Posted on 06/01/2012 11:03:55 AM PDT by Kaslin
When Hillary Rosen said that Ann Romney had "never worked a day in her life," it was among the better days of the Romney campaign.
For Rosen -- present whereabouts unknown -- both revealed the feminist mindset about women who choose to become wives and mothers and brought Ann Romney center stage.
Before a Connecticut audience recently, Mrs. Romney spoke of her reluctance to see her husband pursue the presidency a second time and said she resisted, until she got an answer to one critical question.
"Can you fix it?" she asked Mitt. "I need to know. Is it too late?"
Mitt Romney replied, "No, it's getting late, but it's not too late."
Yet Ann's question lingers. Is it still possible to turn this country around? Or has a fate like that of Europe become inevitable?
If one focuses on the deficit-debt crisis, and what a president can do, the temptation is to succumb to despair.
Consider. The U.S. government spends a peacetime record 24 to 25 percent of gross domestic product. Most of that is expended on five accounts: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other Great Society programs, interest on the national debt, war and defense.
Now assume the best of all worlds for the GOP. Mitt wins, and the party captures the Senate and holds the House.
Would that assure a rollback of the federal budget? And, if so, how?
As Romney is committed to expanding the armed forces by 100,000 personnel, to growing the Navy by 15 ships a year, from today's nine, to raising defense spending to 4 percent of GDP from the present 3.8 percent, defense spending would not be going down but up.
What about interest expense?
Given the Federal Reserve's present policy of holding interest rates near zero, the only way interest on the debt can go -- is up.
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and the Great Society would have to sustain almost all of the cuts if the budget is to move toward balance.
But if the Republicans cut current benefits, they would antagonize 50 million seniors already on Social Security and Medicare.
If they cut future benefits, they will anger the baby boomers who are reaching eligibility for these retirement programs at a rate of 300,000 a month, 10,000 a day, and will continue to retire at that pace until 2030.
Would a President Romney and Republican Congress roll back benefits for scores of millions of seniors, raise the retirement age for Social Security and Medicare, reduce funds for Medicaid, Head Start, Pell grants, student loans, primary and secondary education, and shed federal employees by the tens of thousands?
Republicans argue that the corporate tax rate of 35 percent, highest among advanced nations, and the personal rate of 35 percent should be cut. The other piece of tax reform is the elimination of deductions and credits so a lower rate on a broader tax base will yield the same or additional revenue.
Looks good on paper.
But today 50 percent of all U.S. wage-earners pay zero income tax. Will that half of a nation reward a party that ensures that many of them, too, contribute? Free-riders on the federal tax code are voters, too.
Again, the crucial question: Does the Romney Republican Party have the courage of its convictions -- to carry out a fiscal program consistent with its conservative philosophy?
For when, ever, has the modern GOP done that?
Richard Nixon funded the Great Society. Gerald Ford bailed out the Big Apple. George H.W. Bush increased spending and raised taxes. George W. Bush gave us No Child Left Behind, free prescription drugs for seniors, two wars, tax cuts and the largest increase in domestic spending since LBJ.
Even Ronald Reagan ruefully conceded that he failed to do what he had set out to do in cutting federal spending.
Now, we are assured that this generation of Republicans has come home to the church and confessed its sins, and is prepared to face martyrdom in the name of fiscal responsibility.
Well, perhaps.
Yet, if it is difficult to see how the GOP advances toward a balanced budget, it is impossible to see how President Obama does.
Would the party of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, triumphant, scale back programs that are the pride of their party -- Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid? Would Pelosi, Reid and Obama cut the number of bureaucrats and beneficiaries of federal programs, thereby demobilizing the unionized armies on which they depend at election time?
When FDR came to power in 1933, after his running mate, "Cactus Jack" Garner, accused Herbert Hoover of taking us "down the road to socialism," the Federal government was spending 4 percent of GDP.
Today, it spends 24 percent. Under both parties, under every president since FDR, domestic spending has moved in one direction.
Ann Romney's question remains relevant.
Is the trend inexorable? Is there any turning back? Is it too late?
Whats happening in Wisconsin gives me hope that it is fixable.
I agree
What is not discussed here, but could be a significant help is to free the U.S. economy from the draconian, extremely damaging environmental restrictions (regulation is too soft a word).
Growth has been turned into a pejorative by the enviro-communists. It may be the one thing, along with shrinking the public sector, that could pull us out of the tailspin (if it isn’t too late already).
Romney’s stance on defense spending really turns me off. Cut everywhere and everything including defense. We can’t afford to police the world. Provide defense for our country and borders and that’s it.
Romney will repeal Obamacare if we let him replace it with Romneycare.
And, then, all will be well again.
Trust God!
So if Pat Buchanan, or Ron Paul, were elected President, what would be different? PB’s column seems to endorse despair (he’s the original nabob of negativity). So the election will be about the pace of going to hell, not the outcome? I’m not buying. Mr. Romney — When asked “can you make a difference”, please answer “YES”. Then tell us how.
Of COURSE she does!
She's a MORMON!
I hate to be a pessimist, but I think it’s too late.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zA-rZQB-xQ
I know Mitt Romney has a dearth of support here on the far right, but wouldn’t it be WONDERFUL to replace Michelle Obama with Ann Romney?
Just hired a new girl for 30,000. Good pay for this area. The UI fees to the state alone are 6.5% of her pay and this comes out of my pocket. Total fees (taxes) to me for hiring her are 2184.00 per year. It takes an absolute moron in government to think that charging employers to hire is a good idea. People wonder why we buy so much stuff already packaged overseas. I would be out of business if I tried to mfg and package all of it here. Just sad. We need environmental and tax reform BAD.
That's the key and the choice in November.
The only real way out of this fiasco, other than significant spending cuts, is of course growth. There are lots of opportunities for that in the energy field that would in turn reduce the price at the pump and increase spending for other goods and services. Hard choices need to be made and sold to the public - just like those choices that were made in Wisconsin.
Obama for four more years would result in no return to the cliff that we are on at this time. We will be on our way to financial hell at light speed.
It would be better if Ann Romney was not so pro-abortion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.