Analysis: A big choice on the government's role

CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

WASHINGTON (AP) — Suspense over the too-close-to-call presidential race has partly obscured the fact that Americans on Tuesday will choose between two dramatically different visions of government's proper role in our lives. The philosophical gulf between the two nominees is wide, even if the vote totals may be razor-thin.

With record numbers of people on food stamps and other assistance, President Barack Obama emphasizes "we're all in this together" — code for sweeping government involvement. His campaign theme song is "We Take Care of Our Own." Romney wants smaller government, including fewer regulations — rejecting Obama's contention that they're needed after the meltdowns in financial and mortgage markets and a major oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. His theme song is the individualist anthem, "(I Was) Born Free."

For all their philosophical differences, neither man has hit Americans between the eyes with the painful truth of what it will take to tame deficit spending, driven by the public's demand for low taxes and high services.

This year's voters are unlikely to make big changes in Congress. After dramatic swings in the past three congressional elections, and ongoing assessments of the tea party's influence, power may not end up shifting on Capitol Hill for a while. The fiercely divided Congress may continue to block major presidential initiatives, regardless of who's in the White House, unless there's the type of bipartisan breakthrough that has proven elusive.

An Obama win presumably would keep the government roughly on its current course. Congressional Republicans would be unable to rescind his biggest domestic achievement, "Obamacare," which eventually will require everyone to have health insurance.

Writ large, Obama's approach to governing is a new generation of the New Deal and the Great Society. The federal government tries to balance interests such as energy exploration and the environment, private enterprise and consumer protection.

Romney's approach echoes Ronald Reagan's declaration that government is the problem, not the solution.

In a January GOP debate, Romney said: "Government has become too large. We're headed in a very dangerous direction. I believe to get America back on track, we're going to have to have dramatic, fundamental, extraordinary change in Washington to be able to allow our private sector to once again re-emerge competitively, to scale back the size of government."

Romney later said, "I was a severely conservative governor" of Massachusetts (a label at odds with his actual record there).

It's unlikely that a Romney presidency would reshape the federal government to the extent such rhetoric suggests. Like many politicians, Romney is more expansive with his promises than with details for achieving them.

He vows to slash spending and put the nation on a path to balanced budgets, for instance. Pressed for details, Romney offers few beyond ending the tiny federal subsidy to public television and "Big Bird."

Obama has gone a bit further in specifying how he would reduce the deficit. Unlike Romney, he would raise taxes on the wealthiest.

In a 50-50 nation, however, no politician wants to be the first to forcefully tell voters why it's impossible to achieve their three-pronged desire of keeping taxes low, keeping government services level and balancing the budget.

No matter who is president, the huge domestic challenge of 2013 will be to persuade Congress to compromise on tax and spending issues.

Many GOP lawmakers are adamant about keeping tax rates lower for everyone — including the richest households — than they were in Bill Clinton's presidency, which produced the last balanced budget. Congressional Democrats insist that any deficit-reduction plan include increased revenues, from the wealthiest taxpayers if no one else, along with spending cuts.

The package of major tax hikes and spending cuts scheduled to hit on Jan. 1 — the "fiscal cliff," which could start a new recession -- will pose a huge challenge to whoever wins Tuesday.

Because of congressional gridlock, a Romney presidency might produce more dramatic changes through the other branches of government. Romney repeatedly has said he'd like to see a reversal of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion. He might be able to appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court to fulfill that wish.

It's hard to know how U.S. society, so accustomed to the abortion status quo of four decades, would react to states suddenly outlawing the procedure.

Hurricane Sandy is a reminder of how different political philosophies can affect people at more mundane, day-to-day levels. Romney has suggested shifting much of the responsibility for emergency management from the federal government to the states. That approach might have severely tested New Jersey this fall. But conservatives grow weary of looking to Washington to solve problem after problem.

In unguarded moments, politicians sometimes show their clearest philosophical leanings. Romney's much discussed remarks at a private fundraiser — criticizing the 47 percent of Americans who don't pay income taxes — suggested he sees a world of givers and takers. Such societies, he says, are in danger of having the government-dependent takers overwhelm the job-creating givers.

Republicans, on the other hand, pounced on Obama's non-scripted "you didn't build that" comment, his contention that people who built businesses had help, from teachers, family and other supporters — and sometimes the government. Obama said he was noting that successful businesses rely on government roads, schools, water, police protection and other tax-paid amenities.

The "you didn't build that" controversy underscored philosophical differences that voters will choose between Tuesday. Obama and Romney look at the same set of facts — in this case, successful businesses — and seize on different aspects.

The election winner may have a hard time pushing his agenda through a divided Congress. But voters have a vivid choice about what that agenda should look like.

More like this story

spelchek 6 months, 1 week ago

One is an unforgiving socialist of the far left and the other a left leaning Republican. In other words, O is radical and R is centered.

Sequoia 6 months, 1 week ago

A report on debt under Democrats and Republicans. Can we PLEASE put to rest the lie that Democrats are spenders and Republicans are savers?

