Mitt Romney is optimistic about optimism. In fact, it’s pretty much all he’s got. And that fact should make you very pessimistic about his chances of leading an economic recovery. 
 
 As many people have noticed, Mr. Romney’s five-point “economic plan” is very nearly substance-free. It vaguely suggests that he will pursue the same goals Republicans always pursue — weaker environmental protection, lower taxes on the wealthy. But it offers neither specifics nor any indication why returning to George W. Bush’s policies would cure a slump that began on Mr. Bush’s watch. 
 
 In his Boca Raton meeting with donors, however, Mr. Romney revealed his real plan, which is to rely on magic. “My own view is,” he declared, “if we win on November 6, there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country. We’ll see capital come back, and we’ll see — without actually doing anything — we’ll actually get a boost in the economy.” 
 
 Are you feeling reassured? 
 
 In fairness to Mr. Romney, his assertion that electing him would spontaneously spark an economic boom is consistent with his party’s current economic dogma. Republican leaders have long insisted that the main thing holding the economy back is the “uncertainty” created by President Obama’s statements — roughly speaking, that businesspeople aren’t investing because Mr. Obama has hurt their feelings. If you believe that, it makes sense to argue that changing presidents would, all by itself, cause an economic revival. 
 
 There is, however, no evidence supporting this dogma. Our protracted economic weakness isn’t a mystery; it’s what normally happens after a major financial crisis. Furthermore, business investment has actually recovered fairly strongly since the official recession ended. What’s holding us back is mainly the continued weakness of housing combined with a vast overhang of household debt, the legacy of the Bush-era housing bubble. 
 
 By the way, in saying that our prolonged slump was predictable, I’m not saying that it was necessary. We could and should have greatly reduced the pain by combining aggressive fiscal and monetary policies with effective relief for highly indebted homeowners; the fact that we didn’t reflects a combination of timidity on the part of both the Obama administration and the Federal Reserve, and scorched-earth opposition on the part of the G.O.P. 
 
 But Mr. Romney, as I said, isn’t offering anything substantive to fight the slump, just a reprise of the usual slogans. And he has denounced the Fed’s belated effort to step up to the plate. 
 
 Back to the optimism thing: It’s true that some studies suggest a secondary role for uncertainty in depressing the economy — and conservatives have seized on these studies, claiming vindication. But if you actually look at the measures of uncertainty involved, they’ve been driven not by fear of Mr. Obama but by events like the euro crisis and the standoff over the debt ceiling. (O.K., I guess you could argue that electing Mr. Romney might encourage businesses by promising an end to Republican economic sabotage.) 
 
 You should also know that efforts to base policy on speculations about business psychology have a track record — and it’s not a good one. 
 
 Back in 2010, as European nations began implementing savage austerity programs to placate bond markets, it was common for policy makers to deny that these programs would have a depressing effect. “The idea that austerity measures could trigger stagnation is incorrect,” insisted Jean-Claude Trichet, then the president of the European Central Bank. Why? Because these measures would “increase the confidence of households, firms and investors.” 
 
 At the time I ridiculed such claims as belief in the “confidence fairy.” And sure enough, austerity programs actually led to Depression-level economic downturns across much of Europe. 
 
 Yet here comes Mitt Romney, declaring, in effect, “I am the confidence fairy!” 
 
 Is he? As it happens, Mr. Romney offered a testable proposition in his Boca remarks: “If it looks like I’m going to win, the markets will be happy. If it looks like the president’s going to win, the markets should not be terribly happy.” How’s that going? Not very well. Over the past month conventional wisdom has shifted from the view that the election could easily go either way to the view that Mr. Romney is very likely to lose; yet markets are up, not down, with major stock indexes hitting their highest levels since the economic downturn began. 
 
 It’s all kind of sad. Yet the truth is that it all fits together. Mr. Romney’s whole campaign has been based on the premise that he can become president simply by not being Barack Obama. Why shouldn’t he believe that he can fix the economy the same way? 
 
 But will he get a chance to put that theory to the test? At the moment, I’m not optimistic. ||||| | Place your cursor over each bar to see demographic breakdowns. Related Article » The presidential candidates are campaigning intensely in critical swing states, including Colorado, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. A series of polls of likely voters conducted by Quinnipiac University, The New York Times and CBS News underscores the competitive nature of the election in these states. If the election for president were being held today, for whom would you vote? If you're undecided, do you lean more toward Barack Obama or Mitt Romney? 
 
 Compared with past presidential elections, how would you describe your level of enthusiasm about voting in this year's presidential election? 
 
 The Candidates Just a week before Election Day, the latest polls find tight races in three key swing states. There is intense focus in these states, with most likely voters paying a lot of attention to the election and wide majorities havingbeen personally contacted by one or both campaigns. Few voters in each state remain undecided or say they might change their mind before the election. Is your opinion of Barack Obama favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him? 
 
 Is your opinion of Mitt Romney favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him? 
 
