To the Editor:
With just days until the election, here are a few reasons why Romney makes a poor choice for president.
The most important flaw is his lack of conviction. His positions change constantly. During this last debate he switched from fiery hawk to soft speaking dove. He abandoned the hard rhetoric against Iran. He went from urging “kinetic military action” to “we can’t kill” our way to victory. He moves so easily between attacking the president for naming a withdrawal timetable from Afghanistan to agreeing wholeheartedly with the plan. It is chilling to hear him one day suggesting that it was a monumental error not leaving a substantial force in Iraq and during the debate agreeing with the move. This is not a leader and shows lack of character. How can he be trusted when what he says today has absolutely no value tomorrow?
These position changes make for very dangerous foreign policy and would lead to mistrust among our allies. America’s foes would also be very fearful in trying to deal with a chameleon.
It is one thing for a politician to evolve in time, changing positions gradually as events, maturity, influx of new information or a myriad of conditions affect one’s viewpoints. But it is quite another to change your mind in a matter of days or even hours just to appease the audience of the moment or to tweak a few votes from a specific group.
The next most important reason is simply that his economic plan makes no sense. He wants to cut taxes by as much as $5 trillion and increase military spending another $2 trillion. He claims he can pay for this by eliminating some loopholes and tax deductions, but not saying which or how many.
These tax deductions are sometimes a necessity for some families who look forward to a tax refund in the way of Earned Income Credit, Child Tax Credits, Home Interest and Sales tax deductions and charitable contribution deductions. The people that depend on the refunds will be most hurt by this plan.
His outright refusal to disclose his tax returns or list his offshore investments and bank accounts is problematical.
Romney’s disregard of 47 percent as well as his insulting remarks directed at them remains unforgivable.
When it comes to women’s rights, one of the differing positions is equal pay for women. Obama is pushing for economic equality while Romney refuses to state his position. According to some economists, equal pay would generate $200 billion in higher payroll for female workers which would flow into the economy creating more demand, therefore more jobs.
Birth control is also an economic issue as well as a health concern. Birth control allows young women to concentrate on education or career building without worrying about an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy which would disrupt or delay the path to economic security. It should be up to women themselves to choose their pregnancy timetable. Romney’s position on contraception and related subjects is murky and confusing.
On the subject of national defense there are two differing positions. Obama asserts that he believes in quality not quantity when it comes to the Navy specifically and armed forces in general. Romney wants to build ships to give the Navy the same number of ships it had around 1917 without seeming to understand that many of those vessels performed duties that are no longer needed or that one of today’s aircraft carriers could have destroyed the Japanese fleet that invaded Pearl Harbor.
As for education, Romney is now singing a different tune. A few months ago he insisted we had enough teachers (and firemen/police) but now he loves teachers and is embracing Obama’s plea for enhanced education.
In contrast, when President Obama took office, the economy was in its death throes, bleeding jobs by many thousands per month. American automakers were struggling and the housing bubble explosion cost homeowners thousands in lost equity and outright foreclosures.
The hemorrhaging of jobs was halted and is now on the plus side. The auto industry was saved. Foreclosures have lessened and home values are rising. There is slow but steady progress.
It is more likely that Romney will engage in another armed conflict than Obama. The president is far better equipped to manage foreign policy. Romney has filled his ranks with castoffs from the Bush presidency.
All things considered, President Obama is the better choice.