There is little anyone in the Federal government can do to reverse short-term economic downturns: the President may select a responsible Federal Reserve Chairman, sign for the so-called “stimulus” packages that may arrive at his office steps courtesy of Congress, and pray—Republicans to the holy trinity and Democrats to all else.

Yet despite the bureaucracy’s futility, “the economy” consistently polls as voters’ number one issue. Not only that, most presidencies are either deliberately or inadvertently judged by how they fared with the economy; consider President Clinton, President Reagan, and even President Franklin Roosevelt. Each of these politicians, considered the best of their generation by their respective parties, took office during a period of economic strife and as a result of executive handiness or more likely luck, saw several years of growth and departed before the next decline.

And because such presidents are rarely judged on their real economic impact—that which takes place ten to twenty years after their service—recent presidents and presidential candidates have begun sacrificing or planning to sacrifice future economic performance in favor of an immediate pay-off. This year’s Democratic and Republican picks are no exception.

Both Senator Obama and Senator McCain supported the 2008 Economic Stimulus Act, even though it heavily borrowed on future growth and failed to address the fundamental trade deficit issue—that the majority of consumer spending from the bill went overseas, the economic stimulation with it. In the role as commander-in-chief, Mr. Obama supports additional tax rebates, windfall profits taxes on oil companies, and the extension of unemployment insurance. Though these policies are likely to find America in greater debt, McCain’s should prove the same. He proposes a gas tax holiday and making President Bush’s tax cuts permanent while miraculously balancing the budget at the same time.

Like most of Mr. Obama’s policies, his economic one is at least rhetorically based on the principle of change. Mr. McCain’s, too, centers on his belief that the federal government has “a responsibility to act.” I would argue just the opposite. Comparing Mr. Bush’s first term to his second, I would support that a neutered executive, loathe make drastic changes, is far superior to a fearless one.

-David Lamb

Digg!