2012 Tuesday: The one thing both sides agree on
There has been one consistent message from both President Obama and Mitt Romney (and, before him, the other GOP candidates) about what’s at the heart of this 2012 election. Everything else revolves around that one thing: the size and scope of government.
In a recent column, the Wall Street Journal’s Gerald Seib put the difference between the two men’s plans — Obama’s for Washington to spend 22.5 percent of GDP in the coming years, vs. Romney’s to reduce spending levels to 20 percent — at $6 trillion over 10 years:
In the view of Obama partisans, it’s the difference between a government that keeps its promise to senior citizens counting on Medicare and one that doesn’t, and the difference between a country that invests in the education, infrastructure and basic research needed to be competitive, and one that falls behind the Chinese and the other roaring new economic powers.
In the eyes of Romney partisans, it’s the difference between a country that trims spending close to the average of recent decades rather than one that eats up resources on government programs, and between a nation that relies on the private sector for a new wave of economic growth and one that slides toward European socialism and declining personal freedom.
Neither side shies away from such dramatic descriptions. Mr. Obama plans a speech Thursday in Cleveland that aides say will help frame the election as a choice between fundamentally different views. Mr. Romney’s economic manifesto’s conclusion is entitled simply, “A Stark Choice.”
This is why it wasn’t surprising to hear Obama last week emphasize the public sector in his remarks about the economy and what’s holding back growth. In his view, government makes choices and “investments” that direct and drive economic growth. (It hasn’t happened yet on his watch, but that apparently is still George Bush’s fault.)
And that’s why it isn’t surprising to hear Romney talk about the morality of capitalism and dispute the idea that we’ll revive the economy by borrowing (more) money to hire more teachers, firefighters and police officers.
This is the whole shooting match. Every other issue is an offshoot of, or distraction from, this fundamental disagreement.
The electorate has split sharply in each direction in recent years — toward bigger government in 2008, and toward smaller government in 2010. It’s hard to say if either side can earn such a clear victory this fall. But the key, as a recent Democratic strategy memo by James Carville’s group makes clear, will be arguing for a brighter future.
In my view, the side that better makes the case for itself, rather than against the other, wins the election. Neither side is really moving in that direction yet. There may be a first-mover advantage to the one that gets there the quickest.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
216 comments Add your comment
md
June 12th, 2012
1:45 pm
“Every company I’ve ever worked for or owned stock in used projections and forecasts. ”
Yep, mine too……..and they included best case AND worst case scenarios……..evidently yours didn’t…
saywhat?
June 12th, 2012
1:48 pm
MarkV
“Kyle,
You lived in Belgium. Tell us about the declining personal freedom there as a result of the much higher public spending than in the US.”
________________________________________
I am curious to hear the answer to this as well. Its been a while since I have read a news story about how enslaved the Europeans are feeling as a result of government spending..
md
June 12th, 2012
1:48 pm
“md, go hide under your bed and let the adults keep working on this economy thing. Evidently, you can’t psychologically handle risk.”
Funny, considering I’m one of the few that understand that I’m upside down on my mortgage because of that very same risk concept……….I CHOSE to play the game, and unfortunately the risk won out this time.
Don’t preach to me about risk……I know it exists in EVERY situation……….
md
June 12th, 2012
1:52 pm
“Its been a while since I have read a news story about how enslaved the Europeans are feeling as a result of government spending..”
Hmmm……you been under Finn’s bed? How could one miss all those stories on Greece…….
grated
June 12th, 2012
2:02 pm
It is true that the candidate that gets there the firstest with the mostest hogwash will win the election. That’s simply a total fact, Jack.
MarkV
June 12th, 2012
2:03 pm
saywhat? @ 1:48 pm
If Kyle comes up with some perceived (by him) losses of freedom, I am going to ask him which dictator or foreign power imposed it on the Belgians, and what is the political system in Belgium called. Could it be democracy?
md
June 12th, 2012
2:10 pm
Well……Greece is experiencing it’s form of “democracy” too……they got to choose their misery.
And Belgium’s debt to gdp ratio is 99%…….well on their way to their own democratic misery…….
Liz
June 12th, 2012
2:10 pm
The side that aims to destroy the middle class, is the one that will destroy the middle class. It will take a generation or two to recover from the plan to broaden the tax base, and lower the tax rates, by eliminating the mortgage interest deduction. Without a real estate recovery, the economy recovery will drag on, and on. The wealth lost to date, will not recover if the mortgage interest deduction is eliminated.
md
June 12th, 2012
2:13 pm
You guys seem to miss the basic fact that if/when a country goes bankrupt then ALL will be losing freedoms of one form or another………but, at least they can say they voted for it.
