As a Republican voting for Barack Obama, I was disappointed by his performance for not calling out Mitt Romney on his 47 percent comment, Bain Capital or his “corporations are people, my friend” comment.
Nonetheless, this was admirable on the president’s part because this suggests that he is committed to focusing on actual policy issues and not political sounds bites. I will concede that Romney’s performance was surprisingly good. He was able to show more of a human quality and able to articulate a little better.
However, I was highly disappointed by Romney for doubling down on his commitment to vagueness in his policies. The first presidential debate proved to be a win for Romney in the quality of performance he gave. But, let’s be real: quality of performance is one thing and quality of policies is another.
With this presidential debate being one of the most important elections in recent history, specificity in plans is more crucial than ever. We can’t expect to vote for Romney on blind faith that he will solve economic problems if he can’t even give us any basis for his vision of economic prosperity. The inconsistencies and vagueness of his economic policies highlight that he is not dedicated to the cause of solving the deficit problem or improving our economy. Let’s consider this idea further based on what was mentioned in the presidential debate.
When President Obama called out Romney for adding $5 trillion dollars to the deficit by supporting a $5 trillion tax cut, his response was that the assertion was false and that he will pay for that via closing loopholes and reducing deductions. Basically Romney argued that his tax cut would be revenue-neutral. Independent organizations have evaluated Romney’s plan and have concluded that it would be mathematically impossible to come up with enough loopholes and reduced deductions to pay for his tax cuts. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has come to this conclusion and has asserted that the only way to pay for Romney’s tax cuts without adding to the deficit is through a tax increase on the middle class.
On health care, Romney stated that he will repeal Obamacare but when asked what he will replace it with, he gave us an inadequate response. The most specific Romney is on this issue is that he will keep the good parts of Obamacare and get rid of the bad parts. He never says which parts are good or bad.
On the topic of regulations, Romney opposes the Dodd-Frank legislation that regulates Wall Street’s practices that led to the crisis in the first place. What this legislation does is to make sure that banks have adequate capital and to regulate the valuation of the loans it makes and gives out just to shed some light on some of the provisions of the law. This in effect will ensure that we won’t have to bailout anyone in Wall Street for their reckless behavior.
What is Romney’s stance on this? He supports its repeal and when he is asked what he will replace it with, what would you guess the answer is? That’s right, there is no specificity here either.
I find it hard to vote as a Republican for Romney if he cannot give us a basis for which to vote for his economic policies. His only mantra in this debate is to oppose whatever Obama supports.
This election must be more than casting a vote for someone because our discontent with the opponent. This election should be determined on specific policy issues and evaluating which is best for our country. With the lack of specificity in Romney’s plan, it will be an uphill battle to convince Americans on this front.
Luna is a junior majoring in economics with financial applications and political science.
