WHAT IF JOHN MCCAIN WON THE ELECTION-HIS FIRST 100 DAYS????

Celebrating the accomplishments of his first 100 days in the White House, the President steps up to the podium and says, “My friends, I think we’re off to a good start. But it’s just a start. I’m proud of what we’ve achieved but I’m not content.”

Then President John McCain proceeds to explain to the American people what he has done to attempt to bring the U.S. out of a recession that has dragged on for 18 months.

This clearly isn’t how things turned out in November. But what if it had happened? How effective would McCain’s economic policies have been at fixing the broken economy?

Free Market vs. Intervention

The answer to that question is predictably split across ideological boundaries. Those that believe the economy needed the intervention taken by President Barack Obama and the Bush White House argue the economy would have fared poorly under McCain, who presumably would have been less activist.

“I think the recovery would have been more difficult with McCain’s economic policies than with Obama’s policies. I think the economy has benefited from that more activist approach given the depth of the recession that we’re in,” said Gus Faucher, director of macroeconomics at Moody’s Economy.com.

(Full disclosure: Moody’s chief economist Mark Zandi was a campaign adviser for the McCain campaign).

Dan Greenhaus, equity analyst at Miller Tabak, also believes McCain would have skewed more free-market than Obama, who has been attacked by some for taking a socialist approach.

“I’m of the belief that less interventionist policies would have brought this market lower,” said Greenhaus.

Others argue the reason why the stock market tanked in the beginning of this year was because of Obama and the Democratic-monopoly of power in Washington.

“We had this kind of panic selloff” on fears Obama would cede control of policy to Congress, said Nick Kalivas, vice president of financial research at MF Global. “I’m not so sure that would have occurred if McCain was president. There would have been more of a check and balance in Washington.”

No one can say for sure how McCain would have governed but his independent streak may have made his economic policies somewhere in between Obama’s and the GOP’s.

“McCain was far more moderate than your typical conservative these days so I don’t think it’s as black and white as many people might think,” said Greenhaus. He also noted McCain’s chief economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, is regarded as “incredibly intelligent” and a “moderate.”

A Different Stimulus Package

It seems the greatest disparity between McCain and Obama’s economic policies would have been how they sought to stimulate the economy.

McCain, who voted against Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package, would have had little choice but to propose legislation of his own -- but it would have likely have favored tax cuts instead of spending.

“If McCain had won and Holtz-Eakin was his Larry Summers, there would have been a stimulus package. There was near-universal agreement for the government to do something,” said Greenhaus.

There has been great debate across the political spectrum about whether or not President Obama’s stimulus should have included more tax cuts. While more tax cuts would have laid the groundwork for future growth, tax cuts alone may not have arrested the economic decline, especially if targeted at high-income earners, experts said.

Faucher said Economy.com’s analysis indicates President Obama’s stimulus will likely “help limit the damage and will make the recession shorter and a bit more shallow.”

It also seems as though Obama and McCain would have differed in handling the rescue of the Big Three auto makers.

“Chrysler would be gone. Michigan didn’t vote for him. I doubt he would have saved GM,” said Greenhaus.

But Faucher said McCain’s advisers would have likely implored him to ensure an orderly restructuring or liquidation of these companies so as not to exacerbate the recession. “No matter what, Chrysler wasn’t long for this world,” he said.

Ultimately, some say the biggest economic impact would have been found in the two administrations’ long-term economic visions, not their knee-jerk reactions to the recession.

For example, Kalivas expressed serious concern about a number of Obama’s economic policies.

He’s worried Obama’s perceived favor for unions over bondholders (see: Chrysler) will hurt the economy and that the administration’s massive health-care overhaul will hinder insurers’ profits. Kalivas also said it’s possible Obama’s cap-and-trade proposal will turn into a big tax on consumers and businesses and that the White House’s huge budget will stifle growth down the line.

“Once we’re done with this recovery from the lows, that type of stuff is what’s going to drive trade,” said Kalivas.

Rising to the Challenge

Aside from these big-picture proposals, there are a number of intangibles that could have affected how the economy would have fared under McCain.

For example, it’s no secret that economics wasn’t McCain’s forte.

On the other hand, Obama, who is widely considered an above average public speaker, tends to come across more self-assured on the economy, even though he, too, lacks an economic background.

“I think the President has conveyed a sense of confidence that I think people were looking for,” said Faucher, pointing to a recent uptick in consumer confidence.

Then again, McCain would have been forced to pay considerable attention to the economy regardless of his lack of comfort with the topic.

“It would have been his focal point. Would he have risen to the occasion with lower tax rates, we think.