Democracy is NOT voting for the neighbor to pay more in taxes……real democracy is voting for everybody to pay more taxes……….
Jefferson
June 12th, 2012
2:15 pm
Greece matters little, just a boogie man for the weak.
carlosgvv
June 12th, 2012
2:16 pm
And in the eyes of Romney and Republicans in the House and Senate, it’s the difference between serving the people (Obama) and serving Big Business (Romney and company).
MarkV
June 12th, 2012
2:18 pm
“In the view of Obama partisans, it’s the difference between a government that keeps its promise to senior citizens counting on Medicare and one that doesn’t, and the difference between a country that invests in the education, infrastructure and basic research needed to be competitive, and one that falls behind the Chinese and the other roaring new economic powers.”
That is, indeed, the choice. And the important issue is not Bush’s “fault,” it is the fact that Romney’s recipe had been tried by Bush, and in 2008 we saw the result.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
June 12th, 2012
2:18 pm
Finn: Confusing personal freedom with ability to afford something? Isn’t this the whole Con take on liberal spending?
———-
How much freedom do you have if the government takes all of your earnings in taxes? Do you have more freedom if they only take half? Do you have more freedom still if they take only 10%?
Stop thinking like a slave.
Your income is your labor and productivity in the form of money. Take your money, take your freedom.
That’s why money is precious to those who earned it. Not so much to the government and other parasites.
Kyle Wingfield
June 12th, 2012
2:25 pm
ByteMe @ 12:43: “Seib makes stuff up”? Seriously?
The reference is to the House GOP budget plan, which calls for capping spending at no more than 20% of GDP and which Romney, as Seib notes, has endorsed. What is “made up” about that?
Btw, Seib doesn’t write for the editorial page. He’s the WSJ’s top news editor in Washington. Whatever you think of the WSJ editorial page — I assume you and I have very different opinions there — you’re factually incorrect about what Seib does.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
June 12th, 2012
2:25 pm
Growth is 1.9% and unemployment is 8.2%, higher than when Obozo took office.
Let’s keep doing the same things that have kept us in this mess though. Real smart.
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please
June 12th, 2012
2:25 pm
Romney’s to reduce spending levels to 20 percent — at $6 trillion over 10 years:
If you believe that I got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Republicans love to spend and Big Government too.
I just doesn’t matter when they are in power.
Ronnie Raygun
June 12th, 2012
2:27 pm
So the WSJ is taking Bishop Romney’s magical asterisk for what unknown/undisclosed “waste” he will cut from the budget as fact? With gullibility like this it’s no wonder these financial geniuses on Wall Street tanked the economy.
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please
June 12th, 2012
2:28 pm
Growth is 1.9% and unemployment is 8.2%, higher than when Obozo took office.
It was lower when Obama took office.
You conveniently left out that it was skyrocketing when he took office and made it all the way up to 10 percent.
Bush himself said ” this sucker could go down ”
Its now down to 8.
Furious Styles
June 12th, 2012
2:32 pm
Meanwhile…the KKK has the entire Georgia Adopt A Road program held hostage with the Gold Ol Boys at the Gold Dome scratching their heads and running into each wondering what to do. They will sue, will the Gold Domer’s cave in or scrape the entire program and look even weaker??
Kyle Wingfield
June 12th, 2012
2:36 pm
Raygun: Nope. Seib writes:
“Mr. Romney, as a candidate, has avoided presenting a similarly detailed plan. But his economic platform proclaims that ‘as president, Mitt Romney will immediately move to cut spending and cap it at 20% of GDP,’ and then go lower. It’s possible to see in general what that path would look like by examining a budget outline proposed by House Republicans — which Mr. Romney has endorsed — because it calls for a 10-year average spending level of precisely 20%.”
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
June 12th, 2012
2:36 pm
The recession ended three years ago. Growth is still below the long run average. It should be higher than average coming out of a recession.
Obozo has failed.
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please
June 12th, 2012
2:38 pm
I guess Romney will cut spending.
Just like Bush did LOL
Man you guys fall for it every time.
jconservative
June 12th, 2012
2:44 pm
For the last 31 years we have been busy increasing government spending and reducing government revenue. The result is the near $16 trillion national debt we now own.
The election is about who will do what to reverse these 31 year trends. To date no one has publicly announced their intention to reverse both trends. Obama wants to increase both spending and revenue. Romney wants to cut both revenue and spending. Both plans leave us where we are now, owning a near $16 trillion national debt.
A $16 trillion National Debt. “And everybody has a share”.
