Romney's Position on Key Issues

On the key issues of the presidential campaign, Mitt Romney has stated positions which reflect the principles of free enterprise and limited government.

In order to grow the economy, create jobs and reduce the size of government, he has made specific proposals on taxes, spending and government regulations and programs as well as plans to increase trade, energy production and other areas which affect the economy.

The following is a brief summary of Romney's positions on some of the key issues. A more detailed and complete description can be found at http://www.mittromney.com/issues.

     *Taxes: Advocates a 20% cut in marginal rates across the board for individual taxpayers. Would cut corporate tax rates from the current 35% to 25% so that U.S. corporations would be more competitive in today's global economy.

     *Spending: His goals are to cut spending to 20% of GDP (vs. 24.3% last year), return non-security discretionary spending to below 2008 levels, build a "simpler, smaller, smarter government" (repeal Obamacare, privatize Amtrak, reduce subsidies to arts and humanities etc, eliminate family planning funds and reduce foreign aid) and other measures.

     *Regulations: Require Congressional approval for new major regulations, reform of the legal liability system and streamline and modernize business regulations.

     *Energy: Supports pipelines to bring Canadian energy to the U.S., implement procedures to facilitate domestic oil and natural gas reserves and encourage further investment in nuclear power.

     *Medicare: Favors reform by changing to a premium support system where seniors would receive a fixed amount to buy private insurance; the current Medicare program would stay in place for seniors who prefer that option.

     *Social Security: Advocates a plan that "for future generations of seniors---the retirement age should be slowly increased for increases in longevity". Has also stated that benefits should continue to grow but "the growth rate should be lower for those with higher incomes".

Any decision on who to vote for in this year's presidential election should take into account not only the candidate's policy positions but also his experience, leadership ability, character and intelligence. Given all of these factors, I believe that Mitt Romney is the better candidate to lead the country in the critical times ahead.

The Obama Administration: A Risky Experiment that Failed

What are the reasons Barack Obama was elected to the presidency in 2008?

His obvious strengths were that he spoke well and with his election, would represent an important milestone in America's race relations. On policy issues, his main message was hope and change but except for the Iraq war, he was not specific.

However, in such areas as experience, positions on many important issues, personal background and values, we knew next to nothing.

We now have more information based on actual performance. If we are to be objective, his presidency should be judged a failure.  To have elected Barack Obama to the presidency in 2008 was a risk that the country should not have taken.

What else should one conclude from a president who has:

     *Increased the national debt by $5 trillion during his term (so far) and shows little regard for its effects,

     *Frittered away billions for so called "stimulus" expenditures, bailouts and loans to industry that will never be repaid or were wasted on pet projects such as Solyndra (which went bankrupt),

     *Signed a health care bill whose repercussions are not fully understood, is costly, does not have public support and includes an individual mandate that is most likely unconstitutional,

     *Issued regulations to religious organizations that mandated their participation in medical procedures that are counter to their beliefs and in defiance of the first amendment to the Constitution,

     *Failed to lead the country to solve our problems (most notably the economy) but instead sought to evade responsibility by blaming almost everyone else and thereby dividing the country with his accusations,

     *Espoused more spending and bigger government despite our huge debt and in disregard of constitutional principles,

     *Apologized for America's alleged mistakes while ignoring our rightful actions through history and  demonstrated an arrogance and disdain for America's proper role in the world?

Based on his record, he should not be reelected.

The Road to November

The presidential campaign has now evolved into a predictable pattern; that is, the main issues are in the forefront but are frequently sidelined. Topics which most voters would consider as not their top priority, such as gay marriage and alleged character issues of the candidates for instance, often gain the spotlight. But as of now, the most important issues are the economy and the size of government.

When Bill Clinton first ran for president in 1992, his political mantra was "It's the economy, stupid." That sentiment is also applicable today. Our economic growth is anemic and employment levels unsatisfactory. We are fast approaching a $16 trillion debt, a debt we cannot support for long unless we change economic course.

The approach we take to solve these problems will be ours to choose in November. The Democrats call for more government stimulus and spending, an idea of uncertain provenance, which will result in more debt. The Republican approach is to rely on the free enterprise system to grow the economy, which historically, America has been at the forefront.

Current polls of voter sentiment are inconclusive and often contradictory. During the next six months there are some significant events on the horizon that will impact election results. Domestically, they include economic factors such as growth and unemployment, the Supreme Court's pending decisions on health care, gay marriage and a state's right to enforce immigration laws and actions pending in Congress to raise the debt limit and potential bills related to taxes and spending. In foreign affairs, there is the possible implosion of the EU and the euro and the potential threat to peace posed by Iran.

