Funny enough, few people are talking about what Obama or Romney would do if elected. Mitt Romney refuses to detail his plans, such as what departments he would cut. Polls have shown repeatedly that people like hearing about “spending cuts” but hate hearing about what actual programs would be eliminated. In Massachusetts, Romney admitted he would cut the Department of Education when running against Ted Kennedy. Mitt got destroyed, and vowed never to detail plans again. That means other people get to define what a Romney presidency would look like. For instance, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities took a look at what would need to be cut in order to achieve Romney’s proposed 20% tax cuts across the board while balancing the budget. For one, 13 million people would be thrown off food stamps. Take this alongside the fact Romney’s tax plan would cut his own taxes by $5 million compared to Obama’s plan, and you get something like this:
FACT: Mitt Romney’s plan would cut his own taxes $5 million while throwing over 13 million off food stamps. bit.ly/LCmgHk
— Four More Years (@4More) June 7, 2012
Whose side is Romney on? Not yours. You can also look at what Romney would not do, such as extend the American Opportunity Tax Credit, Earned Income Tax Credit, or child credit. Do the math, and you get something like this:
FACT: Mitt Romney’s plan would cut his own taxes while raising them on 18 million working families. bit.ly/Jeo2Ce
— Four More Years (@4More) June 7, 2012
Whose side is Romney on? Not yours. Even today, Mitt couldn’t help responding to Obama’s assertion that the public-sector needs help more desperately than the private-sector. The private-sector has gained 4.2 million jobs since late 2009 while the public-sector has lost over 600,000 jobs. Mitt Romney’s response:
“We don’t need more fireman, more policeman, more teachers. Did Obama not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.”
Whose side is Romney on? Not yours. Republicans usually exempt cops and firefighters from their attacks on public workers. Cops and firefighters are harder to define as parasites on taxpayers, essential to Walker’s “divide-and-conquer” of labor, and Walker exempted them specifically from his crackdown. Not Mitt. The more you look at what Romney would do, the worse things get, which is why all he wants to talk about is Obama, Obama, Obama. While Obama’s campaign has done a good job turning the debate to Romney, they are focused on his past, not his future. For instance, when TIME asked Romney whether he would cut spending, he made a devastating argument that has gone massively undercovered. Asked whether he would cut spending his first year in office, Romney said NO, because:
“if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression.”
Romney admitted the spending cuts Republicans have been calling for would cause a recession by shrinking GDP, in a very Keynesian analysis. Mitt only admitted this after asked what he would do as President. With Greece and Spain on the edge and England in recession, there is a strong case to be made against austerity moving forward. You need look no further than England for what could happen if the Republicans win. Cameron came in with austerity, and now they’re in a recession. The choice between two alternatives moving forward could not be clearer.
Over the past year Europe has lost 1.8 million jobs while America has gained over 2 million jobs. Do you want austerity or investment?
— Four More Years (@4More) June 7, 2012
Bill Clinton has been a bit of a headache for Obama lately, especially thanks to his interview where he called Romney’s career sterling and said he was qualified for the basic responsibilities of the office. His real point, which has been completely ignored, was that the debate should not focus on Romney’s past but where Romney would take our country moving forward. Romney’s economic plan of “austerity now” is the exactly wrong direction. We need stimulus now, austerity later. The point is our economy is not a household. My spending is your revenue. If we both cut spending, we both lose our revenue. That lowers tax revenue, building more debt. We need to grow our way out of recession then put long-term spending restraints in place. Europe is evidence. This is a debate Democrats can win, so start asking what Romney economics would look like moving forward.
Still waiting for anyone to tell me ONE thing @MittRomney would do differently than Bush. #crickets
— Four More Years (@4More) June 3, 2012
To be fair, Obama’s campaign did start down this road with the slogan Forward. While things may not be improving as quickly as we’d like, Romney would take us backwards which is far worse. I find this a compelling argument, especially given Romney’s inability to distinguish his policies from Bush. He would double-down on cutting taxes by another $5 Trillion over ten years, increasing military spending by $2.1 Trillion, and repealing Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform. Given the fact the Bush Tax Cuts, Iraq/Afghanistan, and the lost revenue from the 2008 Financial Crisis and resulting recession have been the leading drivers of debt, those actions seem unfavorable. Stephanie Cutter and Ben LaBolt have been pushing this idea:
More angry rhetoric from @MittRomney today, but not a single new idea to grow the economy – just the same policies that created the crisis.
— Stephanie Cutter (@stefcutter) June 8, 2012
Mitt Romney’s got an economic plan:it’s exactly what led us into the economic crisis in 2008.
— Ben LaBolt (@BenLaBolt) June 8, 2012
