04-21-2012, 04:43 AM
There will be many, many relatively small issues that will storm to front of the media coverage of the presidential campaign this year. At the time that they are the focus (a day or two with an occasional several dayer), they will seem to be important to the campaigns - and cumulatively they may turn out to be the determinate factors - but they will be tactical issues. I think, though, that there are actually only a couple of primary strategic factors that should determine the outcome of the presidential race (whether they do or not remains to be seen).
The two factors can be seen in the basic positions Romney has taken on economic concerns. One is reducing taxes, especially with the wealthy getting the lion share of the tax reductions because they pay a great deal of taxes. This will be framed as letting the jobs creators keep more of their money so that they will invest in enterprises that create jobs. The other basic economic position Romney has taken is that of reducing government spending to a very significant degree. This will be argued to be necessary to reduce the deficit - which is what would have to happen to reduce the deficit if new revenues (primarily taxes) are taken off the table as the Republicans have done.
Obama's positions on those two economically vital concerns provide a big contrast to Romney's positions. Obama has already spoken about both of these. On reducing taxes on the wealthy - Obama has argued that reducing taxes on the wealthy expecting it to lead to robust job growth has already been tried in spades by Bush II and it didn't work out. In the campaign this will often be referred to by Democrats as the failure of "trickle down". On reducing government spending to a very significant degree - that is not something Bush II did, so Obama cannot point to the the failures of the Bush administration as evidence that reducing government spending drastically has already been shown to have bad consequences. There are other countries, though, that have much more recently tried severe reductions in government spending as a way to get to economic/job growth. Obama will point those countries out (e.g., Britain and much of Europe) and probably refer to it as the notion of "growth through austerity" - a notion which he will say is bogus (though he will use more diplomatic language).
Both of these issues - reducing taxes especially on the wealthy and drastically reducing government spending - essentially can be framed as questions that should be capable of being answered by empirical evidence. I would say that the empirical evidence is on Obama's side on both of these issues, but I'm open to someone convincing me otherwise by providing empirical evidence that trickle down and "growth through austerity" both will work in the present economic conditions to produce greater economic growth and significant acceleration of job growth. I should say, though, that from what I've seen of the evidence so far, I think what we are getting from Romney and the Republicans in general is economic policy based much more on ideology than on empirical evidence.
The two factors can be seen in the basic positions Romney has taken on economic concerns. One is reducing taxes, especially with the wealthy getting the lion share of the tax reductions because they pay a great deal of taxes. This will be framed as letting the jobs creators keep more of their money so that they will invest in enterprises that create jobs. The other basic economic position Romney has taken is that of reducing government spending to a very significant degree. This will be argued to be necessary to reduce the deficit - which is what would have to happen to reduce the deficit if new revenues (primarily taxes) are taken off the table as the Republicans have done.
Obama's positions on those two economically vital concerns provide a big contrast to Romney's positions. Obama has already spoken about both of these. On reducing taxes on the wealthy - Obama has argued that reducing taxes on the wealthy expecting it to lead to robust job growth has already been tried in spades by Bush II and it didn't work out. In the campaign this will often be referred to by Democrats as the failure of "trickle down". On reducing government spending to a very significant degree - that is not something Bush II did, so Obama cannot point to the the failures of the Bush administration as evidence that reducing government spending drastically has already been shown to have bad consequences. There are other countries, though, that have much more recently tried severe reductions in government spending as a way to get to economic/job growth. Obama will point those countries out (e.g., Britain and much of Europe) and probably refer to it as the notion of "growth through austerity" - a notion which he will say is bogus (though he will use more diplomatic language).
Both of these issues - reducing taxes especially on the wealthy and drastically reducing government spending - essentially can be framed as questions that should be capable of being answered by empirical evidence. I would say that the empirical evidence is on Obama's side on both of these issues, but I'm open to someone convincing me otherwise by providing empirical evidence that trickle down and "growth through austerity" both will work in the present economic conditions to produce greater economic growth and significant acceleration of job growth. I should say, though, that from what I've seen of the evidence so far, I think what we are getting from Romney and the Republicans in general is economic policy based much more on ideology than on empirical evidence.