 Does Barack Obama have strong leadership qualities? 
 
 Does Mitt Romney have strong leadership qualities? 
 
 Is Barack Obama honest and trustworthy? 
 
 Is Mitt Romney honest and trustworthy? 
 
 Does Barack Obama care about the needs and problems of people like you? 
 
 Does Mitt Romney care about the needs and problems of people like you? 
 
 Does Barack Obama understand the needs and problems of the women in the work force? 
 
 Does Mitt Romney understand the needs and problems of the women in the work force? 
 
 Has Barack Obama clearly explained his specific plans for the next four years? 
 
 Has Mitt Romney clearly explained his specific plans for the next four years? 
 
 Regardless of how you intend to vote, who do you think would do a better job working with Republicans and Democrats in Congress? 
 
 Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president? 
 
 The Economy and Taxes The candidates run closely on the question of who would do a better job handling the economy, by far the most important issue to voters. But while many voters say that the economy is improving, and an increasing percentage say their state’s economy is getting better, the president has not been able to make any headway vs. Mr. Romney on the issue. Do you think the nation's economy is getting: 
 
 Regardless of how you intend to vote, who would do a better job on the economy? 
 
 Regardless of how you intend to vote, who would do a better job on taxes? 
 
 Regardless of how you intend to vote, who would do a better job on the budget deficit? 
 
 Regardless of how you intend to vote, who do you think would do a better job helping the middle class? 
 
 Who's Better on the Issues? Mr. Obama has the advantage with social and foreign policy issues. Regardless of how you intend to vote, who do you think would do a better job on social issues? 
 
 Regardless of how you intend to vote, who do you think would do a better job on Medicare? 
 
 Regardless of how you intend to vote, who do you think would do a better job in education? 
 
 Regardless of how you intend to vote, who do you think would do a better job on foreign policy? 
 
 Regardless of how you intend to vote, who do you think would do a better job on terrorism? 
 
 Questions Asked in Earlier Swing State Polls Regardless of how you intend to vote, who do you think would do a better job on national security? 
 
 Regardless of how you intend to vote, who do you think would do a better job on women's reproductive health issues? 
 
 Which comes closest to your view of Barack Obama's economic policies? 
 
 Do you think the Obama campaign is saying things it believes to be true, or is it deliberately misleading people? 
 
 Do you think the Romney campaign is saying things it believes to be true, or is it deliberately misleading people? 
 
 Have you seen any commercials on television for Mitt Romney, or not? 
 
 Have you seen any commercials on television for Barack Obama, or not? 
 
 How confident are you in Barack Obama’s ability to make the right decisions about events in the Middle East? 
 
 How confident are you in Mitt Romney's ability to make the right decisions about events in the Middle East? 
 
 Do you think Barack Obama is removing U.S. troops from Afghanistan too quickly, not quickly enough, or is he handling this about right? 
 
 If Barack Obama is re-elected, do you think the policies of his administration will favor one group or treat all the same? 
 
 If Mitt Romney is elected, do you think the policies of his administration will favor one group or treat all the same? 
 
 How confident are you in Barack Obama’s ability to be an effective commander in chief of the nation’s military? 
 
 How confident are you in Mitt Romney's ability to be an effective commander in chief of the nation’s military? 
 
 How important will Medicare, which is the government program that pays for health care for older Americans, be in deciding how you will vote for president this year? 
 
 Which of these two descriptions comes closer to your view of what Medicare should look like for people who are now under 55 who would be eligible for Medicare coverage in about 10 years? Medicare should continue as it is today, with the government providing older Americans with health insurance. OR, Medicare should be changed to a system in which the government would provide older Americans with a fixed amount of money toward buying private health insurance or Medicare insurance. 
 
 Over all, do you think the benefits from Medicare are worth the cost of the program for taxpayers, or are they not worth the cost? 
 
 To reduce the federal budget deficit, would you support major reductions, minor reductions, or no reductions to spending on Medicare? 
 
 How important will health care be in deciding how you will vote for president this year? 
 
 From what you've heard or read, do you approve or disapprove of the health care law that was enacted in 2010? 
 
 From what you've heard or read, do you think the 2010 health care law will mostly help you personally, will mostly hurt you personally, or don't you think it will have much of an effect on you personally? 
 
 In deciding whom you would like to see elected president this year, which one of the following issues will be most important to you? 
 
 How important will the economy be in deciding how you will vote for president this year? 
 
 Which comes closer to your view? Government should do more to solve national problems. OR, Government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals. 
 
 Regardless of how you intend to vote, who do you think would do a better job on the housing market and foreclosures? 
 
 How important will the housing market and foreclosures be in deciding how you will vote for president this year? 
 
 How important will the budget deficit be in deciding how you will vote for president this year? 
 
 How important will taxes be in deciding how you will vote for president this year? 
 
 In order to reduce the federal budget deficit, do you support or oppose raising income taxes on households making more than $250,000 per year? 
 
