According to the most recent poll conducted by CNN, the state of the US Economy has surpassed the war in Iraq as the top issue in America. This might be attributed to the US is doing better in Iraq than they were a year ago, coupled with the fact that many Americans feel that the US is either in or soon heading into recession. If you think about it, the economy is an integral issue, as so many other issues are directly related. Take the war on terror for example. How is the US going to support billions upon billions of dollars of spending on the military if the economy is weak? As it is, the US is getting deeper and deeper into debt at an alarming pace to fund it now. What about better education, tighter border controls, and other important and much needed improvements and upgrades? These things are far from free, although the Democrats will make it seem like paying for them is not a big deal. All these things are directly impacted either positively or negatively by the strength or weakness of the economy.
Mitt Romney is by far the strongest candidate, Republican or Democrat, when it comes the economy. Why you ask? Well to answer that we must ask another question? How do we get out of a recession or at least prevent one? Without getting too deep into economic theory, the most obvious way is to bolster consumer confidence and spending. We know that one dollar spent in the economy turns into about six through what is called the 'multiplier effect'. It works like this ... you make 100 dollars running your restaurant and go and spend it on a new watch. The watchmaker spends the profit he makes from the watch on landscaping. The landscapers take her profit and spends it on lunch at your restaurant. Now you have not only purchased things you needed and wanted, but also have a portion of what you originally spent returned to you to go spend again (plus others have made money as well). The cycles starts over again. When hundreds of millions of consumers spend money, it stimulates growth and creates prosperity in the economy. What is the surest way to crush consumers' desire to spend? Taxes! Enter Mike Huckabee and all of the Democrats, who either have an irrefutable record of raising taxes or have expressed desire to do so if elected. Mitt Romney is the polar opposite of these guys.
Mitt's strengths regarding the economy are many, but I will focus on the three points that I feel are the most important and expand on each:
1) He wants to cut taxes. This will put more money in the pockets of consumers who will then spend it in the free market. This is far better than the government taxing them and then spending it themselves, as the government is spends money WAY less efficiently than consumers, and much of our hard earned money that is taxed ends up in their own corrupted pockets through scandals and such (see Mike Huckabee to find out more). However, the thing that separates Mitt from the rest is that he still wants some of the things that Democrats hold dear, like universal health care, better education, and other social programs, but plans to accomplish them without raising taxes. How can he do this? The answer is that he, unlike many of the other Washington politicians in the race, is an extremely successful and savvy businessman and executive. If businesses ran themselves like the government they'd be bankrupt multiple times over (they don't have the luxury of raising taxes whenever they want to save themselves). Businesses are masters of cutting out inefficiencies, unneeded spending and superfluous departments to maximize profits for shareholders. Romney would do the same in Washington, but in this case the shareholders are the American people who pay taxes and expect the best possible return on investment. We all know that there are much needed cuts in the government who is notorious for having eight departments that all do the same thing. The government is running an embarrassingly large trade deficit and debt. Less taxes and better quality social programs, sounds pretty good to me.
2) Mitt wants to invest in technology and innovation. Wait a minute ... that's government spending money ... isn't that a Democratic thing to do? Well, one thing Mitt knows how to do is get a good return on his investment. The US and most other wealthy nations can not compete with other countries when it comes to labour costs and other expenses related to production. That is why many things are "Made in China". But they don't have to compete with these countries if they can make innovative products that lead the marketplace. Take Blackberry for example (I'll use it since it's a Canadian company and I'm Canadian). Research in Motion (RIM, the maker of Blackberry) is the world's leader in producing innovative, high-quality devices. They don't have much major competition around the world yet because they have the best technology, and their growth in stock price reflects this. The US needs to create more products (even though they already have a lot) like this, that are impervious to competition due to their superior technology, quality, and uniqueness. Mitt has said time and time again that if he were President, he would invest in technology and innovation, especially for the automakers in Michigan who are struggling against foreign competition. This will cost a lot of money, but will produce a healthy return and help American in the long-run.
3) Mitt wants to eliminate the tax on interest, dividends and capital gains for Americans who make $200,000 or less (which obviously include the middle-class). Currently, when you invest money and make any kind of return, it will fall into one of the three categories mentioned above and will be taxed accordingly. Tax on investments does two things. First, it discourages people to save and invest money, as they will have to give a hefty chunk of their return to the government. Two, it creates class inequality, as rich people have money to access high level accountants and financial planners who know every trick in the book to help them pay little to no tax on their investments. So who ends up paying the tax? That's right the little guys - the middle class. Romney's strategy would benefit the little guys and offer no special treatment to the ultra-rich. This would help the economy in several ways. It would encourage people to save more money for retirement or for a rainy day, putting less stress on the government to provide social security and welfare programs in times of recession. It would also stimulate more investment in the stock market, which would put more money into the hands of American companies who would expand and create more jobs, which would create more income, which would increase both consumer spending and investment and further fuel the upward cycle of prosperity.
It is obvious that the economy is not only a hot topic these days, but a genuinely important one. It affects so many other issues that voters are concerned about. Mitt Romney is the best man for the economy by a long shot. Choosing who to vote for shouldn't be a difficult decision. Although, on second thought, you could vote for John McCain who said "the issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should" and "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."
Here are a few links that show why Mitt and a strong economy mix:
Staples founder tells us why Huckabee would be bad for economy and Mitt good
Romney talks about the economy and about Michigan
McCain and economy not a good match
A video of Mitt talking to Michigan voters, about the economy and other issues.
Read more!
