Romney’s hackneyed ideas unsuitable for change

On October 22, Governor Mitt Romney and President Obama had their final debate, which took place at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida. The debate focused on foreign policy and was moderated by CBS News anchor Bob Schieffer.

Thirty minutes into the debate President Obama stated that Romney has “proposed wrong and reckless polices,” citing his praise of George Bush “as a good economic steward and Dick Cheney as somebody who shows great wisdom and judgment.”

Although Romney found the statement rather humorous, it really isn’t that far from the truth. He responded by elaborating on his five-point plan.

This plan is outlined on his official website and consists of the following, eliminating regulations on the coal industry and approving the Keystone XL pipeline, giving Americans the “skills to succeed,” increasing trade opportunities, reducing “non-security discretionary spending by five percent,” and championing small business.

As pointed out by Jason Easley of PoliticusUSA, Romney’s plan is ominously similar to the five-point plans proposed by John McCain in 2008 and George W. Bush in 2004.

McCain stated his plan during his acceptance speech at the Republican convention. His plan is identical to what Romney has in mind. Even though he didn’t win the election, I’m sure he’s pleased that his plan will be put to use if Governor Romney becomes president.

The plan doesn’t stop at McCain however, because this plan was borrowed from George W. Bush. The plan didn’t work in 2004 and trying it again is not the solution the country needs. In fact, it failed rather miserably when Bush tried it out.

Luckily we dodged a repeat of this disaster by voting in Obama as president instead of McCain, but now Romney is attempting to repackage the same haphazard plan as the key to fixing the economy.

During the debate Romney referred to the reintroduced plan as “a policy for the future,” yet it’s very clear that there is nothing new or innovative about it.

Despite the vagueness of Romney’s hackneyed plan, it becomes clear through closer examination that it would be seriously detrimental if put into place.

Like McCain and Bush, Romney says he wants access to domestic oil sources. The problem with this is there is no room to look forward. During the debate Obama stated that he does want us to develop oil and natural gas, “but also the energy sources of the future.” It wasn’t enough to simply hunt for more oil when Bush was in office and it is an even less realistic solution today.

Romney also states that he will “champion small business,” a principle Bush stood by, yet the economy still managed to nearly collapse.

President Obama brought up the problem with Romney’s logic and stated, “When you were in Massachusetts, small businesses’ development ranked about 48, I think, out of 50 states… And the way you define small businesses include folks at the very top. They include you and me. That’s not the kind of small business promotion we need.”

The idea of supporting small business is perfectly acceptable, but the problem is, Romney is using this in his plan simply for appearances. The same can be said of his plan to reduce spending.

Part four of Governor Romney’s plan has to do with this notion. When Schieffer questioned Romney on where exactly these cuts will take place, he responded with “Come on our website, you’ll look at how we get to a balanced budget within eight to 10 years. We do it by getting — by reducing spending in a whole series of programs.”

Although Romney avoided answering the question, he has given some clue as to where he would like to make cuts, for example, the PBS subsidy and The National Endowment for the Arts subsidy. Not to mention “Obamacare,” which if cut, would do more to harm the economy than fix it.

Romney’s cuts are simply an attempt to avoid increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans in order to stimulate the economy.

There are numerous flaws in the Romney version of the five-point plan, the most obvious being that it has been tried and proven to be ineffective. We don’t need a president who wants to go back in time to recreate the Bush administration. Neither candidate is completely perfect, but if one thing is for sure, it’s that we need to look forward not backward.