Mitt Romney has edge on fiscal matters


The growing national debt fueled by deficit spending can’t be sustained. Changes have to be made to reduce the debt or this country will crumble.

Yet, in the short term the economy has to be handled carefully as the nation slowly emerges from the Great Recession. Wages are shrinking and unemployment remains high. The president must work with Congress — whether divided or controlled by Democrats or Republicans — to get the nation on the right path.

It is for that reason we see Mitt Romney as the better choice for president.

But we see the race as extremely close even though President Barack Obama, a Democrat, and Republican Romney differ greatly on social and fiscal issues.

We agree more with Obama on his social stands (favoring gay marriage, for example) but side with Romney on the importance of reducing federal spending, including making significant changes to entitlement programs. This country can’t keep spending borrowed money.

The president has to lead, which includes getting Congress on board. That isn’t happening.

For example, the so-called Supercommittee on debt reduction was formed last year to trim $1.5 trillion in spending over the next 10 years. Although that is a lot of money, it is less than half of what the U.S. government spent this year. The bipartisan committee failed to take action. Once again, the problem gets kicked down the road. Strong leadership would not have let this happen.

It has been particularly difficult for Obama to work with the Republican-controlled House. The blame goes both ways, but this is nevertheless a fact.

The result is spending beyond the country’s means and no solutions for entitlement programs on their way to insolvency — with a devastating fiscal crisis on the horizon.

Another four years of an Obama administration offers another four years of partisan fighting while the country teeters at the edge of the fiscal cliff.

Romney’s philosophical approach to reduce the scope of government seems more realistic and has a chance of putting the government on a sustainable path.

No, it won’t be easy.

But Romney’s record as governor of Massachusetts and in business has been impressive.

We concede he is far less impressive as a campaigner (although his performances in the two debates are a significant improvement), but campaigning and governing are two very different skills.

We believe Romney, who worked well with a Democrat-controlled Legislature in liberal Massachusetts, has the best chance to work with a fractured, partisan Congress to get the economy to a point where employment rises and the debt declines. Getting more people working — jobs — is the key to solving the nation’s biggest problems.

The partisan bickering in Washington is crippling this country.

A new direction is needed.



BluMtn says...

Yee Haw, button up your magic underwear. Bishop Romneys coming to town.

Posted 18 October 2012, 6:48 p.m. Suggest removal

marketinsider says...

You said, "Once again, the problem gets kicked down the road. Strong leadership would not have let this happen." I'll take the Republican's favorite president, Reagan. Reagan was president from 1981-88. When Reagan took office in 1981 the national debt was $1 trillion, when he left in 1988 it was $2.5 trillion, which was a huge increase in national debt. Reagan ran deficits of 6% of GDP, he was the only president, at the time, to run deficits above 4% except for two president who had WWI and WWII to deal with. Strong Republican leadership let this happen. The Democrats favorite president in the last 30 years is Clinton, when Clinton took office in 1993 the national debt was $4 trillion, when he left it was $5.7 trillion. A huge increase when you look at the fact that when he came into office the country was over the 1991-92 recession, and he had no recession to deal with during his entire presidency, furthermore, he had a very strong stock market, a good housing market, and the best invention, the internet all on his side, but he still managed to run the debt up another $1.7 trillion. The small budget surpluses he gets credit for are simply accounting tricks: off budget items are not included in the final deficit number giving out by the government, for example, they are able to loot from the Social Security trust fund, and spend the money, but they don't have to count it when calculating the deficit. Strong Democratic leadership let this happen. You are misleading your readers when you say strong leadership does not let huge increases in national debt occur. Try something new, do research, check out my numbers, you will find them to be true. Or does the truth scare you because you are a small paper, I know, going against the New York Times takes guts, even if it is the truth.

Posted 18 October 2012, 10:25 p.m. Suggest removal

marketinsider says...

In your editorial you use the term "fiscal cliff." When you search google news for "fiscal cliff," 74,000 news stories pop up. Do you know that the economy is the most important thing to voters this election. Do you know that, overwhelmingly, economists believe that the biggest risk to the economy is the fiscal cliff, not Europe, Europe is number two. How come news sources do not challenge CNN and the politicians for not asking both candidates what they plan on doing to avoid the fiscal cliff? The question was not asked during the debate on Tuesday. There is freedom of the press so you can inform the electorate. Aren't you curious to know why the question was not asked? Could it be that they all know there is nothing they can do? We have kicked the can as you say for way to long.

Posted 18 October 2012, 10:35 p.m. Suggest removal

marketinsider says...

In your editorial you use the word "entitlement." Just to let you know even if I am the majority of one. The reason I consider Social Security and Medicare "entitlements" is because I have been paying into them since I graduated from Wa-Hi in 1973. Twenty years ago I realized that the politicians were looting the Social Security trust fund. I wrote my Congressman and said I would sign anything and be responsible for myself in my old age, to let me invest my Social Security contributions myself, I was turned down. Now the politicians and media expect me to take cuts because the country and politicians have been completely irresponsible. Many American may be gullible enough to fall for it, but not me. I feel I am entitled to my benefits because I paid into them for 37 years. Obviously, the cuts should come to programs that recipients don't pay into. Does it not make sense? And just incase someone can't figure it out, you can pay into something like Veterans do with service, it does not have to be money. However, getting something for absolutely nothing, is where the cuts should be made first. And there are lots of them. When you ask me to accept reduced benefits, that is like asking me to pay car insurance for 37 years, and then when my car is stolen and I put in a claim, that if the care insurance company doesn't pay, and they tell me it's because that have been stupid with their investments for the last 37 years, I'm just suppose to forget about it?

Posted 18 October 2012, 10:54 p.m. Suggest removal

Log in to comment