said.

___

Associated Press writer Ken Thomas contributed to this report.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

FACT CHECK: Why Bush’s Growth Forecast is a Stretch

Don't Miss

Bush Brothers Have a Complex Relationship, Marked by Fierce Rivalry, Wounded Feelings

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Supreme Court Voting Rights Ruling Reverberates From the South to California

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling weakening the Voting Rights Act is reshaping political battles, particularly in the South. While California’s protections may offer a buffer, the decision raises national concerns about Black political representation and redistricting.

Published

1 day ago

May 15, 2026

Oakland Post

Researchers pointed out that the number amounts to 1 in every 50 adults, with 3 out of 4 disenfranchised living in their communities, having completed their sentences or remaining supervised while on probation or parole. (Photo: iStockphoto)

iStock.

By Brandon Patterson

A recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling weakening a key section of the federal Voting Rights Act is already reshaping political battles in parts of the South while raising broader questions about the future of Black political representation nationwide.

In Louisiana v. Callais, the Court’s conservative majority limited the use of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the provision historically used to challenge electoral maps that dilute minority voting strength. Writing in dissent, Justice Elena Kagan warned that the ruling marked the “now-complete demolition of the Voting Rights Act.”

The immediate effects of the ruling are expected to be felt most sharply in Southern states, where litigation over majority-Black districts has shaped congressional maps for decades. Republican-led states including Louisiana, Alabama, and Texas have already moved to defend or revisit maps following the decision, according to reporting by Reuters and Politico.

California’s political landscape is different. The state uses an independent citizen’s commission to draw district lines and also has its own California Voting Rights Act, which in some cases provides broader protections than federal law. Because of those safeguards, the Supreme Court’s decision is not expected to immediately alter Black political representation in California.

Still, legal scholars and voting rights advocates say the ruling could shape future national debates over how race is considered in redistricting and voting rights enforcement.

“It changes the legal atmosphere around voting rights nationally,” UCLA law professor Rick Hasen told Axios. “Even states with stronger protections are paying attention to where the Court is headed.”

The decision also arrives amid renewed political fights over redistricting. In California, voters approved Proposition 50 in November 2025, a measure backed by Gov. Gavin Newsom that expanded the state’s ability to redraw congressional maps in response to mid-decade redistricting efforts in other states.

Supporters argued the measure was necessary to counter increasingly aggressive Republican-led redistricting nationally, while critics warned it could weaken California’s independent redistricting tradition.

For Black Californians, the ruling lands at a time when political representation remains significant even as demographic shifts have changed historically Black neighborhoods in cities like Oakland, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee criticized the Court’s decision in comments to The Oaklandside, calling the Voting Rights Act one of the nation’s foundational civil rights protections.

“This decision weakens one of the most important civil rights tools our communities have had,” Lee said. “We know voting rights were never given freely. People fought and died for them.”

Rep. Lateefah Simon warned against complacency.

“This is part of a larger effort to erase the gains of the civil rights movement,” Simon told Oaklandside. “Black political power matters, and representation matters.”

The Voting Rights Act, passed in 1965 during the height of the Civil Rights Movement, helped expand Black political representation nationwide, including in California, where coalition politics among Black, Latino and Asian American voters helped elect candidates of color at the local, state and federal levels.

For many observers, the latest ruling serves less as an immediate threat to California districts and more as a reminder that voting rights protections long viewed as settled remain politically and legally contested.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Amsterdam News

School District Extends Supt. Dr. Denise Saddler’s Contract for a Second Year

The Oakland Board of Education has extended Superintendent Denise Saddler’s contract through June 2027, promoting her from interim to permanent superintendent with a salary of $367,765.45 per year.

Published

1 day ago

May 15, 2026

Oakland Post

Supt. Dr. Denise Saddler. File photo.

By Post Staff

The Oakland Board of Education voted this week to extend Superintendent Denise Saddler’s contract for another year, from July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2027.

Under the new agreement, Saddler’s job title will become “superintendent”; she will no longer be called “interim.”

Along with the new title, she will receive full superintendent benefits and salary at $367,765.45 per year, according to the employment agreement.

