Mitt Romney's Vagueness

Liberals have attacked Mitt Romney repeatedly for being vague about his economic policies. Romney claims he will balance the budget and references a bunch of studies that don't entirely prove his point. Obama argues that Mitt's math doesn't add up and he's right. There has yet to be a study that definitively proves that Mitt Romney can balance the budget with the numbers he's given us. But the problem is, the numbers he has given us don't paint a full picture. Why? Because Mitt obviously is holding some things back because he has plans to cut some very popular programs (for example, the home mortgage interest deduction).

Now, if my hypothesis is right,  liberals will jump all over this and say "See! His policies will destroy the country!" This is bunk. In order to balance the budget, we absolutely have to cut some popular programs and deductions. The only way we are going to reduce our national debt is by drastically cutting government and finding new forms of revenue to ensure that we can still devote sufficient resources to important areas like education and research. Face it folks, some popular programs are going to have to go if we are going to dig ourselves out of this gigantic mess.

Mitt Romney has obviously come to the conclusion that campaigning on some of his actual plans would be a disastrous strategy and I agree with his assessment. The American electorate has proven that they do not want to vote for someone who will make them eat their vegetables. They want to vote for someone who will wipe their asses and tell them how special they are. For all of you who think that Mitt's electoral strategy is the same as his governing strategy, go back and look at tapes of Obama in 2008. If he had governed like he campaigned we would all have flying cars and live in a constant state of euphoria in Hopey-Changeyville. Mitt is simply trying to navigate a horribly corrupt and broken system without stepping on too many people's toes. Look at his record both in government and in the private sector.

He is not an ideologue; Mitt just has a laser-like focus on being productive in whatever scenario he finds himself in. No politician could make it this far without having a concrete plan. Romney would not have the support of so many business leaders if they did not know what he had in store for the country. The "certainty argument" is a cudgel that the far right uses far too much in their criticism of Obama but just because they abuse it does not mean it isn't a real thing. Business owners are largely pragmatic people. They want someone in office who will lay out a clear plan for the country so they can focus on developing their business instead of spending all day dealing with surprises from the federal government. If they did not receive some assurances on Romney's plans, you can be certain that they would be front and center in criticizing Romney. Let's face it, neither candidate is going to tell us that we need to make sacrifices (except for Obama's quips on the 1% which are mostly political calculations. Look at the Tea Party, populism works, especially on stupid people).

So that's my two cents on this election. Both candidates want to present this as a clear ideological choice but the fact of the matter is that ideology will not get us out of this hole. Pragmatism and shared sacrifice will. I believe that both these guys understand this fact but neither is willing to acknowledge it to the general public. This is why I can't get very worked up about this election. Why? Well, Bill Maher has summed up my feelings perfectly.

I've seen wider ideological differences between Jehovah's Witnesses
— Bill Maher (@billmaher) October 23, 2012