In his 1980 presidential debate with Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan famously asked the American people whether they were better off than they had been four years ago. Enough voters answered "no" to give Reagan a decisive victory in the election. Senator Obama is posing the same question today, since Senator McCain promises to continue the economic policies of the Bush administration. One of us ( More.. John Schmitt) recently compared all the major indicators of economic well-being in 2008 and 2000. On 23 of the 25 measures selected, the economy was doing better in 2000 than 2008. The deterioration was sharpest in the measures that concern us most. For example, the unemployment was just 4.0 percent in 2000. The most recent data show the unemployment rate at 6.1 percent. While family income was higher in 2008 than 2000, the gain over these 8 years was a pathetic 0.4 percent, compared to 14.7 percent growth in the Clinton years. Real wages actually fell in the last 8 years, after rising 8.2 percent in the Clinton years. The percent of the population without health insurance coverage increased from 14.0 percent to 15.3 percent. The share of the country living below the poverty line rose by 1.2 percentage points. The ratio of federal debt to GDP rose sharply --from 57.3 percent in 2000 to 65.8 percent in 2008. Over the same period, the ratio of foreign indebtedness to GDP rose from 13.6 percent to 17.9 percent. We won't even talk about the price of gas. Other than the modest increase in family income noted earlier, the only other major indicator that shows the economy doing better in the Bush years than the Clinton years is productivity growth. Productivity increased by 21.9 percent in the Bush years compared to 15.9 percent in the Clinton years. This is a good productivity performance, but it's not much to hang an election campaign on, especially when these gains haven't translated into economic improvements for the typical voter. In fact, the econom...