Maybe I'm hypersensitive, but...

Whenever I read a piece of economic analysis on the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal, I run across a tremendously misleading interpretation of economic data. It's consistent. It's almost as if they're TRYING to mislead us!

Here's Arthur Laffer in today's WSJ:

The results of the Reagan era? From December 1982 to June 1990, Reaganomics created over 21 million jobs—more jobs than have been added since.

That's true of course. According to the BLS, payroll employment rose by 21,061,000 in that period. And it's also true that from June 1990 to January 2011 the economy has added only 20,448,000 jobs. More jobs created in 8 years than in the next 21!

But of course you knew there was a catch. Job creation from January 1993 to December 2000 (the Clinton presidency) was 22,760,000 - more jobs created in Clinton's 8 years than in Reagan's 8 years. The reason job growth up to January 2011 has been so mediocre is, of course, the fact that in Bush II's 8 years employment rose by only 1,898,000 jobs - less than a tenth of the rate in the Reagan and Clinton years. And all of those jobs and more were wiped out in the recession that followed.