The North Starr

I've gotten to the point where I very quickly scan my incoming fundraising appeal emails and then just as quickly delete them.  One actually caught my eye yesterday, though.  It was from Bart Starr, Jr., on behalf of Wisdems, the Democratic Party organization in Wisconsin.

​It caught my eye because Bart Starr was the Hall of Fame quarterback of the Green Bay Packers, the longtime bitter rivals of the Chicago Bears.  Don't worry, this isn't about football.  But it's important to give a paragraph about Bart Starr to explain why I clicked on the email.

I hated Bart Starr -- but he was also the only Packer player of those years that I respected because he was just too great.  There were other quarterbacks with better statistics statistics (though not all that much better) -- but when an important third-down play was on the line, or whenever a game was on the line, Bart Starr almost always seem to come through.  He was so steady, so terrific, a winner.  He led the Packers to win the first two-ever Super Bowls, and before that won three NFL Championships.  I hated him -- but man, was he great.

So, as I said, I clicked on the email, which was from the son of Bart Starr.  I had the sense that Bart Starr would have been a Republican, and that his son was also probably a Republican.  I don't know the former, but his email made clear the I was right about the latter.

And the email bowled me over.  It was so smart, so fair-minded, so detailed and so fascinating.  The subject was about economics, and when history continually shows that Democrats are overwhelmingly better at it than Republicans -- despite the public perception between the direct opposite.

I thought about paraphrasing highlights from the email, but the way the information was laid out was done too well.  So, I want to turn the rest of the email over to it.  It's pretty long and full of numbers, but it reads pretty easily.  However, I did cut out a few parts that I thought bogged down "the story" a bit -- they were passages where he was bending over to be fair (which was admirable), but even without the cuts, the core of the statistics don't change.  There's just less a jumble of numbers.  I've put ellipses in when I did delete material.  And added a "NOTE:" when I included an important detail for clarity that he left out.

I'll just say that two things leap out:  one is the numbers he comes up with that are utterly eye-opening.  The other is a sort of "surprise" he throws in towards the end.

And with all that said, here's the fundraising email for Wisdems from Bart Starr, Jr.

---

​Hey folks,

It’s Bart Starr Jr.—Yes, son of legendary Packers QB Bart Starr, Bart Jr. I grew up in Green Bay, WI and am an attorney, financial consultant, and a lifelong Republican.

I voted for both Bushes, Dole, McCain, & Romney.

There exists in much of America a belief, one my Republican family accepted for decades, that GOP presidents are better for the U.S. in terms of stock market performance, economic and job growth, and fiscal discipline/deficits.

It turns out we were wildly mistaken.

Someone known to most Americans said, years ago, “It just seems the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans.” Before we identify him, let’s see if he was correct by analyzing long term data in order to avoid the distortion effects of one or two strange years.

From 1961 through 2024 (64 years), Republicans have held the presidency for 32 years, exactly the same number as Democrats (if we include 2024 as a full year).

Let’s look at the stock market performance from 1961-2024.

Assume we invested $10,000 in the stock market and allowed growth to compound only during Republican presidencies; our $10,000 would have done well, growing to approximately $105,000 during those 32 years.

If we did the exact same thing, but invested only during the 32 years of Democratic presidencies, we would have again done well…exceptionally well. Our $10,000 would have grown to approximately $570,000.

This equals a difference of close to 7% PER YEAR in favor of stock market performance during Democratic administrations.

...Let’s move on from the stock market to economic and job growth.

In order to avoid upside bias from 1935-1944, as the economy recovered from the Great Depression and the buildup to WWll under FDR, we will begin our analysis in 1945.

The most important measure of economic performance is the real growth rate (nominal growth minus inflation).

Under the 40 years with GOP presidents, real GDP growth has averaged 2.4% per year.

Under the 40 years with Dem presidents, real GDP growth has averaged 3.5% per year.

A difference of 1.1% per year might not sound significant, but if you compound it over the course of a 40-year working career, it compounds to 50% more total growth.

Further, these data help explain something remarkable. EVERY transition from a Democratic to a Republican administration during the past 100 years has resulted in slower job growth, while EVERY transition from a GOP to a Democratic administration has led to faster job growth.

Now let’s look at deficits and debt.

Over the past seven decades, there have been three presidents who either reduced the size of the annualized federal deficits, or turned their inherited deficit into a surplus.  [NOTE: One Republican -- Eisenhower, and two Democrats -- Clinton and Obama]

Each of these three presidents achieved this progress via a combination of slightly higher tax revenues, primarily from large corporations and very high income earners, along with modest and restrained growth in aggregate federal spending.

Meanwhile, under Trump, annualized deficits exploded by more than 50% from 2017-2019, BEFORE COVID-19

This was almost entirely due to Trump’s tax cuts for large corporations and ultra-wealthy individuals like Elon Musk.

Trump’s proposal to repeat that policy means he will seek needed tax revenues elsewhere: enormous “across the board” tariffs—20% to 60%—that will hurt the middle class and hammer those who aspire to join the middle class.

This fact, along with the risk of a trade war that would harm our farmers & other exporters, led 16 Nobel-prize-winning economists, among hundreds of economic experts, to unanimously declare Trump’s policies will lead to much slower growth & higher sustained inflation.

...Vice President Harris, by way of contrast, appears to be following in the footsteps of Presidents Eisenhower, Clinton, and Obama by suggesting modest tax increases on those making high levels of income, while offering tax credits to young families and budding entrepreneurs.

History demonstrates that this is the path to fiscal improvement. It significantly reduces the odds of a debt-driven crisis by preventing debt from growing faster than the economy, strengthens rather than degrades the solvency of Social Security, and reduces inflationary pressure.

Remember the quote earlier in this thread?

“It just seems the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans.”

The person who said this, many years ago, was Donald Trump.

A dispassionate review of 80 years of economic history makes clear that what Donald Trump said two decades ago was, in fact, correct. If only the Donald Trump of today were to take a look at why.

The very policies Trump abhors today have in fact been far better for the millions of Americans who seek better growth, smaller deficits, avoidance of serious recessions, and his favorite, stock market appreciation.

These policies that have worked better in the past are today championed by Kamala Harris.

These data tell a compelling story, one even Republicans should study and embrace.