There are good arguments on both sides as to whether Bush is responsible for the weak job growth the economy experienced in June (an addition of 112,000 payroll jobs -- only about half the 250,000 jobs expected).
I think Brad Delong's assessment is pretty much right on target:
"Is George W. Bush responsible for the fact that the employment situation is lousy? No. The economy is an ocean liner, but the president is not its captain. Presidents influence the economy. They don't control it.
"But are he and his administration responsible for the fact that the employment situation is as lousy as it is? Yes. He sold his tax cuts as employment-generating stimulus programs, while in fact they got only about half as much employment bang for the deficit buck as a reasonable program would have. Think of it this way: Suppose your insurance agent tells you you ought to get homeowner's insurance. You give your insurance agent $4,000 to buy homeowner's insurance. You then have a small fire. And your insurance agent then tells you that you're only getting half of the damage covered--that he only used half the money to buy insurance, and spent the rest buying his friends large flat-screen TVs. That's the situation were in: sold as jobs programs, the Bush tax cuts got us only about half as much insurance against a lousy labor market as a real job-promoting stimulus that cost the same in deficit terms would have generated.
"Thus when the Bush administration says that without the Bush tax cuts employment would be 1.4 million lower, they are probably right. But what they are not saying is that employment would be another 1.4 million higher had Bush administration fiscal policy been designed with its primary focus on boosting employment rather than providing tax cuts for the $200,000+ a year crowd.
"The lousy employment situation has consequences for working and middle-class incomes as well: wages and salaries have been nearly stagnant since 2000--a very disappointing thing to see, especially as rapid productivity growth means there is lots of headroom for broad-based real wage and income gains."