It's the exact opposite.

Republicans borrow more than Democrats. Socialism? Please. Democrats are the conservatives in the United States!

economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/11/daily-chart

Quote:

"Since the end of the second world war, Democratic presidents have been considerably more successful than Republican presidents at keeping a tight grip on the nation's finances. Democrats have presided over reductions in the debt burden, on net, while Republicans have led in periods with net increases in borrowing."

How long are people going to be suckered into voting against their own economic interests?

Hopefully not long.

spelchek 6 months, 1 week ago

Your comment gets three Pinocchios:
washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html

"Here’s what the White House’s own budget documents show about spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy (gross domestic product):

2008: 20.8 percent

2009: 25.2 percent

2010: 24.1 percent

2011: 24.1 percent

2012: 24.3 percent

2013: 23.3 percent

In the post-war era, federal spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy has hovered around 20 percent, give or take a couple of percentage points. Under Obama, it has hit highs not seen since the end of World War II — completely the opposite of the point asserted by Carney. Part of this, of course, is a consequence of the recession, but it is also the result of a sustained higher level of spending."

asb 6 months, 1 week ago

A sustained higher level of spending on two wars (one illegal by most measures), and the historically largest tax gift to the wealthiest people on the planet. Holding that percentage under 25% is a freaking miracle.

JCLifer 6 months, 1 week ago

Don't forget the government has to support the 47% leaches who do not pay their own way.

asb 6 months, 1 week ago

All but a few of that 47% pay for most of their recieved services through direct purchase and other taxes and fees. You've worn that one out dude.

spelchek 6 months, 1 week ago

So if spending on wars that both parties voted for is the cause for our economic downturn then why is the President passing mutually expensive, massive laws as a solution? Makes sense to you.

asb 6 months, 1 week ago

Both parties have voted for wars, one of which was illegally started by the backroom lies and arrogance of one of them, and it wasn't the Greens. The wars aren't the cause of the downturn, unregulated financial markets get that honor, the wars simply ate up the available capital. Obama's one massive law, his greatest legacy and the most overdue program in our history, isn't the "solution" to anything but our embarrasing and horrific healthcars environment. I know it doesn't make sense to you because you've been told as much for years but your ears are superconductors for new thought; in one and instantaneously out the other with no processing or existance in between

BubbaD 6 months, 1 week ago

Did you consider that it is about the shrinking of the economy as opposed to increased spending? Some folks are so easily manipulated.

spelchek 6 months, 1 week ago

What are you talking about? Have you not been reading AP stories this last week? Every story is about "solid job growth" and wall street having a good day. Moreover, our President told us the private sector "is fine" and Carney constantly reminds us that the President's policies are working to fix the "mess" they "inherited". So if the economy is shrinking then President Obama is a liar. Which is it?

BubbaD 6 months, 1 week ago

The word shrinking can be past tense. You have presumed current tense. If you don't look at the entirety of the system, including cause and effect, then you'll never understand. Failure to do so is the root of being easily manipulated. You just made my point. Thank you.

Sequoia 6 months, 1 week ago

Throwing in the GDP and expressing spending as a percentage of GDP only during Obama's administration in isolation is the manipulation here, because the recession (caused by de-regulation, BTW) drove down the GDP. Most people won't forget that the GDP crashed BEFORE Obama took office, but you have to forget that in order to cast Obama as a "big spender." And you have to forget that BOTH parties voted for the stimulus, and that the stimulus actually worked pretty well, all things considered.

But anyway, its clear you didn't even look at the Economists' chart, because the Economist looks at gross public debt as a percentage of GDP, and finds that, on average, since WWII, Democrats preside over lower debt levels than Republicans.

Regarding debt levels during the Obama administration, the Economist says "Mr Obama would respond that much of the debt attributed to him is not his fault. He would have a point. The deep recession he inherited likely added some 10-15 percentage points to the debt-to-GDP ratio, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities."

Look spel, you've got your mind made up, and you're not going to actually engage the data. I know this. I hope other readers will take a fair, careful look.

spelchek 6 months, 1 week ago

You missed the part about the data I posted being straight from the white house's budget data. Obama had complete control of everything his first two years to fix all the things the complainer in chief wanted fixed. He ignored economic worries and passed a stimulus that didn't work and spent 1.5 years pushing a terrible health care law that a majority of Americans didn't want.. This is his legacy. He had a super majority to accomplish what he wanted and he did. You know who controlled congress during Clinton? You know why Clinton was re-elected? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't because he didn't have political skills and foresight. Mr. Obama never studied history because he hasn't learned from it, he's blaming it.

spelchek 6 months, 1 week ago

Yeah, you're right, the Washington Post doesn't know anything about politics. Just ask Woodward and Bernstein.

asb 6 months, 1 week ago

Yes indeed, two men you would've had executed for their efforts I suspect.

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting

Or login with:

OpenID

News Tribune