[
link to commonsensefor.us]
I'm a life-long Republican. I voted for John McCain, and supported Mitt Romney as the most realistic candidate early in the primaries. However, as both a Republican and more importantly an American, I did not share Rush Limbaugh's extremely partisan view. As Rush expressed in January 2009: “I disagree fervently with the people on our [Republican] side of the aisle who have caved and who say, ‘Well, I hope he [President Obama] succeeds'... I hope he fails”. Nor do I agree with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who in October of 2010, was asked what "the job" of Republicans in Congress was. McConnell answered, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president". We were in the middle of the greatest economic crisis since the 1930's and my party has as its main goal trying to make sure the president fails. This was insane because the country would fail right along with the president. What has happened to my Republican party, this is not a sporting event, we all either win or lose together.
In the past, Republicans were pragmatic, not ideological; they would ask "does it work", not "does it fit into my theory." Ronald Reagan is known for his tax cuts, but he also pragmatically raised taxes 11 times to address the growing budget deficit. He also had a good relationship with Democratic Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill. Since Reagan was pragmatic, not ideological, he compromised and worked with congress. Together they accomplished what needed to be done to help the economy.
Pragmatic non-ideological republican Presidents never had a problem expanding the national government in order to solve national problems. Republican President Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Republican President Theodore Roosevelt created the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Republican President Ford created the first federal regulatory program in education. Republican President George Bush Sr. signed the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. He also raised taxes to fight the deficit. Republican President Eisenhower was responsible for one of the largest Infrastructure projects in American history (Interstate Highway System). President Eisenhower also sent federal troops to Little Rock Arkansas so that discrimination against black school children would be ended. These men were not Left-wing radical hippies. But the "Tea Party movement" and their supporters in Congress would call them Socialist.
When I supported Mitt Romney early in the primaries, I believed Mitt was a moderate pragmatic Republican. I thought he was equal to his father, George, when he was governor of Michigan. This was also the reputation of Mitt when he was governor of Massachusetts. I thought Mitt Romney had to move to the right to secure the nomination. However, once he had it, he would move back to the moderate pragmatic center. Unfortunately, that has not happened and I must reevaluate Mitt considering this. I am also upset about the recent revelations concerning possible falsehoods he told, and the secrecy with which he handles his financial affairs. Before I cast my vote, I must compare Mitt Romney, the man and his proposed policies as opposed to President Obama and his policies. This Website is the product of that evaluation and I hope it helps others as they consider their vote.
While I question many of President Obama's policies, I can not be sure Mitt Romney's policies regarding the economy would have been any better. Mitt's business experience and wealth come from Wall Street, not Main Street. So I doubt he would have broken up the banks "too big to fail." I believe Mitt Romney's policy would have been exactly the same as President Obama's. As Mitt Romney said "The TARP (bank bailout) program was designed to keep the financial system going". As a CEO of a private equity firm, he was a part of this financial system. If anything, given his background and avowed dislike of government regulation, I believe Mitt would have been even more hands off overseeing Wall Street and the banks "too big to fail." I know this non-involvement did NOT help a small business on Main Street.
The firms which benefited from TARP, acted completely irresponsibly and contrary to the intent of the program. They gave their executives huge bonuses, while restricting credit to small businesses. The problem with TARP, a program devised under President Bush, was too little regulation not too much. Since both Romney and Obama supported TARP, as constructed by President Bush, the TARP does not enter into my evaluation.
Continue with The Economic Background
United States
