Matt Yglesias chooses the day before the election to posit:
I think it’s a very tough call, but Romney would probably be better for short-term growth.
This would be a douchey thing to do even if it were, you know, good analysis. But it isn’t. Good analysis that is. It is definitely a douchey move.
Matt’s argument is basically that Romney is more likely to have larger deficits than Obama and that the Fed is biased toward providing looser money for Republican Administrations. And, also too, the House GOP won’t blow up the economy if Romney is President.
There are solid counter-arguments on all three fronts. Romney would be likely to give us tax cuts paired with significant austerity. Deficits would rise by virtue of slowing growing rather than deficits providing the spur to more economic activity. Putting more money in the pockets of millionaires while gutting social spending and putting public sector employees out of work is not a recipe for economic growth.
In terms of the Fed, they are already committed to open-ended quantitative easing. So it is hard to see how much looser they are liable to go. The zero-bound still operates for GOP Administrations.
Finally, the notion that the House GOP will play nice with Romney is absurd. They will push for maximalist goals, essentially the Ryan budget, and anyone who thinks that is a recipe for growth is, I would argue, not really considering the case closely.
I don’t often quote Fox Business, but here they nail it:
Thanks to their pro-business approach and the anemic recovery, Republicans would seem to have a clear path to grab the economic mantle heading into the 2012 race for the White House.
However, history actually shows that the U.S. economy, stock prices and corporate profits have generated stronger growth under Democratic administrations than Republican ones.
According to McGraw-Hill’s (MHP) S&P Capital IQ, the S&P 500 has rallied an average of 12.1% per year since 1901 when Democrats occupy the White House, compared with just 5.1% for the GOP.
Likewise, gross domestic product has increased 4.2% each year since 1949 when Democrats run the executive branch, versus 2.6% under Republicans.
Even corporate profits show a disparity: S&P 500 GAAP earnings per share climbed a median of 10.5% per year since 1936 during Democratic administrations, besting an 8.9% median advance under Republicans, S&P said.
It really isn’t that hard. This isn’t a tough choice. This isn’t about who is better on the economy vs. who is better on social issues. Obama is better on both.
There are two groups of people who should be voting for Romney: white supremacists and theocrats.
But if you’re gonna vote your pocketbook, it doesn’t matter if you’re rich or poor, the reality is the history strongly suggests that voting for a Democratic president is the smarter play.