Business Insider’s Chief Editor, Joe Wiesenthal, recently made a compelling case for voting for Mitt Romney (if you’re a Keynesian):
Back in April we made the argument that a Mitt Romney win would be better for the economy, based on fairly simple logic: A Mitt Romney victory would see higher government deficits, which is just what this struggling economy needs right now to regain full health.
If Obama wins, there’s a good chance that we’ll fly off the fiscal cliff, as the political gridlock will see spending cuts kick in, and perhaps even higher taxes.
If Romney wins, not only will taxes stay low, Republicans will drop their opposition to government spending and deficits. That’s because parties in power always support higher deficits and spending. It’s just what they do.
We’d love to hear someone say with a straight face that Republicans, if given full power, would seriously stick to their principles of limiting government. Opposing deficits is strictly the purview of the opposition party.
So the Keynesian choice is Romney.
In other words, a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for exploding the deficit. So if you’re a deficit hawk, your obvious choice in 2012 must be Barack Obama.
If Barack Obama has a victory in November, Americans will have, in 2013, an inescapable existential decision over the size and scope of government (because Republicans won’t sign-off on raising the debt limit otherwise).
But, should Romney win, Republicans can simply return to Bush-style military-spending and tax policies—the “deficits don’t matter” philosophy of Dick Cheney—and dig an even larger debt-hole for the country to climb out of later.
How sick would that be? Fool us twice?