Editorial and Endorsement: Election 2012: The Choice

When the polls open tomorrow morning, voters will cast their ballots for one of the most important elections in our lifetime. The man who will be elected president will define the shape of America’s future. In order to help our readers understand the issues that characterize this race for the top office in the country, the GerardDirect staff has compiled an outline of the key issues that define this presidential race.

The Economy

First and foremost is the economy, which is the central issue of this campaign.
The GDP is stalled at 2.0%, demonstrating a very sluggish economic situation that borders on recession. Our Balance of Payments (International Transactions), including trade in goods and services, receipts and payments of income, transfers, and transactions in financial assets, is deeply into negative territory at -$44.2 billion, with our exports decreasing and our imports increasing.

Although the economy added 171,000 jobs in the most recent economic report, unemployment is still at unacceptably high numbers, last recorded at 7.9%. This number does not include, however, all those who have just entered the job market but can’t find work and don’t qualify for unemployment, those who have used up their unemployment compensation, those who can only find part-time jobs, those who are underemployed (doing work for which they are overqualified), and those who have given up looking altogether. If you include all these categories, the real unemployment number may actually be 15% or more.

As America approaches the so-called “fiscal cliff”, the threat of an even deeper recession looms large. The imminent “sequestration” which mandates federal spending cuts of nearly $1 trillion will necessitate what Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta called “devastating” cuts to the defense budget, leaving our nation less prepared than ever against the terrorist threat.

The difference between the two candidates is stark.

Obama has asked for four more years to continue on the course he has set, promising help for the middle class, including a pledge to cancel the Bush tax cuts for upper-income people.

Obama believes that the way to recovery is for the federal government to play a leading role in the job creation process. Early in his term, he used federal funding to create a plethora of jobs repairing highways throughout the nation. The problem, however, was that the jobs were temporary, and a corrupt hiring process in which, for example, people were hired, laid off, and then rehired in order to meet the required quota of jobs filled, largely defeated the purpose. Bottom line, when Obama took office, the official unemployment rate was 7.2%. During his term it rose as high as 10.2%. It has now fallen just below 8%. He points to the decline in the numbers as one of his accomplishments, but Romney points out that it is still higher than it was at when Obama first took office.

Obama has reiterated his plan to end the Bush tax cuts for “the millionaires and billionaires” (defined as anyone, including small businesses making over $200,000 dollars, or couples over $250,000).

He has also pledged to take away tax breaks for companies shipping jobs overseas, and to develop jobs in the US.

He points to his record of creating “four million new jobs in the private sector”, a claim that Romney disputes, and which has not been effectively documented. He promises to “help usher in a revival in American manufacturing”, although he does not say how he will do it, or explain why he hasn’t already begun.

Obama talks about “an entirely new and different direction in energy, in trade, and in labor policies” as a key to reversing to trend of manufacturing jobs leaving America, but again, he doesn’t explain how.

He has promised to create a program that will cut the national debt by $4 trillion over the next 10 years, although he failed in his first-term promise to cut the debt in half. Instead, he ran up a six trillion-dollar debt of his own on top of the $10.6 trillion debt which he inherited from the Bush administration.

The federal government now spends $100 billion more than it takes in every month. If we continue at this rate, we will reach the national debt limit of $16.4 trillion by late December.

Romney on the other hand, has pledged “I will not raise taxes on the middle class.” He has promised to keep the Bush tax cuts for everyone, not just the middle class, and to bring down the tax rates an additional 20 percent. He also promises, however, to close loopholes in the tax code that allow the truly wealthy to avoid paying taxes. He has pledged to eliminate the capital gains tax for families making below $200,000 and cut the corporate tax to 25 percent from 35 percent.

In his Contract with America, he too has promised a revival in American manufacturing that will take an entirely new and different direction in energy, trade, and labor policies. He has pledged to create 12 million jobs in his first term, and to lower the unemployment rate to below 6%, and to balance the federal budget.

He, too, has not gone into specifics, but he said that this is because he intends to “reach across the aisle” and negotiate with members of Congress to develop a plan together that will be both passable and will respond to the demands of both parties.

Energy

An energy independent America is, at the moment a dream, and a costly one at that. Since 2008, when Obama took office, the price of gasoline at the pumps has more than doubled. Our dependence on Middle Eastern oil has not diminished, but the administration has curtailed any access to new coal. Access to Canadian oil has been cut off at the Keystone pass, even while offshore oil drilling has been stalled (although the President promised Brazil funding for their offshore drilling projects). Costly solar projects, like Solyndra, have failed to the tune of billions of taxpayer dollars.

In short, our national energy policy is a mess. It does not address the national need for independence, we are paying high premiums for the energy we use, and there is no apparent plan for the development of traditional energy resources independent of the foreign oil on which we currently depend.

