400 North Capitol Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
- Toll Free 1.888.564.6273
- Local 202.783.3870
Over the last couple of years, Paul Krugman and The New York Times have championed a bigger stimulus, which equals more government deficits and debt. Recently, another New York Times scribe, Nicholas Kristof, claims Romney's economic plan is equal to the austerity plan of many European counties, particularly Germany and England.
Kristof makes no attempt to describe Romney's position on America's debt crisis. Instead, Kristof quotes a number of Republicans – Karl Rove, Joe Wilson, Jeff Sessions and more - who praised the austerity plans of many European nations. Kristof then concludes a Romney-presidency would stagnate America's economic growth to that of England and Germany. All without addressing Romeny's approach on the issue.
Kristof's tact seems to be the following:
Republicans praise austerity. Germany (allegedly) and England are floundering economically. Romney is a Republican. Austerity is deemed to be bad. Hence, don't vote for Romney.
Obviously, these leaps in reasoning support the New York Times mantra; austerity is bad and America needs more stimulus.
However, every sentient American knows Romney selected Paul Ryan to be his running mate. Ryan is the most-knowledgeable elected official in America on budgets, deficits and debt, and the mastermind who developed The Path to Prosperity: A Blueprint for American Renewal. Ryan's proposed budget passed in the House of Representatives, but was not considered in the Senate.
Why did Kristof choose not to challenge Ryan's budget? Why did he quote a few Republicans' off-handed remarks about Europe, which has different problems than America? Rather than debating a serious proposal, Kristof and The New York Times would rather demagogue anything that cuts government spending.
In May, I compared the spending cuts in Sweden and Germany to Ryan's proposed budget. Robert Barro of Harvard found the balanced budgets of Sweden and Germany produced the best economic growth in Europe, and Veronique de Rugy of George Mason praised that these countries did not “jack up taxes.” From my previous blog:
Since 2009, Germany and Sweden cut spending and balanced their budgets, which produced good economic growth, substantially better than the economic growth of United States and the remaining European countries. Robert Barro a Harvard economist reports in the Wall Street Journal:
Two interesting European cases are Germany and Sweden, each of which moved toward rough budget balance between 2009 and 2011 while sustaining comparatively strong growth—the average growth rate per year of real GDP for 2010 and 2011 was 3.6% for Germany and 4.9% for Sweden. If austerity is so terrible, how come these two countries have done so well?
Veronique de Rugy of George Mason University succinctly states: The answer is that they constrained spending without jacking up taxes.
Ryan seeks to restructure government programs, which would reduce spending by approximately $4 trillion in 10 years. The Republicans in the House have passed his budget. The Senate has not passed a budget in three years. President Obama has presented a budget that increases spending enormously, and never is balanced. This budget was resoundly defeated by Republicans and Democrats in the Senate. Obviously, the President's plan is to “jackup” taxes, and will not be just on the rich.
America must have a debate on budgets, deficits and debt. Ryan has earnestly addressed these issues. These issues should have been the center of our presidential debates. They were ignored by the politicians and most of the media. It's a shame.