All of the above factors plus any unforeseen events will have an effect on the election. What that will be depends on the candidates' reactions to actual events and crises and the subsequent public evaluation of which candidate can best lead the country.

Have They No Sense of Decency?

During the late 1940's and early 1950's, Senator Joseph McCarthy used unethical methods to uncover what he perceived as communist infiltration of the government and other institutions. His methods of intimidation, innuendo and unsubstantiated accusations destroyed many careers and reputations.

At a hearing of a Senate Committee which he chaired, and after he bullied a number of witnesses, Senator McCarthy was asked by a Boston lawyer, Joseph Welch: "Have you no sense of decency, Sir--?". Not long after, the Senator was censured by the Senate for behavior "contrary to senatorial traditions" and his influence effectively came to an end.

In today's political climate, candidates, especially those who lack or have a meager record of accomplishments and qualifications, may attempt to deflect the debate even to the point of stereotyping, name calling and using outright fabrications in regard to their opponents.

No good can come of such tactics. They poison the political atmosphere, lead to confusion and divisiveness and they make it even more difficult to discuss concrete solutions to our very real problems.

During the past week, the Obama campaign and its allies have initiated a process of referring to their opponents as racists, homophobic and misogynists.  From that, one can conclude that they don't intend to run on their record and are devoid of any realistic solutions. One can further conclude that they are so ideologically bound that, to them, their ends justify the means even if they are detrimental to the country's well-being.

Have they no sense of decency?

Stereotypes: Impact on Political Climate

It's an obvious fact but bears repeating: each individual is unique.  We all have different talents, characteristics and opinions.  This is true even among close families and groups of friends. It is also true among members of larger organizations.

Members of political parties, for instance, often have different views from that of other members. Some of these views may even be shared with members of an opposing political party. In America, that is sometimes the case as Senators and Representatives primarily reflect the interests of their constituencies and shape their judgement accordingly.

In a presidential election year, however, the pressure to present a united front is paramount.  That is due to the fact that the office of the modern day presidency holds a great amount of power. It is a prize each party dearly wants. Add to this ingredient a sensationalist 24/7 news/ talk show media with the power of money and the result is an atmosphere of vitriol and divisiveness.

In such an atmosphere, the temptation is to demonize your opponents, to brand them in a fixed and unfavorable image. In a word, to stereotype.

You will hear in the upcoming campaign various stereotypical descriptions of political opponents such as "leftists", "rightists", "misogynists", "racists" (or similar) as well as others. Such name calling does a grave disservice to our country, the democratic process and to the honest men and women who choose to run for public office.  But it is also a disservice to the independent thinking members of the party using such tactics since it pressures them to conform to the group thinking: "if you are not with us, you are against us".

As voters, we need to be aware of such tactics and resist them.  We should insist on a discussion of the issues based on fact and what is best for the country. As an independent and free people, we should each use our own critical judgement in casting our ballot. Our country deserves no less.

Stereotypes

We have all heard of the typical stereotype. It can apply to persons or groups of persons of different countries, ethnicities, geographic areas, political persuasion among others.

For instance, residents of Vermont are generally thought of as being liberal although that hasn't always been the case.  To carry the example a step further, we generally picture Vermonters as wearing sandals (with socks in cold weather) and enjoying their brie and wine (preferably foreign and organic).

But this kind of classification can get confusing.  I'm sure Vermonters would man the ramparts if their way of life were threatened. In defense of the status quo--now that could be a conservative position.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are often pictured as wearing shoes without socks (in warm weather) but not the open toed type. But I also know conservatives who wouldn't dream of wearing shoes without socks and prefer beer and salsa. It can get confusing.

For instance, on the subject of hair care. Conservative men are said to prefer short hair whereas, if you see  a man with long hair, you might assume that he is liberal. For women, conservatives are generally seen as using a hair stylists whereas many liberals are imagined to be less demanding. I even heard of one self described liberal who cuts her own hair. Now that could be labeled as frugality, a trait near and dear to many conservatives.

In short, stereotyping persons or different groups is not a slam dunk. Individuals or groups who are labeled as "liberal" or "conservative" may have several different outlooks and many times those outlooks intersect. That is also true of people of different ethnicities, geographic areas, genders or color of skin. More about that in my next post.