A Vote for Huntsman

At a family event recently, I suggested that if the presidential general election were between John Huntsman and Barack Obama, I might vote for Huntsman. To be honest, I am sure I would still vote for Obama. But here is the reason I would even consider voting for Huntsman.

First, let me say that I don't think Hunstman would be a better president nor is he closer to my ideology than Obama. I would consider Huntsman though because President Obama has done such a terrible job on the economy.

I'll explain why I think so, but let me first say that since he has done such a bad job, it is only right that I show my displeasure. If he hasn't been successful, I shouldn't return him to office. Unfortunately, as I have said before, the alternatives will do a worse job. So I am stuck supporting Obama - probably.

Here is why I blame him for the economy. First, he passed a stimulus that was too small even considering what we knew about the economy in 2009 (we now know the decrease in GDP was far worse). And when he passed the stimulus, he said that it would be enough and that we won't need more.

All of this was done for purely political reasons. He calculated that Congress wouldn't give him more stimulus so he pretended it would be enough. But now that it is clear the stimulus wasn't enough, he can't ask for more - except as he did on a small scale that even at that size won't get passed.

Second, he took his eye off the ball. He spent a year working on healthcare reform and a year on balancing the budget, all while unemployment was at 9 percent. I can forgive him for healthcare; he felt that the moment was right and if it didn't happen, it might be another two decades before we get another chance. But his time on fiscal matters was a huge mistake and he didn't start talking about jobs again until this past fall.

Presidents often face a major crisis, one they weren't prepared for and it can consume their presidency and ruin their well-laid plans. When that happens, presidents should put everything else aside and fix that problem. President Obama did not do that. He and everyone else referred to it as the worst recession since the Great Depression. And yet he thought a half-measure stimulus would do the trick and that he could work on other things.

Finally, Obama has been ineffective on monetary policy as well. This is where the Republicans are the most vulnerable and Obama has been the most silent. If we assume that Obama cannot get further stimulus through, he could at least make the case that without stimulus we need aggressive monetary expansion. And he could say that even far-right economists like Milton Friedman would support that.

Instead, he lets Republicans like Perry, Boehner, Cantor, et al say that monetary expansion in a recession is now bad policy without paying a political price. This party opposes everything - mostly because they want the president to lose - and they don't pay a political price. Only recently over the small but popular payroll tax cut have Republicans paid a price. But they should be branded as extremists or obstructionists for their opposition to monetary expansion.

The bottom line is that President Obama has many options to try to improve the economy and when / if those options don't work, make Republicans look crazy. I wish there was an alternative, someone who would be stronger. But there isn't. I probably won't vote for Huntsman. But I kind of want to.