Why Mitt Romney Winning Matters

In 1929 the stock market crashed. The following year there was a run on over 9,000 banks. Nobody trusted the economic system and so instead of investing their money it was hidden safely under their mattresses. When money is kept out of circulation, it has a devastating effect on the economy. Companies can't borrow money, families can't buy houses and unemployment remains very high. 

In recent years we have experienced a deep recession, and while it wasn't as acute as the Great Depression in the beginning, it doesn't show any clear signs of stopping. Many economists point to one word to describe the problem: UNCERTAINTY. Investors aren't hiding money in their mattresses, they are simply keeping it in their bank accounts. Billions of dollars are just sitting on the sidelines because of this uncertainty. Companies that are experiencing good quarters aren't investing in new hires, they are saving up against another possible downturn. Middle income families that used to trust index funds and other safer equity funds- aren't so sure anymore. So they wait to invest.

Mitt Romney

So what does Mitt Romney have to do with this? The US economy is fragile and those with substantial money to invest are waiting for the right moment to jump back into the market. They are waiting for a signal. If Mitt Romney is elected it will send a very strong signal that we have someone in the White House that understands the complexity of our economy. Obama is good person, someone who I think is very intelligent, but he doesn't have the same skill set as Romney. 

In the second debate, the town hall format with Candy Crowley asking the questions, I think the crucial moment of the debate was completely missed by much of the media and the public. Candy interrupts Romney to question his budget plan, "If somehow when you get in there, there isn't enough tax revenue coming in. If somehow the numbers don't add up, would you be willing to look again (referring to possible tax hikes)...?" Romney's answer here is key:

"Well of course they add up. I was someone who ran businesses for 25 years and balanced the budget. I ran the Olympics and balanced the budget. I ran the state of Massachusetts as a governor ... and balanced the budget all four years."

Romney isn't guessing that he will have the ability to make the numbers work, he has built his reputation and his personal fortune by making the numbers work. Now Democrats scoff at this reply, claiming Romney's plan won't work, his numbers don't add up. This is where I part ways with the Democrats. They are trusting a Junior Senator-turned President with 4 years of experience and $6 trillion of deficit spending to come up with a better budget? They think that somehow a savvy politician will do a better job managing the largest economy of the free world? Democrats may feel secure in this ignorance, but investors don't. They are scared of what Obama might do in his second term, and this uncertainty will only persist if he is re-elected. 

Obama did have a chance though, there is no question that there was a moment when the stars were aligned for the President. A few days after he was elected, he rounded up all the leaders of both parties into the White House for a meeting. In this meeting Obama could have secured his future right then and there by building consensus and looking for the best ideas in the room, but that isn't what he did. Instead he shared that he would be willing to listen to ideas, but reminded the Republicans "we won." Making it clear that the Democrats were in charge. In this moment he torched any chance he had at building consensus. Obama lost his moment and opportunity to be a real statesmen. 

Some place the blame on Congress, but Obama had 2 years with both houses to put through whatever legislation the Democrats wanted. All we have to show for it is the National Healthcare Plan. When Obama had both houses at his command, he was effective, but once he had to work together with Republicans there was gridlock. Would Romney have fared better? He did in Massachusetts. As a Republican Governor in one of the most liberal states in America he balanced the budget all four years. Mitt Romney has a track record of getting things done in the face of opposition, we don't know what to expect from Obama- and that is the problem.

But what about the social issues? Mitt Romney isn't running as President to repeal Roe v. Wade or pass an amendment to ban gay marriage.  Mitt Romney has never been about hot button social issues, he isn't looking to get elected to advance some social cause. He wants to get elected to serve his country and lead America out of this recession, and I believe that he has a very unique skill set that could help accomplish that.

Either way, we will recover from this recession. Eventually Americans will do what they always do, pull themselves up from their boot straps and find a way to rebuild. They don't need the government's help to do that, what they need is the confidence that nobody is going to stand in their way. Four years of Obama have left us with nothing but uncertainty. I think it is time for change. Four years ago I voted for Obama, next week I'm voting for Mitt Romney.