On Tuesday, 6 November 2012, the United States of America will vote for their preferred presidential candidate. Contesting this election will be Republican Party’s Mitt Romney and the Democrat’s Barrack Obama. After following the campaigns of the two candidates and comparing their manifestos, it is eminent that Mitt Romney’s policies are quite vague, and he seems to be changing the goal posts every so often. This has been witnessed from the promises he utters; his words are so minced up that he has been referred to as the two-headed chameleon. This article serves to highlight reasons as to why the American people should be cautious not to install Romney as the president of the US. American people should not vote for Romney because his economic, and foreign policies are unfavorable (Washington Post).
Of critical concern, is Mitt Romney’s policy on the economy. Mitt Romney and his campaign team have incessantly posited the use of revenue neutrality, and ensuring there is no tax increases for Americans making less than $200,000. This goes out of tandem with Mitt Romney’s prediction of the anticipated economic growth; such realizations imply that they be superseded. Romney’s economic policy is filled with such fogginess as to have deductions as the only existing loopholes. How about non-deduction tax expenditure, can’t these be crucial in offsetting of rate deductions? This could ensure that the plan provides for deficit-neutrality.
Still in line with Mitt Romney’s economic policy is the handling of corporate taxes, separately as stated by Pierce Scranton, Romney’s economic policy director. He states that if elected president, Romney’s government would cut corporate tax by 10% from current 35%. Even Romney attests to the fact that this will cost the economy close to $1 trillion over the next 10 years. This beats the logic of taking the path at outset. Even through Scranton puts across that Obama lacks a concise tax reform, which he truly lacks, Americans would rather stick to what they have tan adopt a plan presenting massive cuts without an elucidation of how the gaps created will be sealed (Marren, 4).
Insofar as the Romney’s policy is concerned, once again, it is not clear what America’s “next president” believes. According to the presidential debate on foreign policy conducted on 25 October, Romney rendered his previous standpoints on the issue into a rhetorical bluster. It was surprising how he nodded, in concurrence to Obama’s more solid standpoint than his did. Romney had previously stated that he would consult with military commanders on the modalities of withdrawing American troops from Afghanistan by 2014. In a twist, he would bring the forces home in 2014-without consultation (The Economist).
The other flaw in foreign policy in the Romney campaign is the intended policy on the People Republic of China. Romney has continually vowed to bash China as a currency manipulator. With many American companies manufacturing in china, it is ridiculous for Romney to state categorically the application of tariffs against China. This could result in the next phase of breakdown of American powerhouses that produce in china for purposes of feasibility. All this, Romney defends, are due to the large number of jobs that are being taken to China. This is detrimental as Americans could be being taken back to the eras of the cold war. While it is acknowledgeable that Romney’s foreign policy on Iran is reasonable, with his inexperience as Commander-in-Chief, this is a thin rope for America to tread (The Economist).
With regard to Romney’s ambiguous and shortsighted economic policy and his polar foreign policy, it would be highly costly to have Romney as president of the United States. Now is the time to save America of the troubles that Romney could bring to this nation.
Works Cited
"Mr. Romney’s tax plan still doesn’t add up | The Washington Post." Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis. N.p., 275Oct. 2012. Web. 29 Oct. 2012.
Patrick, Marren. "Presidential Election Scenarios." Journal of Business Strategy. 33.5 (2012): 59-61. Print.
"The presidential debate: Third time lucky | The Economist." The Economist - World News, Politics, Economics, Business & Finance. N.p., 27 Oct. 2012. Web. 29 Oct. 2012.
