Rather than framing what seem to be profoundly different views of government, the candidates chose to double-down on what Bill Clinton memorably called the politics of personal destruction.
Obama’s overarching message: Vote for me because Romney is the reincarnation of Gordon Gekko, a greedy buy-out king who cares only about padding the pockets of the country club set. Romney’s own campaign boiled down to this: Vote for me because the economy is a mess and it is all Obama’s fault.
Both stories resonate with many voters, so why bother with issues. Sure, each has his five-point plan (Romney’s articulated far better than Obama’s). But given the weak economy, the nation’s rapidly growing debt, and huge questions over the future of programs such as Medicare, both men offered remarkably few policy details. Throughout this endless campaign they have been selling pixie dust and promises, not fiscal reality. Let’s review.
Obama slalomed through the entire election season with barely a single new idea. He believes government should play a role in boosting economic growth but his plan—for better education, energy independence, etc.– seems largely disconnected from the state of the real economy. These may be good ideas, but they won’t pay off for years.
And while Obama gives lip service to the need for deficit reduction, he continues to insist that it can be achieved through gauzy promises of largely unspecified spending cuts and new taxes on the rich. Those making $200,000 or less will pay no more, he says, though there simply are not enough people in the top tax brackets to finance the government we say we want.
Similarly, the president promises a big cut in corporate tax rates, but identifies only a handful of small base-broadeners to pay for this initiative—reductions in tax subsidies for oil and gas companies and owners of corporate jets, and new rules aimed at forcing multinationals to pay higher U.S. taxes. Trouble is, he’s already promised to use these same tax hikes to lower the deficit. And even a president can’t use the same money twice.
Then there is Romney. The former Massachusetts governor rarely lets a day pass without decrying the nation’s “crushing debt.” Yet, add up his specific campaign promises and Romney would add trillions of dollars to that crushing debt. Where the next president will have to cut spending and raise taxes, Romney has told us only where he would boost spending and cut taxes.
Romney insists he’ll balance the budget in eight years by cutting federal spending to 20 percent of Gross Domestic Product. Yet, he promises to increase defense funding, roll back the 2010 health law’s cuts to Medicare providers and insurance companies, and let the rest of Medicare grow unabated for current beneficiaries.
He has identified only two spending programs worthy of cuts—public broadcasting and federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Combined, these would reduce the trillion dollar deficit by about $500 million, less than a rounding error.
On the tax side, Romney promises to extend the Bush-era tax cuts, then cut individual rates by 20 percent across the board, repeal the estate tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax, and repeal the tax hikes in the 2010 health law. He vows to pay for all this by scaling back hundreds of billions of dollars of tax preferences but has refused to identify a single one. Romney presents an assertion, not a plan.
For the longest time, Romney refused to describe any revenue option. In the past month, he changed his obfuscation strategy. Instead of saying nothing about how he’d pay for his tax cuts, he threw out multiple ideas. But when challenged on each, his campaign insisted these were not his proposals. Adding, of course, a dollop of theatrical outrage that anyone would presume they were.
How do both men get away with dodging these critical fiscal issues? Simple. We let them. The media charge off on gaffe-patrol, while too often ignoring the consequences of what these guys actually promise. Besides, voters have a record of punishing politicians who talk honestly about painful choices. Thus, pols have learned they are far more likely to be criticized for what they do say than for what they do not.