I'd bet a significant amount of my own money that Mitt Romney will not be victorious in the 2012 Presidential election. But with a fragile economy and a breaking middle class, the possibility that Romney could pull an upset is not out of the question. And it is worth worrying about because the consequences of a Romney Presidency are severe.
There are many factors working against Romney this year, the primary one being himself. Romney is a deeply unattractive nominee because he has no distinct personality, cannot connect with voters and is painfully out of touch with reality. On top of that, his party has shown the maturity of a group of 6-year-olds deprived of cake at a birthday party -- hardly inspiring when gearing up for a national election. The GOP hasn't exactly warmed to him in the past, and the combination of apathy and disorganization could be fatal. Romney cannot even inspire his own party to support him, let alone the swing voters and moderates he will need to attract in the general.
This all looks good for Obama.
However, this election may not come down to who the country likes best or which party is better organized. American voters are a fickle lot, and they'll jump ship if the economy isn't providing them with jobs or opportunity. The fact that Republicans are almost entirely responsible for the snail-paced economic recovery doesn't mean much -- Americans want jobs and security, and they want them now. Although the U.S. economy has been adding jobs at a better rate in recent months, it is still part of a fragile world economy that could break at any point. A recent report by the IMF highlighted the extreme danger of a disorderly default and exit by eurozone members, warning it could spark a gigantic market panic and create a bigger crisis than in 2008. Events like this are out of Obama's hands, and it could ruin his Presidency if he doesn't make sure he pummels Romney from every angle over the coming months.
A Romney President is dangerous for two key reasons. The first is his economic policy, and the second, his foreign policy.
On the economy, Romney has pledged to cut taxes and slash welfare at every given opportunity (despite his more mixed record as governor of Massachusetts). We haven't seen detailed proposals about what he would do in office, but given his statements thus far, its a good bet it wouldn't involve a great deal of wealth distribution or government-funded job creation programs. Romney represents the interest of big business, and he would do their bidding at the expense of the country once in power. Any further cuts to education, welfare or medicare/medicaid would cause untold damage to the already suffering population. An astonishing amount of Americans live with food insecurity, chronic poverty and lack of health care, and they rely on government programs for what little they do have. Much of the U.S. already looks like a third-world country, and more austerity measures from Washington would exacerbate the alarming trend.
On foreign policy, Romney is possibly more dangerous in terms of the long term damage he could do. Andrew Sullivan writes on the possibility of a Romney victory in November:
My fear is that this is a man who backed torture, who wanted to "double Gitmo", whose belief in America's divine destiny has Mormonism to back it up, who was best buds with Netanyahu, who believes that Russia is our "number one foe", who wants a big increase in defense spending, and who promises a war on Iran. That's what we have on the table versus Mataconis' feeling that Romney would turn to pragmatism in office, as the weight of the office and the permanent interests of the U.S. sink in.
A Romney Presidency would be a disaster on all fronts, and the mere threat of it should make every intelligent citizen do their best to ensure he get nowhere near the White House in November.
Ben Cohen is the editor of the recently relaunched TheDailyBanter.com
Follow Ben Cohen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/thedailybanter
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
If my business worked our five plan like the Feds do we would be out of business by year three most likely.
The underpinning of your piece is based on Progressive Policy --- More Federal intervention is required to right the ship. That foundation is drilled with worm holes. The Government does not create a single thing of economic value. Instead it takes value that has been created and places it in the hands of people who simply exist. And PLEASE do not confuse necessary and vital palliative services with entitlements that comfort poverty.
In the vast 40 years or so the 10 or so million who have been "lifted" from poverty have cost 40 TRILLION dollars -- That works out to about 400,000 per uplifted person. Basically this means that the group benefiting the most from social spending is not those with need. It is that group that service those with need.
Most Government Programs end the same way ---- As a job service funded by the production of a shrinking pool of producers.
MORE years of progressive Policy will not fix our economy.”
01. Although the change would be incremental, it would be in the correct direction. That being toward individual responsibility for self and away from communal responsibility.
02. The change would be away from growing the group who services need for a living and toward those who are in need due to disability.
03. Those in temporary need would get PALLIATIVE help as opposed to expanding programs that leave them little initiative.
Regulatory issues would be streamlined and pose less strangulation n growing a business .
NOTE -- This would need be watched because like Obama Romney would try to go to far (just in the other direction)
Obamacare would have a chance of repeal (whatever is left of it after June)
The rate of increase in the Federal Budget will be slowed
Payroll tax decrease (th one pertaing to SS PREMIUM) would not be extended thereby making SS STRONGER.
