Hello…anybody out there? Why do I need to keep coming back to this point? The Constitution of the US is obviously a dead letter to the American mind.
Where the hell in the Constitution does the Executive Branch of the Federal Government granted the power to wield control over the economy? This is the responsibility of the Legislative Branch, people.
You might make a (rather puny) argument that the Executive has defacto power over the economy through the appointments to head the Federal Reserve. Of course, even this office is bound by Congressional oversight and subject to Congressional approval. If this is your argument, than the answer to the original question here is that there is obviously NO difference between the Bush, Obama and (the hypothetical) McCain administrations. Perhaps you’ve noticed that the same rim-jobs who have headed the Fed have been “in power” since 1979—no matter which political party “owned” the Executive Branch? Consider Obama’s choice of economic advisor: Paul Volcker!
Congress has the power to spend, raise/lower taxes etc. The Executive has no power to spend a dime without Congressional approval…or when Congress unconstitutionally absconds from its duties by granting powers to the Executive Departments—like the Treasury, for example (Think Bailouts of 2008).
Even when it comes to war spending, Congress should have the real power. To end any war, they could simply de-fund it. Better still, DON’T declare war or give Presidents the power to make war without a constitutional declaration of war! The President may request fund for ongoing conflicts, but Congress does not have to comply.
Just one more proof that the Constitution is an irrelevant document.