My Fellow Conservatives…Stay Away From Mitt Romney

I am a classic conservative. Perhaps like you, I lean toward maximizing individual liberties and being prudent about money.  People should be able to live without government interference, and we must be honest about our need to balance the budget. 

For these reasons, I am not voting for Mitt Romney.

The individual responsibility issues are easy. Mitt Romney does not believe in a woman’s right to make certain choices about her own body. He would likely appoint a deciding vote to the U.S. Supreme Court who might allow states to ban all abortions. VP-nominee Paul Ryan was asked last week if women who are pro-choice should be worried about his election. He didn’t say No.

Mitt Romney wants to amend the U.S Constitution (the least amended governing document in the world) specifically to ensure that gay couples cannot get married.

If you believe that the government should get out of individual lives, then Mr. Romney is not your candidate.

I know many classic conservatives like myself who support gay marriage and believe women should control their own bodies. But they still plan on voting for Mr. Romney. Why? Because they assume he better matches their preferences on economic issues.

Look closer.

The facts are these: From 1998-2002 we had annual budget surpluses–we lived within our means. Every year since President George W. Bush took office we have had annual budget deficits–we spend more every year than we take in. What changed? Two massive tax cuts (skewed heavily toward those in the top 5%) and greatly amped up military spending. In other words, we cut the money that we took in (by a lot) and increased the money we were spending. When President Obama took office the annual deficit was roughly $1.4 trillion. That annual deficit has decreased modestly in the four years of Obama’s presidency. The last Obama budget had about a $1.1 trillion deficit. That means that year over year the annual deficit has been getting smaller–though only slightly.The claims about him being some crazed spender are grossly inaccurate.

But maybe you believe that we need to cut the deficit faster than the current trajectory. I do. Does Mr. Romney have a better plan? No. It’s actually worse.

The facts are these: He is proposing lowering revenues by $4.8-$5 trillion over ten years. That is done by cutting taxes 20%–including to the wealthiest. On top of that he is going to increase military spending by $2 trillion from current projections–even while we are supposed to be getting out of two wars. Taken together that means that we are starting out $7 trillion more in the hole than where we are right now.

How are we going to pay for that? His only answer: “cutting loopholes.” That sounds good. What loopholes? He’ll tell us later.

Here’s the rub, it is mathematically impossible to make up that difference by cutting loopholes–even if we cut virtually all of them. And what are those “loopholes?” They are deductions that middle class families take, like being able to deduct your mortgage interest payments, state and local taxes, and charitable contributions. The biggest “loopholes” have nothing to do with secret rules that only corporations benefit from.

And don’t forget that even if this impossible math made sense, it does nothing to actually improve the situation–it just keeps us at the current level ($1.1 trillion annual deficit). Mr. Romney’s plan is to cut revenue drastically, increase military spending, and (if his comments at the last debate are to be believed) not cut anything from education or healthcare.

And he is supposed to be the fiscally conservative candidate? Nonsense. Either he is unable to comprehend basic math or he assumes Americans will believe anything he says to them.

We are all in a car driving to surplus budget land. Mr. Romney is complaining our driver, President Obama, is driving too slow to get us there. He wants to kick Obama out of the driver’s seat and take the wheel. His plan? Turn around and drive us 7 hours in the opposite direction.

I urge my fellow conservatives to be vigilant about the facts. Mr. Romney is not the candidate of individual responsibility and prudent fiscal policy.

As Americans we disagree on virtually everything–from politics and baseball teams to the appropriate way to grill a burger. But at the end of the day, one thing most of us have in common is our ability to recognize when hucksters are blowing smoke up our ass. We don’t fall for it.

You may not be able to get yourself to vote for President Obama, but under no circumstances should an actual conservative think a vote for Mr. Romney makes sense. It doesn’t. Conservatives should stand united against his candidacy.

Advertisements

8 comments

  1. Romney is not a true conservative darling. No argument from me. But your blog post argues from the standpoint of conservativism to not vote for Romney, thus ensuring that one of the most liberal presidents in history will get another four years. That’s shooting off your foot to spite your face. There comes a point when you’re forced to choose between ‘not good’ and ‘worse.’ It may not be enjoyable, but sometimes choosing the “not good” is the best thing you can do.

  2. Hi Kyle-

    Thanks for the comments. I hope things are going well.

    I understand your argument–Mr. Romney is at least better than President Obama, and we have no other choice. But I disagree for two reasons.

    1) You do have another choice. Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson is on the ballot in all states but 2, I think.

    2) Mr. Romney is not the better choice for conservatives. Obviously some have tried to paint President Obama as a socialist crusader. But, beyond the politics, the facts show that the President is attempting to govern from the center-left.

    President Obama supports individual responsibility for women’s bodies and marriage rights. You can challenge the details of his fiscal proposal (I do), but at least he has an actual plan that exists in the real world. He proposes increasing revenue by letting 2% of the Bush tax cuts expire (cutting the deficit by $81 billion in 2013 alone) and easing back on military spending.

    Mr. Romney would deny women control over their own bodies and amend our governing document to limit individual freedom. His fiscal proposal (or what we know of it), does nothing but dig us deeper in debt without any logical plan to right the fiscal ship.

    In other words, there is almost nothing for a classic conservative to like about Mr. Romney’s plans. I urge all conservatives not to cast a ballot for the candidate.

    Best-
    Paul

  3. you cant consider yourself a “classic conservative” and then say you support gay marriage and are pro abortion, two key liberal viewpoints….discredited yourself pretty quickly here.

    1. Hi Brian-

      A classic conservative (a la Edmund Burke) is much different than the “conservativism” of today. When I refer to classic conservatism I do not necessary mean a predefined set of beliefs but a philosophy on the limited role of government and prudent leadership. It is only very recently that “conservativism” has come to symbolize knee-jerk positions on certain hot-button issues. You may be against gay marriage because of your religious faith, but that is not a conservative governing position.

      The fact that so-called conservatives have lost sight of this is a big part of the problem.

      Best-

      Paul

    1. Hi Brian-

      I agree. People, politics, and issues evolve over time. That is exactly why general governing principles matter instead of a litmus test on very specific issues.

      And I’m guilty as charged for referencing governing principles from the 1700s. It may not be fashionable in the “conservative” movement of the moment, but I still care about those old principles outlined in the 1700s like the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

      Best-

      Paul

  4. Terrific write-up, Paul.

    @Brian
    “referencing a view of the 1700′s….good luck with that”

    Modern Conservatives should be careful about dismissing those who reference thinkers from the 1700’s to support their political points. If I had a dollar for every tri-corner hat sold as a result of the Tea Party ascendancy, I could put a nice, big dent in that deficit of ours. And the folks in those tri-corner hats – they adore Edmund Burke . . . or at least Burke as understood by Dick Armey.

    1. Thanks good sir. Spot on observation re: tri-point hats and 1700-era philosophy. If only we could combine the general principles from 1700s with the reality that “issues evolve over time” then we’d really be making some progress. 🙂

      Hope life is well. Beers are a must if you are ever out in the DC area

      Cheers…

      Paul

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s