Romney Accuses Obama of Worsening the Economy

Armando Cruz Ubaldo; ID 138740

United States Government and Politics

Source: New York Times; Washington Post; The Salt Lake Tribune

Since 2009, the main topic in United States has been, directly or indirectly of economic matters. The housing bubbles and the semi-collapse of financial/banking systems across the globe hit hard home, producing fears and speculation in the political class of the hegemonic country. How good were Obama’s responses to the economic crisis? Is it true what the team of Romney has been spreading about, that Obama’s administration worsened the economy instead of making a smooth recovery?

  According to several studies, post-modern financial crisis - which are caused by the overreach of the private sector - are commonly followed by years of unemployment and poor growth. Therefore, crises are preceded by credit bubbles, in which individuals (and companies as well) will cut their spending without much State intervention; in turn, this is the cause of the slow recovery due to the slow or near zero growth. However, in order to foster economic recovery after a crisis of this nature, the State needs to increase government spending, generating and sustaining employment while giving time to the private sector to regain stability. There is substantial proof that Obama’s administration did just that; as way of example, his most important legislation – the “Affordable Care Act” – is not just an answer to social welfare but also a well-planned strategy to promote spending.

  Then, why did the Obama administration has been accused of not making much for the so much needed economic recovery? Why does Romney sustain as a logo (in his official website) that there is a certain moral responsibility to avoid spending more than is gained? Unfortunately, even though Obama’s administration responses to the crisis have been asserted and on the right path, errors have been committed and the Republican obstruction to any reforms have caused the stimulus to be small and short-lived. After this brief recapitulation, I think that it is fair enough to say that Romney’s accusations towards Obama administration have been misled due to all the political implications it would have for Obama. Meanwhile this negative statements about Obama’s work and abilities are being spread, Romney is pushing forward the image of a business man that know “what is needed” to recover USA’s global status and leadership.

  Finally, if Romney wins the elections, it will mean the return of the neoliberal trend full force; the hardly accepted legislation Obama’s administration passed in order to rescue what was left of the “welfare state” in the leader of Occident society will most surely be turned down; the communion with some economic partners will must likely suffer as well (such as Mexico and Latin America in general), making international trade to be more strict and hard looking. Personally, I think that Obama has done a good job responding to the economic crisis in USA, while Romney’s party has been responsible for slowing down the progress of recovery and therefore he is inadequate for such a responsibility.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/candidates/mitt-romney

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/the-myth-of-obamas-spending-binge/2012/05/23/gJQA7biTkU_blog.html

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/55125813-82/financial-crisis-evidence-recessions.html.csp