That Black guy
June 12th, 2012
2:46 pm
kelly
June 12th, 2012
1:13 pm
Some of the biggest advancements in our history had the federal government as a partner: the Manhattan Project, NASA, the internet, etc. To say that the government has no role and should be left to the private sector is to ignore much of the 20th century US.
_____________________________________________
Why are you beating on that strawman you created.
Please cite, link, or source where it was stated that gov’t should have “NO” role as you stated.
Don't Tread
June 12th, 2012
2:50 pm
And in the eyes of Romney and Republicans in the House and Senate, it’s the difference between serving their people (Obama) and serving Big Business (Romney and company).
FYT
weetamoe
June 12th, 2012
2:51 pm
I think it’s toe the line, and since Booker refused to he is *dead to us* say the democrat party leaders. Even Lanny Davis (whose Mom and Dad named for Lanny Budd) told Obama *you have some vicious people working for you.*
Just voted for a Coke stock split. Sold mine to play with some interesting stocks but my husband and I have loads in our joint investment package and he has loads in his Roth.
That Black guy
June 12th, 2012
2:52 pm
Finn McCool (The System isn’t Broken; It’s Fixed)
June 12th, 2012
1:24 pm
The part you don’t miss is that the gov took a chance on Solyndra and it failed, backfired, etc. Failure is a part of calculated risk.
__________________________________________
Solar Trust of America: FAIL
Bright Source: FAIL
Solyndra: FAIL
LSP Energy: FAIL
Energy Conversion Devices: FAIL
Abound Solar: FAIL
SunPower: FAIL
Beacon Power: FAIL
Ecotality: FAIL
A123 Solar: FAIL
UniSolar: FAIL
Azure Dynamics: FAIL
Evergreen Solar: FAIL
Ener1: FAIL
Finn, maybe people are asking gov’t to perform more due diligence in selecting which enterprises to take a chance on.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 12th, 2012
2:53 pm
“I guess Romney will cut spending.
Just like Bush did LOL
Man you guys fall for it every time.”
Or we can just re-elect the failure that promises to do more of what has failed.
I think I’ll vote for the possibility of change, rather than the certainty of continued failure, which is why I’m voting for Romney.
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please
June 12th, 2012
2:58 pm
I think I’ll vote for the possibility of change, rather than the certainty of continued failure, which is why I’m voting for Romney.
Me ill vote for some success. even if it is modest.
Rather than going back to the same supply side trickle down crap that got us in this mess.
I’m almost 40 and Ive been hearing that trickle down crap my whole life. Ive yet to feel any trickle.
Hint: It doesn’t trickle. The rich just keep it and become the Vanderbilt’s or Rockefeller’s
Bush actually cut taxes while fighting two wars. Unprecedented in American history.
I can see Cheesy Grits doing the same.
No thanks.
That Black guy
June 12th, 2012
2:58 pm
Finn, on second thought, ignore my last post. After reading a few of your comments it’s obvious that you don’t want to discuss or exchange ideas.
You just want to fling poo.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 12th, 2012
3:02 pm
“Me ill vote for some success. even if it is modest. ”
If you think this worst President in the history of this nation has had some success, I’d hate to see what you consider failure.
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please
June 12th, 2012
3:04 pm
I’d hate to see what you consider failure.
Bush ( Romney )
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please
June 12th, 2012
3:06 pm
Pretty telling Cheesy Grits is down 20 points in the state he was Governor.
Obviously they dont care for him and they should know him best.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ma/massachusetts_romney_vs_obama-1804.html
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
June 12th, 2012
3:11 pm
Yeah, Our President Bush’s 4-6% unemployment and miserly $300 billion deficits were a nightmare.
Obozo has failed.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 12th, 2012
3:15 pm
In case you missed it, Massachusetts is a very, very blue state, Grits.
Your comment is considered a deflection from the real issue.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 12th, 2012
3:17 pm
Bush wasn’t all that great, Grits, but his 8 year record shines compared to this pretender in just 3 1/2 years of no significant accomplishments.
Jefferson
June 12th, 2012
3:20 pm
So why did McCain lose ?
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 12th, 2012
3:22 pm
“So why did McCain lose ?”
Deflection. Please TRY to add something of significance to this thread, will ya, Jefferson?
Road Scholar
June 12th, 2012
3:25 pm
So, Kyle, the repubs have not found a way to pass a meaningful long term transportation bill in the House that the Senate will even consider. Do you know that about 98% of that money goes to contracts with the private sector? The remaining 2% goes to state and federal workers, research and supplies (the later two are furnished by the private sector). Those workers spend their money in the private sector. The transportation monies turn over as many as 7 times, thus multiplying the benefit.
