The Illusion of Choice

During each election cycle, Democrats and Republicans give dramatic speeches saying that America is at a crossroads and must decide between two sharply contrasting visions for the country. A closer look at both major party nominees reveals that they are not that different. While their rhetoric on economic, social and foreign policy issues differ, the likely outcomes of either presidency do not.

Abortion, Contraception, and Gay Marriage

It does not matter whether or not Mitt Romney actually disagrees with Obama on abortion or gay marriage. Abortion is federally permitted as a result of Roe v. Wade. There have been four pro-life Presidents since Roe v. Wade, and not a single one has successfully overturned it. Only a constitutional amendment could overpower this Supreme Court decision. Given Romney’s numerous flip-flops on abortion and contraception, it is difficult to know if he would really move to limit both practices. Nevertheless, even if Romney actually wanted to limit the two, he wouldn’t have the legislative power to do so. Gay marriage enjoyed similar leniency under Bush after Massachusetts first legalized it in 2004. The issue has and always will be regulated on a state level, something that neither candidate can reverse.

Obamacare

President Obama’s main first-term legislative victory was the passage of the Affordable Care Act (colloquially known as Obamacare). This law will nationalize one sixth of the economy over the next decade. It empowers the government to penalize individuals for not purchasing health insurance. The Republican candidates for President all denounced this law as a broad overreach of the federal government and promised to repeal it after regaining control of the Senate and the White House.

Unsurprisingly, Mitt Romney has been at opposite ends of the healthcare issue. The individual mandate is nothing new. In fact, it was signed into law in Massachusetts by none other than Romney himself. Mitt Romney’s record of health care reform makes him uniquely unqualified to criticize Obama’s policy on this issue, which makes it unlikely that he would be able to successfully repeal the law, especially after it provisions begin to roll out. Perhaps time will tell what role, if any, Romney thinks the federal government should play in healthcare. However, for now, both major party candidates have records that favor government involvement in healthcare.

Budget

Both Democratic and Republican parties agree that the budget is out of control but disagree on how to fix it. Obama favors higher taxes, higher spending and more regulation while Romney opposes most government interference or regulation. They are right; the budget is a disaster. The federal government takes in approximately $6 billion daily but spends close to $10 billion. That means the federal government sinks $4 billion deeper into debt every day or $1.46 trillion every year. Nevertheless, neither Romney nor Obama has offered a substantive plan to pay down the debt or balance the budget. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office shows that entitlements eat $2.25 trillion, or 91% of all tax revenue collected by the federal government each year.1  Obama says we should pay down the debt with tax hikes on businesses and cuts to discretionary military spending. While tax cuts for job creators and excessive military spending have contributed to the deficit, they are not the core of the problem. It is mathematically impossible to address the debt or deficit without comprehensive entitlement reform. Obama has not stated his intentions to address these swelling programs and has viciously attacked Republican Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan’s plan to privatize them. If tax revenue stays current, the cost of entitlements alone will be $2.5 trillion per year by 2021, more than the projected federal revenue for that year. If we continue on this course, deficits and national debt will rise exponentially.

By selecting Paul Ryan as his running mate, Mitt Romney appears willing to address the rising cost of entitlements but his overall solution isn’t much better than Obama’s. Paul Ryan’s budget plan, The Path to Prosperity, supposedly saves $5 trillion over ten years by privatizing entitlements as well as making substantial cuts to the Department of Education. Nevertheless, the money saved from these entitlements would not be used to pay down the debt and deficit. Instead, it would be used to pay for an additional $4.6 trillion in tax cuts and to augment military spending by 20%. The Tax Policy Center estimates that fully implementing Ryan’s plan would cut federal revenue by 41% ($900 billion per year). Regardless of who wins in November, the debt will likely be close to $20 trillion within four years. While both candidates agree that spending cuts are necessary, they disagree over what should be cut and who deserves tax cuts. Regrettably, neither plan accomplishes enough to balance the budget or pay down the debt.

Military Involvement and Defense Budget

In 2008, then-Senator Obama ran as an anti-war candidate. Pulling out of Iraq was a priority. While he did end the war there, he tripled our presence in Afghanistan, and agrees with Romney in saying we must stay until 2024. Furthermore, Obama allowed U.S. weapons to be used in a U.N. mission to oust Colonel Gaddafi from Libya. Romney and Obama agree that a war with Iran is “on the table” should Iran come close to acquiring nuclear warheads. This warmongering rhetoric forces our enemies to acquire nuclear bombs for defense.

As for the budget, while Obama plans to cut $500 billion of military spending over the next decade, these cuts don’t go far enough in weaning us off our hawkish foreign policy. Romney states in his book, No Apology, that this style of American foreign policy is necessary for global security. He favors continuing to spend at least 4% of GDP on the military while also discussing the importance of balanced budgets. 20% of federal spending is for “defense”. The US military accounts for 43% of global defense spending, a figure Romney seems to think is fecklessly low.

Anticlimactic

2012’s is an anticlimactic election because both major party candidates lack the courage and the desire to bring about the fundamental change necessary to grow our economy, pay down our debt and rebuild our image abroad. Both candidates promise to restore the American Dream. Do not be fooled. Their mutual policies have led to record high debts, deficits, unemployment, government dependence as well as a stagnant economy and violent enemies around the world. Their conflicting policies have divided Americans in radical political movements like Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party Protests. More of the same from either candidate will make these problems worse, not better. So who’s going to win in November? The polls show that the two are in a deadlock. This is an especially grim deadlock: one that presents little contrast between candidates, little choice between ideologies and little hope about the future of the country.