The first Presidential debate left voters scratching their heads.
Mitt Romney was not the monster that the Obama folks had painted him to be. Actually, he was a pretty nice guy and didn’t seem out of touch and “in it for the rich people of the country”.
What was even more stunning was the fact that Obama and his campaign advisers seemed genuinely shocked and stunned that the persona they had been cultivating for Mitt Romney was completely wrong.
One would think that a quick look at his tax returns would have given them a clue that Mitt is not a selfish man. But then, Obama was not looking for endearing qualities when they combed through the Romney Tax Return. No, they were looking for proof to confirm that their narrative of the greedy, uncaring, out of touch Romney was just that.
Otherwise they would have noticed that in addition to the 14.1% Romney paid in Federal Taxes he also gave more than twice that to charity. In fact, between taxes and charity Romney gave away 57.9% of his income.
So, should Romney “pay a little bit more” because he is successful? Most voters now understand that Romney already does pay a lot more. And they simply can’t see how Obama could possibly claim Romney is a greedy rich guy out only for himself. People simply don’t give away more then half of what they earn if they are all about greed.
So voters see Obama as less than truthful.
But Obama plans to attack Romney again – as VP Joe Biden did in the Vice Presidential debate – for wanting to give the “super wealthy” a tax cut that will cost $5 Trillion. Except that Romney has proposed no such thing, as he tried to get through to President Obama in the last debate. But Obama is a bit thick sometimes.
Romney’s plan is to bring America back into competition on the world market by lowering taxes across the board 20%. Markets and businesses like certainty. With the huge tax rate that Obama wants to put on businesses and anyone making a lot of money, Romney understands that this scares companies. When you look at tax rates in other countries, like Canada for instance, you see a 15% Corporate rate. In the US, the rate is over 39%. And when businesses compare the rates of potential places to locate a business, deductions are hard to calculate. Romney wants to remove many of the deductions (which Democrats call Loopholes if they don’t like them and deductions if they do) so the rates compare favorably to other nations.
Not only will this attract new businesses, it will also make it less desirable to outsource jobs.
And Canada has seen no drop in revenue with cutting their tax rate to 15% according to The Globe and Mail:
Remarkably, the gradual lowering of the corporate tax rate appears to have resulted in little loss in corporate tax revenue (when compared with long-term, prerecession revenues). Corporate tax revenue did take a big hit ($10-billion) in 2008, the year of the market meltdown. But the tax cuts were barely started in 2008.
By 2010-2011, federal corporate tax revenue reached $30-billion, substantially more than the average of $25-billion in the last four years of the prior Liberal government: 2002 through 2005. Further, federal corporate tax revenue equaled 1.8 per cent of Canadian gross domestic product, a much higher percentage than the revenue produced during the recessionary years in the early 1990′s. In tough-times 1992, for example, corporate revenue, with higher tax rates, fell to 1 per cent of GDP.
So the Democrats are unable to argue with the success of cutting the tax rates for Corporations, something both John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan did with the same results Canada has seen. Instead, they are attacking Romney by demanding specifics. Exactly which loopholes would he close?
Romney has said he will leave the exact details to Congress. Rather than use the Obama technique of ramming something down American’s throats (like ObamaCare) he would allow Congress to work that out. And he assured America that most of the loophole closures will be for the upper income earners.
But the press demands details (while they bubbled over the ‘Hope and Change’ plan of 4 years ago). They demand that Romney dictate the exact closures. They fear the math won’t work out, even though they didn’t ask Obama how he planned to cut the deficit in half in his first term.
So look for the Obama camp with the press at their backs to press Romney on minute details and continue giving Obama a pass on doubling the deficit.
In the first debate, Obama was completely inept at challenging Romney because his own record comes into play. It will be interesting to watch the second debate and see exactly how Obama plans to expose Romney as a liar while ignoring the reality of the last 4 years.
Mitt Romney showed he was not a monster. He is a caring person that is just like most Americans. The Democrats set the expectations for Romney and were seen as completely off target.
But then, creating a false persona is something they did pretty well with Obama. The problem is, the makeup falls off when the teleprompter goes dark. What we saw in the last debate was an inarticulate Obama that was unable to explain his record.
And we also saw a Mitt Romney that was likable, intelligent, honest and a great businessman. Not the monster Obama had led us to believe.
Mitt was no monster and Obama was no god.
Voters have discovered that Obama and the Democrats have lied about pretty much everything.