Meanwhile, tax revenues under Obama have averaged 15%, which is the lowest they have been since 1952. So, obviously, any fiscally responsible person, would look at this and think: "We have to cut military spending and raise tax revenues to lower the deficit." yet Mitt Romney isn't responsible, and I'm starting to question his sanity. Romney's proposed tax cuts would LOWER revenues by $10.5 trillion over the next decade. He has promised to increase military spending, and the US entering into one, even two wars would become inevitable. Here is the crazy part: He promises it will be deficit neutral. So, either Romney doesn't know math, or he is serious which would mean we would fall in financial crisis so grim that it would make the Great Depression seem like "the good ole' days."
How about counter-cyclical spending which Romer and Romer (both Berkley professors, one was an adviser for Pres. Obama) showed leads to a decrease in real GDP of 2.1% which only furthers the cyclical problem. Those are just some starters.
"Any further cuts to education, welfare or medicare/medicaid would cause untold damage to the already suffering population." Says who? What's your evidence for this?
I think a better way to approach this article would be to show differences between Romney and Obama. Has Obama been "good" for foreign policy by increasing drone strikes against suspected targets (and "collateral" civilian casualties that are deemed "acceptable")?
This is a very one-sided article with quite a few claims and not enough evidence. This is an op-ed.
I'm not sure what you are asking in regards to the cuts to education, welfare and medicare/medicaid - if you cut the money, people won't get educated, won't get money to house/feed themselves and won't get necessary medical care. Is this not self evident? For a more detailed look at the devastating effects of cutting welfare, I suggest you look at this study: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/24/us-spending-health-idUSTRE65N6PS20100624
My article was written to defend Obama's policies - I'm just saying Romney's would be more extreme and therefore more dangerous.
You were right about one thing.....Romney's program would NOT include a lot of "wealth redistribution"
.....and that is a very good thing! Why don't you take a minute and explain to us how important it is for the government to participate in "wealth distribution"?
Romney does not propose cutting much of anything --- His "cuts" are simply a matter of smaller increases in nearly every case. Obama uses pretty much the same theory as do most politicians. It is an inaccurate and frankly dishonest method of discussing future budget costs and for that matter revenue.
If my business worked our five plan like the Feds do we would be out of business by year three most likely.
The underpinning of your piece is based on Progressive Policy --- More Federal intervention is required to right the ship. That foundation is drilled with worm holes. The Government does not create a single thing of economic value. Instead it takes value that has been created and places it in the hands of people who simply exist. And PLEASE do not confuse necessary and vital palliative services with entitlements that comfort poverty.
In the vast 40 years or so the 10 or so million who have been "lifted" from poverty have cost 40 TRILLION dollars -- That works out to about 400,000 per uplifted person. Basically this means that the group benefiting the most from social spending is not those with need. It is that group that service those with need.
Most Government Programs end the same way ---- As a job service funded by the production of a shrinking pool of producers.
MORE years of progressive Policy will not fix our economy.
Solely lacking any substantial discourse about sums up the editorial.
With that said, I have no doubt Romney will win the 2012 Presidential election. Obviously, it's not because of Romney's overwhelming popularity that he will win, rather because President Obama evidently doesn't want a second term.
When the Democratic party took control of Congress in 2006, the National Debt was $8,165,647,324,627.69. Five years and four months later the National Debt stands at $15,617,358,530,369.93. Simple math, really, the National debt has just about doubled, or it will have by the end of the year.
If you think increased gasoline prices is dragging our economy down, wait until this additional interest starts hitting the economy. Then there's the $9,000,000,000,000.00 that the Federal Reserve 'electronically credited' on the balance sheets still floating around that was used to purchase no one wants to know what.
No, President Obama doesn't really want to win this election. When the 'stimulus' spending starts to expire, and it is scheduled to start expiring right after the election, he doesn't want to be in office.
Romney is much better at governing than politicking.
And his career shows that. Anyone who saw what he did with the Olympics, saw some of the companies he helped turnaround or watched him balance the budget in MA will tell you, the guy gets things done.
He's very sharp and laser focused at task accomplishment. What Romney could do much better than the current president - IMO - is actually shape change within Washington.
I think the liberal left has done a great job and trying to portray him as someone who will favor only the rich and punish the poor and afflicted. When in reality, the divide between wealthy and the the poor and the middle class has only grown deeper under under Obama.
I think the biggest threat to our country is another OBama presidency where he promises everyone everything while running up our debt into a very dangerous level.
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."