By Tom Quiner
Let’s face it, Barack Obama had a huge disadvantage in last night’s debate: his record.
Gas prices have about doubled at the pump on his watch.
Unemployment continues to hover above 8 percent.
GDP growth is stagnant.
Health insurance rates continue their fast rise despite, or perhaps because of, Obamacare.
Millions of Americans have either lost, or are going to lose, their current plan despite the president’s promise that they wouldn’t.
The middle class has lost about $4000 a year in income under Obama.
The average cost of in-state college tuition has increased 25%.
Every single American has seen their religious freedoms eroded by the HHS Mandate imposed on Catholic business owners and organizations.
Yes, it is an embarrassing record. Even more, it is a ruthlessly harmful one.
Last night’s debate revealed a Mitt Romney who understands what it takes to restore American prosperity. Barack Obama, on the other hand, appeared to be out of gas. Mr. Obama’s whole schtick is that “you are poor because someone else is rich.” This schtick of pitting unproductive Americans against productive ones wasn’t working, because Mr. Romney was presenting a plausible plan for prosperity.
Most people truly want to work, because there is dignity in work and there is prosperity through hard work.
Mr. Romney’s apt description of “trickle-down government” was a brilliant preemptive strike against Obama’s stale mantra of tax cuts for the rich (aka as “trickle-down economics” to liberals). Romney isn’t cutting taxes on the rich, nor is he increasing them on the middle class. These are typical political straw man arguments. Rather, he calls for tax simplification, an idea that has enjoyed some bi-partisan support in recent years.
Romney wants to lower rates at the same time he reduces deductions. His plan is revenue neutral. Experience shows, though, that lower rates and lower compliance costs typically boost the economy and typically generate more revenues over the long haul.
The Obama plan of trickle-down government has not only failed, it has done grave damage to America, characterized by unsustainable deficits and national debt. Here, Romney again shined. When asked what programs he would cut, he presented a reasonable method for appraising a program’s worth: is it worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?
I respect that sensible answer. I suspect a lot of voters on both sides of the aisle did, too.
There’s a saying in the marketing arena, in which I work,that “perception is reality.” Mitt Romney came across as a take-charge guy who can get things done. Barack Obama didn’t.
Mitt Romney left us with the perception that he is presidential. Barack Obama didn’t.
Last night’s debate isn’t necessarily going to swing the election, but it may level the playing field.
Round one to Romney.