Obama has promised to reduce the carbon pollution that he says is heating our planet, and to continue to support the development of clean energy at the federal level. This would presumably include a continued limit on coal production and off-shore oil drilling, as well as blocking the Keystone pipeline from Canada, in favor of developing solar and wind projects.

Romney has said that he supports the development of energy independence through the completion of the Keystone pipeline project, and opening up opportunities for clean coal, oil, and gas production, as well as alternative energy resources in the private sector.

Foreign Policy

US prestige in the world is at an all-time low. The current foreign policy over the last four years has been one of appeasement and a demonstration of great weakness in the eyes of our enemies.

For many years, the government has involved itself in the internal affairs and unrest in other countries, helping to lead to the events that became known as the “Arab Spring”. Our meddling in the affairs of other nations, and the continued interference into the conflicts once they have started, has inflamed our adversaries and alienated our allies. In Egypt, Libya, and Syria, we have aided the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda by providing them with support, including military equipment, under the guise of helping the “opposition”.

It can be assumed that Obama will continue the same policies that he has carried out throughout his tenure in Washington, beginning with his “apology tour” and ending with his inaction and obfuscation during and after the Benghazi attacks.

Obama addresses the issues of the world through a lens that is difficult to understand. In his stump speeches, he continues to tell the American people that “the war is over in Iraq”. Unfortunately, it is not. The war continues to rage throughout the country and Iraqis continue to die by the hundreds. It is only that our troops are no longer there. This may seem a fine distinction, but for the people we left behind, the situation is far worse than when we arrived. We went to Iraq to liberate a people, and left behind chaos and tragedy when we brought our troops home.

In his campaign speeches Obama still says that “al Qaeda has been decimated”, a statement dramatically disproved by the attack on the Benghazi mission in which our Ambassador and three other Americans were murdered by agents of al Qaeda in an al Qaeda-planned attack.

During his tenure, the Obama policy has been to ignore the reality of the radical Islamist threat at home, preferring to use euphemisms in place of words like “terrorism” and “radical Islam” or not using them at all. For example, in the Fort Hood shooting, in which Major Nidal Hassan opened fire in a personnel center on Fort Hood, Texas shouting “Allah hu-Akhbar”, seven people were killed and thirty injured. Yet, the government considers this terrorist attack “in the context of a broader threat of workplace violence.”

The consequences of such misjudgment are not trivial. Because the incident is not labeled an act of terrorism, the victims do not get special combat-related compensation and are also ineligible for Purple Hearts or medals for valor.

The same is true in the 2009 murder of Army Pvt. William Andrew Long in front of an Army recruiting center in Arkansas by Abdulhakim Muhammad. An avowed Muslim jihadi, Muhammad was the son of a local family. he was radicalized in a local mosque, and trained in Yemen. On the day of the killing, he was a terrorist. As he leveled his rifle at his two victims, he shouted “Allah hu-Akhbar” and shot them in cold blood. Although Pvt. Long died and Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula was seriously wounded, the federal government refused to consider this an act of terrorism. Muhammad was tried in a state court for murder instead of in a federal court for terrorism.

In the most recent Benghazi attack, it took the government nearly two weeks to acknowledge that this was a terrorist attack and not a “spontaneous” mob action. Our government’s inability to call our enemy by its name – Islamist terrorism – puts us in even further danger.

Under the Obama administration, the US relationship with Israel has suffered greatly. As President, Obama has changed his position on Israel’s capital, on the terms of peace talks with the Palestinians, and on a variety of other issues run counter to traditional US support for this important ally. Most significantly, he has downplayed the urgency of Iran’s nuclear ambitions and tried to restrain Israel from any engagement in what the Jewish state perceives as an existential and imminent threat.

Romney’s experience in the field of foreign policy is limited, and, should he win his bid for the presidency, he will need to surround himself with the expertise and experience that he lacks. This should include people who understand the threats facing America today in the Muslim world, who are not afraid to recognize and acknowledge terrorism when it occurs, and who will give him the appropriate advice and counsel to enable him to deal with it effectively and appropriately.

The consequence of our flawed foreign policy and our inability to acknowledge the difference between terrorism and common crime in the name of political correctness has been the weakening of our legitimate leadership role around the world. This impacts America in every aspect of our domestic and foreign affairs, from our ability to negotiate international treaties to the conduct of our international affairs.

It is not clear that either candidate will change that flawed policy, although Romney gives some hope that his echo of Reagan’s policy of ‘peace through strength’ is a policy he will adhere to. If our future global position is to be a rekindled leadership role, we need to re-invent our stature appropriately for a world which currently views America as weak and toothless.

Romney has been outspoken about his support for Israel, and it is likely he will be able to sustain that position. His longstanding friendship with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who faces his own re-election challenge in January, has laid the groundwork for a genuine understanding of the true nature of the US-Israeli alliance.

