What Do You Believe, Romney?

What Do You Believe, Romney?

Four years ago, Obama came into office preaching his message of change, filling many Americans with hope that our wars would end, more people would get jobs, and health care would be reformed. However, for some people, the past four years couldn’t end fast enough.

The economy is in a worst place than it has been since the 1930’s and our wars have not ended. Although health care has been reformed, some are not satisfied with Obama’s changes. For this reason, many Americans are looking towards Republican Presidential Nominee, Governor Mitt Romney, for change in the next presidential term.

This is not the first time Governor Romney has run for the Presidential office. Four years ago, he tried, but failed to gain the Republican nomination. Republicans questioned his allegiance to the party and similar questions have risen during this election as well.

This August, The Economist headlined the question, “So, Mitt, what do you really believe?” The article points out that while he was Governor of Massachusetts, Romney supported typically liberal agendas like abortion, gun control, environmental laws to prevent climate change, and mandatory universal healthcare, but now he staunchly opposes all of those ideas. He also has flip-flopped on his opinion on taxes, a key issue in his economic plan. Last August, he believed taxes should remain at their current rate, but in the recent debates he said he will lower taxes for all Americans.

Romney, like any other person, is allowed the opportunity to change his mind on issues, but to change positions on almost every major political issue, right around the time he is running as the Republican Presidential Nominee, makes him a hard character to trust. The trouble for voters is that they have no way of knowing if Romney is serious about his new stances. Sure, he has supported conservative beliefs as governor, but considering his past, how can we know whether or not he has really had a change of heart or if this is all a show to win him the presidency?

His views aside, Romney has shown that as the governor of Massachusetts, he was able to promote bipartisan legislation. During his term, he promoted a health care bill that was accepted on both sides of the aisle. Voters can be hopeful that if Romney is voted into office, he would be a supporter of bipartisan government at the federal level.

Now it is time to examine Romney’s plan for the next four years if he enters the Oval Office. In regards to moral issues, despite his change from years past, Romney now takes the typical conservative stances on abortion, marriage, etc. But most Americans want to know how he is going to deal with the economy, so Romney has laid out a five step plan for dealing with the issue.

The first step is to become energy independent by 2020 so that the Middle East and China have fewer resources to take us hostage with. (This point also serves as a hopeful change in foreign policy.) Second, open new trade markets. The more trade that is opened, the more jobs will likely become available. With trade comes money and work, which brings jobs and can potentially boost the economy. Third, support a better public education system, easier access to higher education, and training for the unemployed that will prepare people for success. Fourth, cut the deficit and reduce the size of government. Fifth, support small business. He wants to lower taxes and regulation for small businesses to help them thrive and encourage them to hire more people.

Let me elaborate more on point four. This is a key issue. Romney agrees with Obama’s plan in theory, to cut spending and raise revenue, but he approaches it differently. He wants to cut spending to any unnecessary social programs. He has stood firmly on repealing the Affordable Care Act if he takes office. He wants to disassemble Medicare, welfare, and social security at a federal level, and allow individual states to deal with these programs themselves. More than this, he wants to cut federal subsidiaries for things like PBS, which has been somewhat of a silly hot topic issue since the first Presidential debate. All of these things, if carried out, will cut spending dramatically.

His plan to deal with the deficit is more than this, however. He agrees that increasing revenue is also important. Romney doesn’t think it makes sense to raise taxes for the few who are working, rather, he believes in lowering taxes to decrease the burden on people, so that when the job market is boosted, there will be more people to tax, which will ultimately raise the federal revenue.

Governor Romney has many impressive ideas, but none of them mean anything unless he follows through with them. The nation is looking for a leader to trust. It will ultimately come down to that. Romney may have great ideas, but he has flip-flopped many times on many issues, making him hard to trust. Based on the history of the candidates, if voters are choosing between Obama and Romney, who should they trust more, the liar or the Flip-Flopper?

  • Guest

    Why are we limited to two choices? Americans always limit themselves to two parties, both of which follow the same Keynesian economics. Obama wants to spend on social programs, Romney wants to spend on war. Even if you were to limit yourself to two simplistic choices, the answer is obvious. War has plagued the United States since Vietnam. Not that Obama is any better with spending. You aren’t voting on how much to spend, rather where to spend it. Romney wants to bring the “defense” budget up to where it was during the Reagan years, which is totally uncalled for and unnecessary. We already spend 58% of the money spent by the world’s top 10 military powers and we outspend China, the next biggest military by almost 6-1. We don’t need nearly 2,500 F-35s, each of which cost at least $154 million dollars with a total program budget of $11.4 billion dollars. Wasteful spending is on both sides of the aisle. To say one is right and the other wrong is completely ignorant of facts. They are both as wrong as the other. 

    • Anonymous Beggar Blade Writer

      I agree that both candidates have their flaws and Americans don’t need to necessarily choose between just these two. As the author said, Romney would have been impressive if he followed through, the key word being if.  For example, Obama said he would stop the war in Afghanistan (and therefore gained the support of many anti-war people)  but while he was in office he started a war in Lybia. I’m sure if Romney would have been elected he would have had a lot of inconsistencies as well. Although the author is biased, I don’t think he was trying to promote either candidate, rather he wanted to evaluate their plans and allow the reader to make his/her choice. 
      The reason he wrote about these two candidates is because they are the ones that most people were looking at and choosing between. I agree, it would have been very beneficial to look at other candidates in other editorials, but just because he wrote about these two does not mean these are the only choices or that he believes they are the only choices. Like he says at the end of his article “IF voters are choosing between Obama and Romney…” the key word is if.