Presidential Debate: Romney Started Slow, Then Thoroughly Beat Obama

The facial expressions of Governor Romney and President Obama told the tale in last night’s presidential debate. Romney appeared all-too-eager to answer Obama’s charges, while Obama, particularly by the end, had the countenance of a sweating, irritated, and thoroughly out-classed debate loser.
The problem for Romney, perhaps a fatal one, was the first segment on the economy. In an election centered on how we emerge from troubled times, Romney lost the first segment not because Obama has better ideas, but because Romney doesn’t seem confident enough in his own, at times passable policy proposals.
Obama began with a very predictable opening statement about the economy he inherited; his implicit point being that he shouldn’t be blamed for today’s limping economy since he took over one in freefall. That’s perhaps fine from a debate perspective, but in an internet-infused information world, voters are increasingly wise to the simple truth that crushing recessions tautologically foster booming rebounds. Shame on Romney for not making that essential argument.

  In Terms Of Temperament, Romney Wins Hands  

  In the First Debate, Mitt Romney Told the Truth on Health Care and Obama Tried     Avik Roy Contributor

Obama or Romney, Higher Capital Gain Rates Hit Soon    Robert W. Wood Contributor

Obama similarly went the predictable route in saying that Romney wants to go the tax cut, deregulation path of George W. Bush. If only that were so, but in Obama’s case he left himself open to the fact that when presented with rolling back the Bush tax cuts in 2010, he chose (properly) to extend them. As for deregulation, Obama penned an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal not long ago proposing more of it. Romney had a chance to call Obama (he later did on the tax portion) on his assertions, while asking what is remotely harmful about removing tax and regulatory barriers to production, but instead, and this could hurt him down the line, he seemed to go along with the president.
Indeed, no less than three times Romney quite unfortunately stressed (all quotes paraphrased) that “I will not reduce taxes paid by high income Americans,” “my tax cuts will not bring down revenues,” and “high earners are doing just fine, my tax cuts are for the middle class.” That’s too bad because if jobs are your goal, investment must similarly be your goal, and as the “rich” tautologically have lots of money, tax cuts for them lead to savings, which lead to investment, and through investment more company and job creation that benefits those who aren’t rich. Rather than play to what should have been his strength as the successful businessman who believes in growth at a time when our nation is starved for it, Romney played “me too” politics; seemingly competing with Obama over who would cut tax rates the least.
And then when he wasn’t vying for the false of honor of being the lesser tax cutter, Romney went the platitude route, some of his shallow ideas possessing the potential to bring the economy great harm. Romney promised “energy independence”, yet we’re already energy independent in the certain sense that we’ve got access to the world’s energy at the market price.
Oil isn’t expensive due to a lack of supply, rather it’s expensive due to a cheap dollar policy that Obama borrowed from George W. Bush. We don’t need an energy policy anymore than we need a t-shirt or television policy, yet Romney acts as though we do in violation of comparative advantage; the latter easily one of the most important economic growth principles extant. Wasting limited resources on a national policy for “energy independence” wouldn’t reduce the cost of oil (it’s the dollar, stupid, yet Romney sadly never mentioned the dollar), but it would weaken our economy for limited resources being used to chase not just a money illusion, but also one that’s far less profitable than other sectors in the economy. Even if achievable, energy independence would be economically crippling.
And then about China, Romney said “we’ll crack down on the Chinese when they cheat.” Hmmm. Last I heard, trade is always voluntary because it occurs between consenting individuals, not countries. Romney presumably meant China’s currency policies, but there it must be stressed that China is not cheating. In truth, they properly peg their currency to the dollar, which is the 100% correct policy. Money’s sole purpose is to facilitate the exchange of goods, which means China is right, and Romney’s wrong.
Romney talks up support for small business, yet his China stance is anti-dollar, which means he’s promoting ideas that aren’t in favor of small businesses ever in need of investment. Policies meant to weaken the dollar drive investors into hiding, and as such, they go very much against the needs of businesses of all sizes.
Romney’s only hope is that voters didn’t believe Romney’s assertions about being a light tax cutter, and that they instead shifted their focus to Obama’s totally empty proposals. He said he would improve education even though the latter on its best day focuses on the past (Romney joined him, while properly acknowledging that it’s a local issue), but since wealth creation by definition results from producing future goods previously unknown to the marketplace – and educators, it will do nothing to boost growth. As for taxes, Obama made plain that he would increase the cost of work with higher taxes, yet promised to lower tax rates for manufacturers. Translation: he’ll subsidize a sector of the economy that, thanks to very positive productivity enhancements that have happily moved workers into higher paying service jobs, not only no longer employs most Americans, but even if it did, the pay would be microscopic.
Obama successfully punched Romney with his quip about how he’ll close tax loopholes that he’s never been able to list, while Romney jabbed Obama with his line that “energy production has risen during your presidency, but not due to your policies.” Obama countered with a comment about Romney talking tax cuts for 18 months only to say “nevermind”, and then Romney successfully drew blood with his retort that tax cuts for the top 3% of corporations are necessary since they account for 50% of the jobs. Obama counterpunched with “we tried Romney’s policies in 2001 and 2003 and they led to a financial crisis in 2008”, at which point Romney hit back with “Let’s look at the evidence from the last four years: 23 million Americans looking for work, 47 million Americans on food stamps versus 32 million when you reached office…”
Still, Romney was the loser because he allowed himself to be put on the defensive about tax cuts, so much so that he very nearly intimated that he wouldn’t be cutting them at all. In a nation that embodies entrepreneurial capitalism, but that suffers from a lack of it at the moment, Romney should have boldly defended his 20% rate cuts across all income classes as necessary to boost an economy limping under our sitting president. The first segment went to Obama.