Published – Idaho State Journal, 09/23/12
Some voters, especially on the far right, erroneously
maintain that there is little difference between the two major presidential
candidates when in fact, their divergent views of the role of government could
not be more pronounced. This election provides perhaps the starkest contrast since
the 1964 election.
The Federal debt has become a problem that cannot be ignored
and in my estimation, is the most crucial issue facing the nation at this time.
In four short years, the nation has gone from 58% of debt to GDP to 107%, as
the debt has skyrocketed from $10 trillion to $16 trillion.
Deficit spending, which has averaged $1.44 trillion over the
past four years, is one of the largest contributors to the total debt. We are
borrowing more than $41 for every $100 the government spends. This is
unsustainable.
President Obama has presided over this massive rise in
public debt and has ignored his own commission’s recommendations for addressing
the problem. Mitt Romney recognizes, along with many other economists, that our
debt and deficit, if not reined in, can lead to a complete collapse of the
dollar and our financial system, and has spelled out how the current dangerous
trend can be reversed. If ever we’ve needed a fiscal repairman, it is now, and
Romney has the financial acumen and experience to do it.
Obama prefers government solutions to economic issues while
Romney advocates less intrusion of government and more freedom for individuals
and the private sector to succeed. The last four years has seen government
control of our economy increase to nearly 60%, with direct and regulatory
control over the health care, financial, automotive, energy, and real estate
sectors. This is a fascistic model based on centralized control of the means of
production. Romney ardently opposes this model, advocating instead free market
solutions with as little governmental control and manipulation as possible. He
sees the government role more as a referee rather than the crony-capitalism
currently in force where the government picks winners and losers in the private
sector.
The greatest facilitator of a post-recession economic
recovery is job growth, and while the Department of Labor reports that we have
gained 4.3 million jobs over the past four years, we have a net loss of 316,000
jobs as millions of Americans have given up hope and quit looking for work. Our
participation rate, per the DOL, is lower than it’s ever been, with just 63% of
the working-age public earning a paycheck. This has stymied recovery since the
recession ended in July 2009, making this the most anemic recovery on record.
Uncertainty over government involvement in the private
sector, including regulation and taxes, has significantly stymied job growth.
With the cost of regulation to small business owners at over $10,600 per
employee, according to the Small Business Administration, Romney will reduce
the regulatory cost of doing business and free up small business capital to
expand, grow, and create more jobs. In short, Romney’s focus is on economic
growth, while Obama’s is on government growth.
President Obama was exactly right three years ago when he
said, “We should not be raising taxes during a recession.” They should also not
be raised during an anemic recovery. Yet that’s his answer to the $1.44
trillion deficit, to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans from 35 to 39.5%,
even though it will only raise a projected $65 billion. Obama recently made his
perspective clear regarding taxes, when he said that allowing those who earn
more than $250,000 per year to keep most of their earnings is a government
“giveaway.” This view that the government allows us to keep some of our money
is vastly different than Romney’s, that your money is yours, but government
needs some of it to provide the services expected.
On energy, when Obama says that he supports an “all of
the above” approach, he means all of those that are above the ground, as
evidenced by the crony-capitalism preferential treatment given to solar and
wind. Romney’s approach is truly “all of the above,” including oil, natural
gas, coal, and nuclear. And he would’ve approved the Keystone Pipeline from
Canada, which also would’ve created up to 140,000 jobs.
Romney believes the Constitution to be our founding legal
document, and would appoint constructionist Supreme Court justices. Obama
manifests little respect for the separation of powers and constitutional limits
on the executive branch, and has given us justices that advance a less
literalistic interpretation of the Constitution.
Romney adheres to the biological and anthropologically
validated heterosexual definition of marriage, while Obama supports same-sex
marriage.
Obama is pro-abortion, including partial-birth abortions,
while Romney is pro-life except in cases of rape and incest.
We could go on and on. Ideologically, the two candidates
could not be more divergent. Claims that they’re “just the same” are simply disingenuous
and fallacious.
AP award winning
columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and
financial planning firm in Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State
University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the
Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He
can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.