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
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 13th, 2012
12:47 pm
GT, are you off your meds again today?
You don’t like the blame game when it is focused on the actual problem in New Orleans, but you engage in it when the subject is GWB.
Pathetic.
GT
June 13th, 2012
12:54 pm
Fair and balanced? The Republican Party is like Jerry Sandusky trying explaining away his personality, like nothing is really wrong. I have come to a conclusion you people are really the same kind of sick and you facilitate each other. That is why you have to have FOX and never want to hear the truth. You make up lies and then reenforce each other. Why not get me off your blog Tiberius, just like Sandusky you have a problem with the truth, it doesn’t feed your sickness.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 13th, 2012
1:02 pm
At some point in your lifetime, GT, you need to understand the concept of “cause and effect”, especially as regards New Orleans and Katrina.
td
June 13th, 2012
1:32 pm
MarkV
June 13th, 2012
11:24 am
td @11:13 am
“Are you serious? “How much of our economy should the government be?” This is, in my view, one of the silliest parts of the discussions on this blog, that people ask such silly questions”
You can call it a silly question if you want but both political parties and the media is framing this election to be about what should the size and scope of the Federal government be.
I was asking for an honest opinion from you but it appears you do not want to give such an opinion. So be it.
MarkV
June 13th, 2012
1:38 pm
td @1:32 pm
“I was asking for an honest opinion from you but it appears you do not want to give such an opinion. So be it.”
I have given you my opinion – that it is ridiculous for one person here to put a number on this. What kind of complex, serious analysis have you performed to arrive at that specific number? The debate between the parties is about larger/smaller, and what should and should not be included, but not about specific numbers.
fair and balanced
June 13th, 2012
1:46 pm
Tiberius – I voted for McCain. The more I listen to demagogues and the flip flopper spouting nonsense like you which is unrelated to reality, the better Obama looks. At least he has a track record in managing this country so as to judge his accomplishments. All I see on the other side is a moderate Republican trying desperately to change his image into a”severely conservative” partisan with no idea how the federal government works. Kind like him saying that eating grits and saying y’all makes him a Southerner.
I can see why Bookman has no use for your nonsense.
MarkV
June 13th, 2012
2:15 pm
td @1:32 pm
If you still do not understand here is an example. People and the parties may debate about the DOD budget. Some may say that it should be lower than now, that many military bases abroad should be closed, the war in Afghanistan quickly ended, some nuclear weapons destroyed, etc. Others might argue that the budget should be increased, to make sure that the US can project its power and wage more wars at the same time, if necessary, etc.
And then you would write, for example: “I think the DOD budget should be 680 billion. How much do you think it should be?” And my answer would be the same as about the percentage of spending, in essence: “What the hell are you talking about? How could I know? Why 680 and not 700 or 650?”
td
June 13th, 2012
2:23 pm
MarkV
June 13th, 2012
2:15 pm
I see your point but without getting consensus on actual money amount (could be a % of GDP) then all anyone is doing is talking in generalities and that has not gotten us anywhere. My point is that the American people are divided because they only talk in generalities and not about specifics, so how is the debate about actual money going to hurt the situation we are already in?
Dusty
June 13th, 2012
3:23 pm
MarkV
You obviously cannot give a straight answer. For instance, If you don’t think universal healthcare is for all from “cradle to grave”, then you have difficulty in comprehension. Universal!! One & all.
-
Perhaps that is why you can find no one on this blog whom you think gives “straight” answers.
Seems the only answer you expect is someone to say “I’m not sure.” since I doubt that the president or any other “high” official is blogging away here with “absolute” facts..
Maybe “I’m not sure” will work but I may try it. (’That’s my opinion!)
md
June 13th, 2012
3:54 pm
“Just recently, when I disputed that the private sector could exist without the public sector (a government), something that simple common sense should tell every intelligent person”
And the operative word there is “could”……as the private sector doesn’t “need” the public sector to exist (operative word there is “need”)
MarkV
June 13th, 2012
6:23 pm
Dusty @3:23 pm
“If you don’t think universal healthcare is for all from “cradle to grave”, then you have difficulty in comprehension. Universal!! “
Dusty,
You are the one who has difficulty in comprehension. “Universal!! So you think that “universal” means “cradle to grave?” Think again or educate yourself.
The expression “from cradle to grave” in a pejorative sense generally is used to signify all kinds of social program together, not an individual one. But when it comes to health insurance, what do you have against “cradle to grave?” You mean health insurance should be limited to a certain age only? That applies to any health insurance, whether it is universal or not. Why don’t you think before you write?
As far as the loss of individual liberty is concerned, I wish you explained what individual liberty you will lose if everybody were guaranteed health care in case of illness or injury.
MarkV
June 13th, 2012
6:27 pm
md @3:54 pm
If you fail to understand what I wrote, that your “could” would have a meaning only in an insane, fantasy world, there is no point arguing with you further. Except perhaps, as a last resort, to point out that “private sector’ cannot exist without a “public sector” simply by definition.
MarkV
June 13th, 2012
6:51 pm
td @2:23 pm
My view is that generalities are the only thing the public can debate. Or, perhaps, I should say “principles” instead of “generalities.”
md
June 13th, 2012
7:30 pm
“Except perhaps, as a last resort, to point out that “private sector’ cannot exist without a “public sector” simply by definition.”
And that definition must be coming out of thin air.
There is a difference between “need” a gov’t and “choose” a gov’t…….I could run a private community right now and never “need” to get a gov’t involved……it all depends on the individuals.
Your whole concept of needing a gov’t displays your need for dependence……and not much else.
Military is countered with volunteer army. Same with every other branch of gov’t…….it all depends on the individuals involved, hence the two extremes in this country……one for very limited gov’t and one for a nanny state…………
MarkV
June 13th, 2012
7:43 pm
md @7:30 pm
“And that definition must be coming out of thin air.”
No, it does not. Apparently, however, you have not figured it out yet. Keep trying.
“…….I could run a private community right now and never “need” to get a gov’t involved……”
Again, you are simply writing nonsense. Even apart from the above (definition), we do not talk about “private sector” and “public sector” when we talk about individual units of each. Those are parts of the ECONOMY, of a state, of a country, etc. It would be the same nonsense to call one firefighter “public sector.” If you want to argue further your point, then show me any such entity that has something that can be called economy, which does not have some form of government. Or could not have it.
md
June 14th, 2012
10:39 am
“It would be the same nonsense to call one firefighter “public sector.””
Your problem seems to lie in funding, which is the determining factor……privat sector is funded with private funds…….public sector is also funded with private funds…….that is where you seem to be missing the mark. There is a difference between a public servant fireman and a privately paid fireman.
Just as TSA duties used to be ALL private……or secuirty in Iraq is private…….there is a difference that you can’t seem to comprehend.