The vote to approve the new contract passed 5-2 at Wednesday night’s board meeting.

Saddler’s original interim contract was for one year. The school board was planning to select a permanent superintendent by the fall but earlier this year decided to delay the search.

The new contract reflects the Board of Education’s “determination that continuity in executive leadership is in the best interests of the district as Oakland Unified continues implementation of its fiscal stabilization strategies, academic priorities, labor relations initiatives, and operational improvements,” the employment agreement reads.

In November, the board approved a $150,000 contract with a consulting firm to carry out that search, but Board President Jennifer Brouhard told KQED last month that the process never got off the ground.

“No work was done, no money has been paid for the work (to) the search firm for the superintendent search,” Brouhard said. “Hopefully, we’ll be resuming that in the early part of the fall.”

Dr. Saddler was born and raised in Oakland, attended local schools, and has dedicated more than 45 years of her career to serving Oakland students and families.

She began her career in 1979 as a teacher of students with disabilities. Over the years, she has served as a teacher, principal, district leader, and teachers’ union president.

While working in OUSD, she has served as principal at Chabot Elementary, area auperintendent, and executive leader for Community Engagement and Educational Transitions. She has also supported schools as a principal coach and substitute principal and taught at UC Berkeley’s Graduate School of Education.

Dr. Saddler holds a Doctorate in Educational Leadership from Mills College and master’s degrees in special education and in Staff Development and Administration.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Mayor Barbara Lee Joins National Public Safety Leaders to Advance Proven Violence Reduction Strategies

Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee attends a two-day meeting with other mayors and public safety leaders to discuss violence reduction strategies; Oakland has seen a 39% drop in homicides.

Published

1 day ago

May 15, 2026

Oakland Post

Oakland was one of four cities participating in a public safety convening. Courtesy image.

By Post Staff

Mayor Barbara Lee this week joined Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott, Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker and public safety leaders from Oakland for a two-day meeting focused on advancing cutting-edge public safety strategies, including focused deterrence and violence reduction.

The meeting brought together civic and public safety leaders from Oakland and Indianapolis to locations in Baltimore and Philadelphia to share lessons learned and identify innovative approaches to crime prevention, intervention, and enforcement.

The participating cities are widely recognized for pioneering community-centered public safety models that prioritize prevention, accountability, and sustained investment in neighborhood-based solutions

Oakland’s delegation included Department of Violence Prevention (DVP) Chief Holly Joshi, Oakland Police Department Assistant Chief Casey Johnson, and Ceasefire Director Annette Jointer.

Oakland’s participation underscores its continued leadership in advancing evidence-based violence reduction strategies and building a public safety system that integrates law enforcement with community intervention and prevention programs.

Oakland continues to see historic reductions in violence, reflecting coordinated efforts across the Department of Violence Prevention, Oakland Police Department, Ceasefire, and community-based partners, including:

Violent crime down 22%
Homicides down 39%
Lowest homicide total in nearly 60 years

These gains reflect sustained investment in focused deterrence strategies, real-time intervention, and expanded community violence interruption programs.

“Public safety is not achieved by any one agency alone—it requires coordination, trust, and a shared commitment to prevention and accountability,” said Lee. “We are proud to stand alongside cities like Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Indianapolis that are proving what works. We are seeing real progress in reducing violence in our communities, and we remain committed to building on that momentum through strategies that center prevention, intervention, and strong partnerships with residents.”

“Oakland’s progress shows what is possible when cities invest in focused deterrence and wraparound supports that reach people most at risk,” said Joshi. “Our work is grounded in building trust, responding quickly to emerging conflicts, and connecting individuals to services that interrupt cycles of violence. This convening was an opportunity to strengthen that work through shared learning with peers who are advancing similar strategies nationwide.”

Said Johnson, “Effective public safety requires a balanced approach that combines accountability with deep collaboration across agencies and communities.”

“We are seeing meaningful reductions in violent crime because of strong partnerships between law enforcement, DVP, Ceasefire, and community organizations,” said Johnson. “Engaging with peer cities allows us to refine and improve the strategies that are making Oakland safer.”