Entitlements: Social Security, Medicare and ObamaCare

This issue is not last on the list because it is the least important. It, like the others that preceded it on this list, is extremely important, largely because the rampant federal spending has put the first two at risk, and the last, ObamaCare, increases the assault upon Medicare, on the future of healthcare, on small business, and on the US economy at large. The arguments surrounding these entitlements are long and complex, but the difference in approach between Obama and Romney is dramatic an d highly visible.

Obama supports a greatly expanded role in the control of these programs and under his guidance and support, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, was passsed. This is the 2,700-page health care law that effectively reduces Medicare spending by $716 billion and raises taxes by $1.2 trillion in order to pay for $1.9 trillion in new health spending elsewhere. Under the provisions of ObamaCare, 15% of all hospitals will become permanently unprofitable by 2019, 25% by 2030, and 40% by 2050.

The law also creates the Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board, a brand new government agency whose goal will be to ensure that future Medicare spending grows at a manageable rate. ObamaCare already cut $156 billion from Medicare Advantage. Cutting more will effectively drive the program out of business, affecting between 8 and 16 million retirees.

In his first campaign, Obama promised to lower health insurance by $2,500 per family, but four years later, the premiums are up by $3,000.

Endorsement for
MITT ROMNEY

Mitt Romney and I have not always seen eye to eye on things. When I ran for Congress in 2004 on the Republican ticket in Massachusetts, Romney was Governor and titular head of the state Republican Party. Early in January of that year, I met with the State Party Chairman Darrell Crate to tell him I would be a candidate for Congress. He let me know, politely but in no uncertain terms, that Romney had decided that the Party would not support any of its Congressional candidates that year, but would throw its full support behind its candidates for state office. In the end, with funding support cut off from the big donors in Massachusetts, none of the five Congressional candidates was able to raise sufficient funds to mobilize their campaigns effectively.

My campaign for Congress (which I believe could have been won with Party support, since the incumbent in my district was roundly despised, even by his own Democrats), was undermined by the State Party, apparently at Romney’s instructions.

Having said that, this story is history and the issues in the current campaign are far more important than my own experience as a candidate. We are now at a junction in our history where the future of America takes precedence over old, small grievances.

Why Romney?

Since he first entered the race, Mitt Romney has grown into his campaign, rising above the petty party politics of the primaries, and into the presidential persona of the office for which he is running. Over the course of the last few months, Romney has become presidential and has been able to communicate his passion, his patriotism, his deep concern for America and Americans.

As a resident of Massachusetts, I was there when the economy broke down in 2000, its high tech sector failing in the dot.com bust. Tens of thousands of high tech workers were suddenly unemployed. Romney inherited an essentially failed economy.

Romney became Governor in 2002, and once elected he began immediately to put the pieces back together. In an economy where the number of available jobs had been falling dramatically, 50,000 jobs were added during Romney’s term. The combined levels of underemployment and unemployment decreased from 241,000 to 223,000, a drop of 7.5%. (Under Obama, the level of underemployment and unemployment has risen by 4.7 percent since 2008.) Moreover, the U.S. Census Bureau reports show that the Bay State’s median family income rose from $49,855 in the year before Romney took office to $55,330 during his last year.

In his first year in office, Romney faced a $3 billion shortfall in state revenues, a gap that had to be closed in order to meet a mandated balanced budget. He was able to work with his largely Democratic lawmakers and succeeded in closing the gap by reaching out across the political divide.

If Romney is elected, and if he follows the process he carried out in Massachusetts, he will immediately begin to pull his team together, looking for the best and the brightest to fill the positions in his administrations. It is an impressive and highly effective process that will bear strong results for his term as president.

—–

This presidential election of 2012 is the war of ideas. It is a race between two very different ideologies:

On the one hand, is the idea of big government, high taxes, and direct government involvement in every aspect of our lives, on the theory that they know how to manage our lives better than we do.

On the other, is the idea of smaller government, and a larger role for the private sector, growing business, creating jobs, stimulating education, improving the economy, and creating a renewal of the American dream.

What we need now is a president who can heal the nation and bind us back into the United States of America. We believe that Romney is the man who can do this. Although he ran in a primary against a long list of conservatives and sparred with them on conservative issues, his politics are moderate and his governance is one of collaboration, of reaching across the aisle to his political opponents in order to get things done. We saw this in Massachusetts and we expect to see it in Washington. It is what the country needs now.

People have come to these shores to escape the heavy and intrusive dominance of government controls on their lives. It is the freedom of America that needs to be preserved.

Therefore, in this presidential election of 2012, we endorse Mitt Romney for President of the United States. We believe that his vision for America is the more appropriate one for the unique role that our nation must play, at home and in the world at large. Godspeed.

——————–

Ilana Freedman is Editor of GerardDirect.com  She is a specialist in homeland security and counter-terrorism intelligence. She can be reached at ilana