In my earlier post this morning I repeated my position that I vote for president based on foreign policy. There’s a reason for that. Constitutionally, the president has a lot of influence over foreign policy and defense. He has relatively little power over domestic policy or, particularly, the economy. That power is vested in the Congress, just about as depressing a thought as I can muster.
However, just for fun let’s imagine that the president’s views do make a difference. What does he believe? I think we’ve got enough hands-on experience that we can make some reasonable inferences. The Obama economic policy, like the Obama foreign policy, has a high degree of continuity with that of the last few years of the Bush Administration, i.e. subsidizing preferred industries (banks and the auto industry, just to name two) and fiscal stimulus through tax cuts and increased spending.
To be sure there are differences in emphasis. Under Obama I strongly suspect that the UAW took less of a haircut than it might have under Bush or under a prospective Romney Administration. Where the Bush administration emphasized reductions in the personal income tax, the Obama Administration has emphasized reducing FICA.
One area in which I think there was a substantial change from the Bush Administration is the the present administration’s support for alternative energy, support that I strongly suspect will return to haunt them. While some case can be made for research, touting the support as a jobs creation program was at the least over-stated and at the worst unhinged. I find it incredible that an industry that can’t survive without subsidies will at some point cross some threshold and suddenly become a self-sustaining jobs engine. I think that was always wishful thinking.
You might want to take a look at James Pethokoukis’s contrasting of “Obama-style” capitalism with “Romney-style” capitalism. While I think there may be some aspirational differences I don’t believe that the differences between the two are quite as stark as he does.
I might add that I think the notion that further reductions in the personal income tax are likely to spur economic growth is, well, goofy. IMO the experience of the first part of the Aughts should be enough to dissuade anybody of that but apparently not. I think that our problem is that we’re spending too much on education and healthcare and not investing enough in industries that might actually employ somebody.
I think the President’s domestic agenda is extremely influential if his agenda matches or is similar to the Congress’. Is there anything Obama did not achieve in his domestic agenda during the first two years that was not supported by his Party? The only two issues I can think of that Obama didn’t get were tax increases on the wealthy and carbon caps, two issues which split his party.
So, if you think that Congress is going to be right of center, I think Romney’s proposals for tax and regulatory reform and defense spending are very likely to be enacted in one shape or another. I’m still trying to figure out what, if anything, a second Obama term would mean? Gridlock?
That’s a good point, PD. I think that I would rephrase it that the president’s domestic agenda tends to get pulled towards the center of mass of his party in Congress.
I would also suggest because of the fragility of the Democratic caucus the domestic agendas of Democratic presidents tend to be more shaped by Congressional Democrats than do those of Republican presidents.