Spending monies on infrastructure creates both state, federal (both low) and private sector jobs. The same with military spending except we BUILD things through infrastructure instead of blowing things up by the military! Do we need some bridges to collapse before the repubs “see the light” (if that is even possible).
Kyle Wingfield
June 12th, 2012
3:28 pm
Just a reminder to everyone: Leaving letters out of banned words to skirt the language filter is not acceptable. If you know you need to modify the word to get around the filter, then you ought to know better than to use it at all.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 12th, 2012
3:30 pm
“So, Kyle, the repubs have not found a way to pass a meaningful long term transportation bill in the House that the Senate will even consider.”
Well, considering Stimulus I and II were complete failures, maybe they now believe that throwing money down a rathole isn’t the way to get an economy to grow, especially when you have to borrow the money to pay for it.
Haven’t you noticed that the last time we borrowed and spent, the money ran out? That’s what happens when government tries to stimulate the economy, instead of getting out of the economy’s way.
stands for decibels
June 12th, 2012
3:32 pm
Leaving letters out of banned words to skirt the language filter is not acceptable.
J-miny Cr-ckets, this place is strict!
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 12th, 2012
3:39 pm
“Leaving letters out of banned words to skirt the language filter is not acceptable. ”
Good thing we can still type “dumb masses” without getting in trouble . . . .
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 12th, 2012
3:43 pm
Say it ain’t so!
Obama lying about Romney’s job record”
http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2012/jun/12/obama-lying-about-romneys-job-record-mass/
“Right now the Obama campaign is pushing this line that while Romney was governor of Massachusetts job creation in that state “plummeted to 47th out of 50.” The truth?
How about the Bureau of Labor Statistics. When Romney took office in 2003 Massachusetts ranked 51st (including DC) in job growth. Romney left office in December of 2006. At that time Massachusetts ranked 30th. Only five states did better during that time. The unemployment rate dropped during Romney’s tenure.
Nobody can quite figure out how the Obama campaign comes up with this “plummeted to 47th” figure.”
I can . . . .
They live to lie.
Jefferson
June 12th, 2012
3:43 pm
If the GOP policies are so great and yeild great results why did McCain lost ? Deflection is failure to address the fact that it is because the failed policies of the GOP were so bad that the country was sick of them.
MarkV
June 12th, 2012
3:45 pm
Germany:
Government spending: 47.5% GDP
GDP growth; 3.5%
http://www.heritage.org/index/country/germany
ragnar danneskjold
June 12th, 2012
3:51 pm
If the difference in the candidates is understood, the smaller government advocates will prevail. My forecast is that the Obamaniacs will suggest, without basis of course, that Romney is a big spender, and will run against the spending practices of George W Bush – that is all they have. Suppose Bain Capital was successful because it always increased spending when it took over an entity. Not.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
June 12th, 2012
3:59 pm
Our President Reagan got the economy growing at over 7% coming out of the Carter recession.
Obozo isn’t very Reaganesque.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 12th, 2012
4:05 pm
hmm, Andrew Leonard over at Salon read teh sme article Kyle did, but with a different response:
But the math is also entirely illusory. You don’t have to look far to see gaping holes in Seib’s argument, holes big enough for the entire state of Massachusetts to drive through with Great Danes strapped to the roof of every car.
Hole No. 1) In contrast to Obama, whose 10-year spending plan is detailed in his most recently released budget, we don’t know much about Romney’s agenda, because, as Seib concedes, ” Mr. Romney … has avoided presenting a similarly detailed plan.”
Hole No. 2) Romney advocates increasing military spending, which implies extraordinarily sharp cutbacks on domestic programs, but “Mr. Romney hasn’t specified exactly where cutbacks would come.”
Hole No. 3) “Because of his parallel calls for tax cuts, it isn’t likely Mr. Romney’s plan actually would eliminate the deficit despite its lower spending.”
This is embarrassing. Eliminate the deficit? There’s almost no way in which Romney’s plan wouldn’t make the deficit much, much worse. Seib’s own article makes it exquisitely clear why Romney hasn’t provided specific details on how he would spend $6 trillion less than Obama over the next 10 years. Because it’s impossible to achieve his goals without guaranteeing a massive GOP defeat in 2020.
md
June 12th, 2012
4:06 pm
“Greece matters little, just a boogie man for the weak.”
I’m guessing the Greeks think otherwise……but I digress…..in the grand scheme of things, you are right, they can be cast off (and may yet be), but coupled with Spain, Portugal, Ireland and a few others we have yet to see, the picture becomes clearer…….spending what one doesn’t have is not a good growth strategy.