Economists were surprised Friday when the Commerce Department reported that growth in the second quarter of this year was a mere 1.2%. But the real surprise is that anyone is surprised when the economy underperforms, since that's what it has been doing for the past seven years.
There has not been a single year in the past seven when the economy did better than President Obama promised, or that most economists expected.
Indeed, the real problem isn't the tepid growth in the second quarter, after an equally tepid first quarter. The real problem is that under President Obama's economic stewardship, the economy has grown far more slowly than it did in any of the previous 10 economic recoveriessince World War II.
What this means in terms of wealth and prosperity can easily be seen when you compare the actual results under Obama to the average results of those previous recoveries.
What it shows is that, had Obama's recovery — which is now in its 28th quarter — been as robust as the average of the past 10 recoveries, the nation's economy would be $2.2 trillion — with a "t' -- bigger than it is today. That translates into more than $17,000 per household. (It's worth noting that many of those previous recoveries had suffered a subsequent recession 28 quarters after they started, so Obama is doing worse despite the current recovery's longevity.)
In other words, if Obama's recovery had merely been average, millions of people who are unemployed today would be working and paying taxes instead of worrying and collecting benefits. There would be millions fewer stuck in poverty today, and millions fewer dependent on food stamps and other government programs to get by.
If Obama's economy had merely been average, spending would have automatically been lower -- because so much of it is tied to benefit programs -- and revenues would have been higher. As a result, the country wouldn't be straddled with a national debt of more than $19 trillion, and Medicare and Social Security would be on somewhat sounder footings.
Just as important, had Obama's economy been average, the country wouldn't be in such a foul mood, and wouldn't so easily fall sway to the empty promises of a socialist, or the demagoguery and blame games being peddled by the major parties' presidential candidates.
More than three decades ago, Jimmy Carter delivered his infamous "malaise" speech (in which Carter never actually used the word "malaise"). Just like today, the economy was dead in the water, and there seemed to be no hope for anything better than mediocre. The country was told then to lower their expectations, just as the Obama administration and various liberal economists are busy telling us today.
But just like in the late 1970s, today's malaise isn't a permanent condition. And it is most emphatically not the fault of "bad" trade deals, or insufficient government spending on roads and bridges, or income inequality, or any of the other things being targeted by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.
This malaise is the entirely the result of the Obama administration's anti-growth tax and regulatory policies, which have smothered what could have been and should have been a robust recovery from the terrible 2007-2009 recession.
At the Republican Convention in Cleveland, Govs. Scott Walker and Trump's running mate, Mike Pence, explained how their states thrived after they cut taxes and reined in government. As Indiana Gov. Pence said, "Indiana is a state that works because conservative principles work every time you put them into practice."
Every quarter and every year of disappointing growth under Obama is proof that the liberal principles don't.