 How important will foreign policy be in deciding how you will vote for president this year? 
 
 Regardless of how you intend to vote, who do you think would do a better job in an international crisis? 
 
 Do you support or oppose efforts to require voters to show a photo identification card to vote? 
 
 Will changes in your state's voting and registration rules make it harder or easier for you to vote this year or won't the changes make a difference? 
 
 Do you think your state's economy is getting: 
 
 If Barack Obama is re-elected, how will his economic policies affect your personal financial situation? 
 
 If Mitt Romney is elected, how will his economic policies affect your personal financial situation? 
 
 Does Mitt Romney have the right kind of business experience to get the economy creating jobs again or is Mr. Romney's kind of business experience too focused on making profits? 
 
 How important will television campaign ads be to your vote for president this year? ||||| A child waves as she is held by her mom before US Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaks at a campaign rally at the Wings Over the Rockies Air and Space Museum in Denver, Colorado, on October 1, 2012. Photo by JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/GettyImages 
 
 David Brooks has a column out urging Mitt Romney to deliver an opening statement at the presidential debate on the economy that, if delivered, would rightly lose him the vote of basically everyone. 
 
 
 
 Brooks' centerpiece idea is that Romney should completely ignore the short-term jobs disaster, and in fact explicitly—and falsely—state that "there's no magic lever" the federal government can deploy to boost employment in a deeply depressed economy. Having promised to not deliver robust economic recovery, Brooks wants Romney to make the core of his economic agenda . . . tax hikes! Specifically the exact tax hikes Obama has been trying to get Republicans to agree to. Brooks' pitch is essentially that we need to elect a Republican president in order to swindle a Republican congress into enacting Obama's policy ideas: 
 
 The second reason there’s been no budget compromise is that Republicans have been too rigid, refusing to put revenue on the table. I’ve been part of the problem. But, globally, the nations that successfully trim debt have raised $1 in new revenue for every $3 in spending cuts. I will bring Republicans around to that position. There’s no way President Obama can do that. 
 
 Brooks tries to obscure how bizarre that advice is by masking it in several paragraphs worth of slightly unfair characterizations of Obama's skills as a negotiator, but the fact of the matter is that this is exactly what Obama's been proposing. Maybe Brooks is right and congressional Republicans are so insipid that they'll pivot and agree to Obama's proposal once it becomes "Romney's proposal" (though that seems wrong to me, see GOP revolts against Bush I on taxes and Bush II on immigration) but it's still bizarre to be centering your agenda on long-term deficit reduction at a time of negative real interest rates. It was bizarre when Obama made this his agenda in 2011 and it'd be doubly bizarre for Romney to campaign on Obama's failed 2011 economic agenda. 
 
 Then to gild the lilly, Brooks tosses off random inaccurate facts like "The economy in 2012 is worse than the economy in 2011" and assets that if Obama gets re-elected "the lesson will be: Never Touch Medicare. No Democrat or Republican will dare reform the system" even though Obama touched Medicare and reformed the system in his first term already. 
 
 If I were Romney, I'd give practically the reverse speech focusing on the president's strange obsession with raising taxes. It used to be that I thought Democrats wanted to raise taxes because they love big spending. At least, that's how they did it in Massachusetts. But this president loves tax increases so much he was eager to betray his own party and slash Medicare spending in order to get them. A Romney administration doesn't think you bolster a depressed economy with higher taxes. Heck, you can even ask Paul Krugman! I understand ideological disagreements, but this is an administration that just doesn't get it. Let's extend the Bush tax cuts, let's extend the payroll tax cuts, and let's work on revenue-neutral pro-growth reform for the long term. But in the short-term, why not try to make taxes even lower? This administration keeps trying to "stimulate" the economy with unemployment benefits and food stamps to help people get by when they can't find jobs. Why not deploy that money cutting taxes on work and business investment? I don't think struggling Americans want more SNAP benefits, I think they want to work.
– Paul Krugman has long derided the "confidence fairy": a notion that government cuts will somehow spark more consumers and investors to buy. We're seeing another version of that fairy now, after learning that Mitt Romney, at his infamous "47%" fundraiser, also claimed that his election would offer an economic lift "without actually doing anything," thanks to "optimism about the future of the country." Instead of offering much in the way of policy specifics, Romney is "declaring, in effect, 'I am the confidence fairy!'" Krugman writes in the New York Times. Romney's wrong: For one thing, "business investment has actually recovered fairly strongly since the official recession ended." What's more, as the election has recently appeared to turn in President Obama's favor, "markets are up, not down, with major stock indexes hitting their highest levels since the economic downturn began." Of course, "Romney’s whole campaign has been based on the premise that he can become president simply by not being Barack Obama. Why shouldn’t he believe that he can fix the economy the same way?" Click for Krugman's full column, or over at the Washington Post, Ezra Klein breaks down Romney's tax plan and finds it would raise taxes on those he defines as middle-income.