Obama vs. Romney 101: 5 ways they differ on jobs

Whether Mitt Romney or Barack Obama occupies the White House in January, one of them will have to deal with more than 12 million jobless Americans, or a little over 8 percent of the total workforce. Where do the candidates stand on issues relating to jobs?

5. Winners and losers

Mary Altaffer/AP/File
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaks outside the Solyndra manufacturing facility in Fremont, Calif., on May 31, 2012. Republicans call Solyndra's $535 million federal loan guarantee Exhibit A for the Obama administration's 'crony capitalism.'

Sometimes business benefits from friends in high places, such as the White House.

With billions of dollars available for research, a president can reward campaign contributors or even jump-start new enterprises. For example, back in 1969, the Department of Defense funded an effort to find ways to link large research computers together. Voilà, under President Richard Nixon, the Internet began.

For the government to try to pick economic winners is nothing new. Often there are political reasons to support an industry. And sometimes it’s just bad judgment, says economist Sung Won Sohn, a professor of finance at California State University, Channel Islands.

“They think they know better than the market,” says Mr. Sohn. “Typically, politicians support losers rather than winners.”

Of course, sometimes government support works. The US automobile industry has gotten back on its feet after Presidents Bush and Obama agreed to provided it with federal loans – a move that Romney opposed. In this case, the support was probably justified, says Sohn. “To me, it is one of those national priorities that we as a nation should have an auto industry,” he says. “If General Motors and Chrysler were to close down, we would be like the United Kingdom, which has no auto industry that is not owned by foreigners. It would not be very good for the economy and national security.”

But the auto sector is not the only industry that Obama has supported. He has put billions of taxpayer dollars into green technologies. The Department of Energy has been heavily investing in new battery technology, wind turbines, and solar generation of electricity. For example, some $3.9 billion in federal grants or financing went to 21 companies that had some link to Obama staffers and advisers, according to a report by the Washington Post.

But, sometimes trying to pick winners results in ... losers.

In 2010, Obama visited a Fremont, Calif., company by the name of Solyndra, which was going to make cylindrical solar panels. In 2009, the company had received a $535 million federal loan guarantee in addition to investments from private investors. But the plummeting price of solar panels doomed the company, and in two years it declared bankruptcy.

Conservative groups jumped all over the failed loan. "The crony capitalism involved in the Solyndra case demonstrates that the government shouldn’t pick industrial winners,” said the Manhattan Institute in a July 19 report entitled "Solyndra and the Perils of Green Industrial Policy."

In mid-2012, Romney visited the empty Solyndra plant to highlight the failed investment. However, Romney himself, when he was governor of Massachusetts, personally handed state money to several solar-energy firms, including Konarka, which declared bankruptcy in June.

In case of both Konarka and Solyndra, the process to get federal and state monies started under different administrations.

More recently, Romney, a supporter of the coal, oil, and gas industries, also announced his backing on Aug. 23 of the Renewable Fuel Standard, which mandates that an increasing amount of ethanol be used to make gasoline.

The RFS is especially popular in the Midwest, where most of the corn used to make ethanol is grown. However, with the drought in the Corn Belt, the price of corn has been rising.

Refiners oppose being told what to use to make gasoline. Higher corn prices eat into their profit margins.

“It is the opposite of the free-market approach,” says Charles Drevna, president of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers in Washington. “If it is allowed to stay as law, the Renewable Fuel Standard will make the American consumer a loser.”

For a full list of stories about how Romney and Obama differ on the issues, click here.

5 of 5

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.