Skip to footer

Six points where Mitt Romney and his economic advisers are mostly wrong

Mitt Romney’s economic plan is largely based on a whitepaper written by several “heavyweight” economists. The problem is, it's riddled with fundamental flaws. Here are six points where Mitt Romney and his economic advisers are mostly wrong about what ails the American economy and how to fix it.

2. 2009 stimulus act

Although Romney supported the bailout of the banks, he opposed Mr. Obama’s bailout of the auto industry. He also opposed Obama’s 2009 stimulus act, officially titled the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Romney’s economic heavyweights use flawed logic in challenging the stimulus. They cite studies that apparently show that the Act’s “cash for clunkers,” “housing” programs, and “green” investments did not stimulate the economy.

But only a small percentage of the stimulus was devoted to these programs. For example, cash for clunkers accounted for less than 1 percent of the Act’s spending. Furthermore, the independent and nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and several independent economists have estimated that the stimulus added significantly to both economic growth and employment.

What if Romney had won the GOP primary in 2008 and become president? What if he had followed the advice of his economic advisers? It’s fair to assume he would have 1) blocked the bailout of GM and Chrysler; 2) not pursued the 2009 stimulus act; and 3) replaced Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board (Fed), with a person who would not have adopted the monetary stimulus policies that have kept interest rates low.

Romney would have likely adopted the same type of “tight” fiscal and monetary policies that led to the Great Depression, and we likely would have had Great Depression II. After independently reaching this conclusion, I heard Alan Mulally, CEO of Ford Motor Company, which was not bailed out, express a similar view on Fox News.

2 of 6
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.