No, a Romney presidency would be disastrous

President Bill warned us recently that a Romney presidency will be “calamitous for our country and the world.” I completely agree. Further, I also agree with Clinton that while Romney is eminently qualified to seek the presidency with his experience steering private enterprise and the state of Massachusetts, a Romney presidency is something our nation cannot afford at this time. The stakes in the November 2012 election are high and our votes critical in determining the course we pursue as a nation.

Most polls today point to a close fall election for the White House with a possible Romney win but also for the Republican takeover of the Senate with a President Romney’s VP getting the tie breaker vote. The Republicans in the House of Representatives are either poised to increase or retain their majority. Given this scenario in Congress, President Obama’s re-election is the only path to block the extreme right wing House Republican agenda.

Led by the House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) and the Tea Party backed freshmen, the Republican agenda is to gut social programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Food Stamps for the poor, further slash taxes on the wealthiest including corporations, deregulate banks, increase defense spending, literally eliminate the EPA and Consumer Safety agencies, and above all overturn the health care reform law.
Most Americans are in the middle of the political spectrum and expect the Federal Government to astutely create conditions for the private sector to thrive and hire. But, it is also essential to have a basic safety net for those that need it, a sensible environmental protections policy and a fair taxation scheme that neither punishes success nor penalizes the middle class, a fair regulation of banks and consumer safety protections in place. There should be a balance between a smart defense capability, elimination of wasteful expenditure and yet a fair dispensation of foreign aid to advance our strategic and humanitarian interests abroad.

Candidate Romney has pandered to the extreme right wing agenda, understandably to burnish himself as a conservative to win the nomination. However, Romney has given no indication that he will govern as he did in Massachusetts working synchronously with the Democratic legislature. Instead, Romney has embraced the Paul Ryan plan and the extreme right wing agenda. Without a Democratic majority in Congress to moderate his presidency, that is a risk we simply cannot afford.

We absolutely need President Obama to be reelected so that we can ensure “checks and balances” are in place with a Republican Congress that will limit both extreme right and left wing excesses. Obama’s reelection this time is not for any “hope or change” but a last line of defense, with his veto pen, against the extreme right wing agenda.

Rameysh Ramdas, an SF Bay Area professional, writes as a hobby.


Yes, a Romney presidency does have benefits

In 2008 Barack Obama won the election by a thin margin of 53-47%. In other words 3% of the voting population decided to not elect a McCain-Palin ticket. This inspite of a total collapse of financial industry just before the elections due to deregulation policies that were instituted in 1999; inspite of McCain being well past his prime; and inspite of Sarah Palin.
Lets face it this is a nation that votes for candidates based on the entertainment value of the campaign and pithiness of the slogans. In the era of super PACs this type of campaigning just got a streroid boost. Particpation in elections is lack-luster as demonstrated in the recently concluded California primary where only 35% voted. Add to all this the electorate is easily manipulated as evidenced by the decrease in support from 67% to less that 50% from March 2012 to June 2012 for the tobacco tax. Mainly because of a propaganda campaign by the tobacco companies outspending the opposition 8:1. Given these circumstances Romney could be the next President given the massive fundraising advantage he has currently.

President Obama upon election was met by Senator McConnell vowing that he would make it his priority to make Obama a one term president. The Republicans followed their leadership and fought Obama on every issue to the detriment of the economic recovery. For this the voters rewarded the Republicans with the majority in the house in the 2010 elections.

A Romney presidency would not have this to contend with. Republicans would be supportive of Romney and Romney would adapt himself to any and all of the Republican agenda, however extreme. He has adequately demonstrated this capability during the campaign for the White House. Romney never hesitated to change his position on abortion rights or on healthcare law. As far as we can tell from the polls these flip-flops don’t seem to matter to voters. Even if the Democrats manage to win the house in 2012 and retain possession of the Senate, it is my view that it would still be a cooperative congress, largely because Democrats believe in government and try to make the system work. As a result it is unlikey that we will have an obstructive democratic congress. Romney’s flip-flops which many perceive as a weakness would actually be a great strength in this scenario.

While the economy was rescued from the brink by President Obama’s policies, the job market is still teetering and slow to accelerate. Romney is promising 500k new jobs per month with his plan if elected president. While this, in my view, would require unsustainable levels of GDP growth it is a chance we may have to take in order to get this economy moving faster. After all Romney’s Bain Capital did return an outstanding rate of return for investors.

Mani Subramani works in the semi-conductor industry in Silicon Valley.

Share this: