Romney Strategy: Question Obama’s Weakness, Reveal a New Vision of Prosperity and Power

In order for Mitt Romney to win the presidential election, he must present a few compelling questions to the American electorate, especially those who are undecided or independent. For example, how much longer can the Federal government keep spending and using stimulus as a means of re-generating the economy? How beneficial is our current tax code for keeping companies in business, and allowing more Americans the chance to get back to work, or attain better jobs? Will hard working, middle-class taxpayers be able to pay hundreds of dollars more per month in taxes for their healthcare, as well as the healthcare of the millions who do not pay income tax, or are unemployed? Does America want to spend another four years helping its enemies by buying their fuel and technology, rather than fully harvesting its own natural resources, like shale oil, and natural gas? In regard to defending the United States, can we trust Obama for another four years when under his watch, the U.S. southwestern border has been softened, the military is about to be marginalized, and Iran is months away from producing weapons-grade uranium which it can supply to its funded terrorist groups like Al Qaeda?

In the wake of the American economy suffering a major credit downgrade from Standard and Poors, how much longer can the federal government keep experimenting with tax payer funded stimulus packages in the hopes of creating an economic recovery? Can Americans afford another four years of a weakening dollar, and a never ending recession? Is Barack Obama a reliable choice in terms of bringing back the economy when our nation is still one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world? How beneficial is the current tax code for keeping companies in business, and allowing more Americans the chance to get back to work, or attain better jobs? It must be highlighted that when President Obama makes gaffs, saying how well the free market is operating, only someone out of touch with American business and financing, the engine that runs America, could make those statements. With current unemployment hovering at around 8.2%, and a GDP growth of about 2% percent, the contrast that Mitt Romney needs to create between himself and Barack Obama must be delineated by the fact that Romney wants to significantly lower the U.S. corporate tax from 35%, among the highest in the world, and reward businesses and individuals who help build the economy. Romney should be fearless in projecting his vision of hope for the future. He needs to keep hammering the message that only hard work, risk and success will result in increasing the GDP of the American economy. It must be known that under his leadership, the tax structure will not penalize someone moving up in terms of income tax brackets. In addition, the re-generation of skilled manufacturing depends on a free market that is not cuffed by the federal government, high corporate taxes, and superfluous environmental and banking regulations. Key to Romney’s economic message and vision is the promise to reform spending and taxation.

The most recent estimate from the Congressional Budget Official pertaining to the cost of the Affordable Care Act, and how it affects the cost of Medicaid, adds up to 2.6 trillion dollars, and it is still not fully known what is in the bill. Are federal government programs like the Affordable Care Act going to be embraced by American citizens who pay taxes once they realize how much they will be forced to pay? What will happen if many people decide to cheat the system by claiming that they are living in poverty so that they can either attain free healthcare, or avoid penalties for not purchasing it? As a result, will our economy be rendered bankrupt? Romney must rally on the fact that greater emphasis on government sponsored programs is what is holding back so many countries in Western Europe, and that copying these programs in America will bankrupt the American economy. It has to be demonstrated that the free market, especially in terms of small business, is the true economic voice of the America. Romney must campaign for a referendum on the federal government’s encroachment of the free market in regards to necessities like medicine and health care. The fact must be delivered that when 26 states rally against the Affordable Care Act, and the Obama administration makes no attempt to clean up the biggest shortcomings in the bill, or meet Americans that are against the Affordable Care Act half way, that American citizens, voters, and business will have to pay the price of a president who places ideological mandates over the economic preference and well-being of his citizens. Barack Obama must be exposed as a pure ideologue that places pride in his political views over the liberty, prosperity and freedom of America. The infliction that the cost of the Affordable Care Act will exact on America, especially the middle-class needs to be spelled out in language that business owners and taxpayers can understand so that there is an overwhelming demand to have the Affordable Care Act repealed through legislation. Romney needs to reassure the American public that based on his prolific record as an economic leader, he will fix issues that threaten the economic strength of America regardless of which president those problems originated under. The bottom line is that because of laws imposed under bills like the Affordable Care Act, many Americans, especially those in the middle-class, can expect to see their bills increasing by hundreds, if not thousands of dollars per month, depending on the size of the household or business. A significant number Americans will simply not be able to afford it, and many businesses will have to fire their staff, or cheat in order to stay in business.

If America decides to re-elect Obama, how will the U.S. economy suffer if he takes prohibitive action against the use of natural resources like shale oil, and natural gas? How much longer can the America support a leader who buys from and encourages his competitors and enemies to develop their supplies of natural resources while his economy contracts? Recently, natural gas has matched coal in terms of output in the U.S., and the surface has barely been scratched in terms of its supply. The market for usable shale oil in states like North Dakota keeps expanding as well. However, EPA regulations have essentially replaced the function of Cap and Trade. If organizations like the EPA continue to operate contrary to the needs American businesses large and small, the result will be higher electricity bills, rolling blackouts, and unaffordable fines pertaining to retrofitting for environmental goals. The bottom line is that many working class Americans will lose their jobs. When Mitt Romney presents his vision for the future of America, discoveries of new resources that can bolster the American economy need to be put forth front and center. New technology and inventions which make the harvesting of these resources more cost effective, clean and efficient need to be presented as well. Romney’s vision of a more abundant and prosperous future needs to be specific, and believable. It cannot be just another bumper sticker of “hope and change.”

Can the strength and security of America last through another four years of President Obama when our own federal government takes such a lax view on American domestic and international security? Currently, the Obama administration is trying to close nine border patrol stations in four states on the U.S.’s southwestern border. At a time when there is still a major drug war taking place along this border, with cartels that employ the use of anti-American terrorist groups like Hamas, one has to ask what President Obama is trying to accomplish.  A similar attitude is reflected in Obama’s timid attitude regarding Iran and Israel. How will the U.S. and the world be affected when Iran is able to supply the three major terrorist groups- Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al Qaeda with nuclear material for dirty bombs? It needs to be exposed that based on his treatment of Israel, and Benjamin Netanyahu, Barack Obama did not learn anything from September 11th. Obama is also planning to severely defund the U.S. military. One has to ask if this a wise decision, when possible war in the Straight of Hormuz is likely to erupt as a result of Iran’s drive for nuclear weapons. Iran’s leader has repeatedly said that he wishes to drive the U.S.’s most pivotal world ally, Israel into the sea, and that he would like to see the downfall of the United States as the most important country in the world. One can argue that Obama’s view of the military is irresponsible, or worse, ant-American. This needs to be highlighted by Mitt Romney as he campaigns on how important U.S. strength and security is to the world. As understandable as it is for the president to project the message that he does not want to enter a potentially long war with Iran, the fact is, the most important potential conflict in terms of foreign policy is the prospect of Iran attaining nuclear weapons. The danger in terms of conventional warfare is the possibility that other countries in the Middle East, like Saudi Arabia, inflicted with terrorist counterculture, will vie for nuclear weaponry after Iran attains nukes. More important is the possibility that if Iran develops nuclear weapons, the terrorist groups it sponsors will have fissile material at their disposal for terrorist attacks, inflicting exponentially more damage than they do now. Does America want to be responsible for allowing major terrorist groups to cause destruction which dwarfs what was accomplished on September 11th, potentially in the U.S. again? A war involving the United States against Iran would undoubtedly be very costly, but the alternative- major global economic hubs constantly held under attack with the use of dirty bombs could end up costing a lot more in terms of economic damage, and loss of mortality. Who is to say that if Iran comes to the bargaining table after stifling economic sanctions wreck its economy, it will reveal all of its enriched uranium capable of being used for nuclear weapons?

If Mitt Romney wins the presidential election, it will take place as a result of presenting the electorate a convincing, successful vision for America’s future. Romney needs to assure taxpayers that he will strengthen the economy by doing whatever takes to grow the GDP. He must provide a stark contrast to Barack Obama by reducing crippling federal regulations, and penalties affecting the financing of small business. Romney needs to make investing in American business more attractive by reducing corporate taxes, and offering simpler alternatives to the existing tax code. He must declare that he will let economic freedom determine which companies survive, and which ones fail instead of investing taxpayer dollars in what the federal government believes are a winners and losers. Romney must assure citizens that he has a clear-cut free market alternative to the Affordable Care Act, and that he will be in support of the legislature repealing it from day one as president. He must vow to curb the overreach of government regulatory entities like the EPA, and declare to the American people that he will allow business to fully develop all of the natural resources that America has been blessed with, allowing for energy independence in the U.S. Last, Mitt Romney must assure Americans that under his watch, that the U.S. will be as safe as possible, with diligence in how security is conducted domestically and internationally. He must be committed to keeping the U.S. military the strongest in the world.

In the wake of the American economy suffering a major credit downgrade from Standard and Poors, how much longer can the federal government keep experimenting with tax payer funded stimulus packages in the hopes of creating an economic recovery? Can Americans afford another four years of a weakening dollar, and a never ending recession? Is Barack Obama a reliable choice in terms of bringing back the economy when our nation is still one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world? How beneficial is the current tax code for keeping companies in business, and allowing more Americans the chance to get back to work, or attain better jobs? It must be highlighted that when President Obama makes gaffs, saying how well the free market is operating, only someone out of touch with American business and financing, the engine that runs America, could make those statements. With current unemployment hovering at around 8.2%, and a GDP growth of about 2% percent, the contrast that Mitt Romney needs to create between himself and Barack Obama must be delineated by the fact that Romney wants to significantly lower the U.S. corporate tax from 35%, among the highest in the world, and reward businesses and individuals who help build the economy. Romney should be fearless in projecting his vision of hope for the future. He needs to keep hammering the message that only hard work, risk and success will result in increasing the GDP of the American economy. It must be known that under his leadership, the tax structure will not penalize someone moving up in terms of income tax brackets. In addition, the re-generation of skilled manufacturing depends on a free market that is not cuffed by the federal government, high corporate taxes, and superfluous environmental and banking regulations. Key to Romney’s economic message and vision is the promise to reform spending and taxation.

The most recent estimate from the Congressional Budget Official pertaining to the cost of the Affordable Care Act, and how it affects the cost of Medicaid, adds up to 2.6 trillion dollars, and it is still not fully known what is in the bill. Are federal government programs like the Affordable Care Act going to be embraced by American citizens who pay taxes once they realize how much they will be forced to pay? What will happen if many people decide to cheat the system by claiming that they are living in poverty so that they can either attain free healthcare, or avoid penalties for not purchasing it? As a result, will our economy be rendered bankrupt? Romney must rally on the fact that greater emphasis on government sponsored programs is what is holding back so many countries in Western Europe, and that copying these programs in America will bankrupt the American economy. It has to be demonstrated that the free market, especially in terms of small business, is the true economic voice of the America. Romney must campaign for a referendum on the federal government’s encroachment of the free market in regards to necessities like medicine and health care. The fact must be delivered that when 26 states rally against the Affordable Care Act, and the Obama administration makes no attempt to clean up the biggest shortcomings in the bill, or meet Americans that are against the Affordable Care Act half way, that American citizens, voters, and business will have to pay the price of a president who places ideological mandates over the economic preference and well-being of his citizens. Barack Obama must be exposed as a pure ideologue that places pride in his political views over the liberty, prosperity and freedom of America. The infliction that the cost of the Affordable Care Act will exact on America, especially the middle-class needs to be spelled out in language that business owners and taxpayers can understand so that there is an overwhelming demand to have the Affordable Care Act repealed through legislation. Romney needs to reassure the American public that based on his prolific record as an economic leader, he will fix issues that threaten the economic strength of America regardless of which president those problems originated under. The bottom line is that because of laws imposed under bills like the Affordable Care Act, many Americans, especially those in the middle-class, can expect to see their bills increasing by hundreds, if not thousands of dollars per month, depending on the size of the household or business. A significant number Americans will simply not be able to afford it, and many businesses will have to fire their staff, or cheat in order to stay in business.

If America decides to re-elect Obama, how will the U.S. economy suffer if he takes prohibitive action against the use of natural resources like shale oil, and natural gas? How much longer can the America support a leader who buys from and encourages his competitors and enemies to develop their supplies of natural resources while his economy contracts? Recently, natural gas has matched coal in terms of output in the U.S., and the surface has barely been scratched in terms of its supply. The market for usable shale oil in states like North Dakota keeps expanding as well. However, EPA regulations have essentially replaced the function of Cap and Trade. If organizations like the EPA continue to operate contrary to the needs American businesses large and small, the result will be higher electricity bills, rolling blackouts, and unaffordable fines pertaining to retrofitting for environmental goals. The bottom line is that many working class Americans will lose their jobs. When Mitt Romney presents his vision for the future of America, discoveries of new resources that can bolster the American economy need to be put forth front and center. New technology and inventions which make the harvesting of these resources more cost effective, clean and efficient need to be presented as well. Romney’s vision of a more abundant and prosperous future needs to be specific, and believable. It cannot be just another bumper sticker of “hope and change.”

Can the strength and security of America last through another four years of President Obama when our own federal government takes such a lax view on American domestic and international security? Currently, the Obama administration is trying to close nine border patrol stations in four states on the U.S.’s southwestern border. At a time when there is still a major drug war taking place along this border, with cartels that employ the use of anti-American terrorist groups like Hamas, one has to ask what President Obama is trying to accomplish.  A similar attitude is reflected in Obama’s timid attitude regarding Iran and Israel. How will the U.S. and the world be affected when Iran is able to supply the three major terrorist groups- Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al Qaeda with nuclear material for dirty bombs? It needs to be exposed that based on his treatment of Israel, and Benjamin Netanyahu, Barack Obama did not learn anything from September 11th. Obama is also planning to severely defund the U.S. military. One has to ask if this a wise decision, when possible war in the Straight of Hormuz is likely to erupt as a result of Iran’s drive for nuclear weapons. Iran’s leader has repeatedly said that he wishes to drive the U.S.’s most pivotal world ally, Israel into the sea, and that he would like to see the downfall of the United States as the most important country in the world. One can argue that Obama’s view of the military is irresponsible, or worse, ant-American. This needs to be highlighted by Mitt Romney as he campaigns on how important U.S. strength and security is to the world. As understandable as it is for the president to project the message that he does not want to enter a potentially long war with Iran, the fact is, the most important potential conflict in terms of foreign policy is the prospect of Iran attaining nuclear weapons. The danger in terms of conventional warfare is the possibility that other countries in the Middle East, like Saudi Arabia, inflicted with terrorist counterculture, will vie for nuclear weaponry after Iran attains nukes. More important is the possibility that if Iran develops nuclear weapons, the terrorist groups it sponsors will have fissile material at their disposal for terrorist attacks, inflicting exponentially more damage than they do now. Does America want to be responsible for allowing major terrorist groups to cause destruction which dwarfs what was accomplished on September 11th, potentially in the U.S. again? A war involving the United States against Iran would undoubtedly be very costly, but the alternative- major global economic hubs constantly held under attack with the use of dirty bombs could end up costing a lot more in terms of economic damage, and loss of mortality. Who is to say that if Iran comes to the bargaining table after stifling economic sanctions wreck its economy, it will reveal all of its enriched uranium capable of being used for nuclear weapons?

If Mitt Romney wins the presidential election, it will take place as a result of presenting the electorate a convincing, successful vision for America’s future. Romney needs to assure taxpayers that he will strengthen the economy by doing whatever takes to grow the GDP. He must provide a stark contrast to Barack Obama by reducing crippling federal regulations, and penalties affecting the financing of small business. Romney needs to make investing in American business more attractive by reducing corporate taxes, and offering simpler alternatives to the existing tax code. He must declare that he will let economic freedom determine which companies survive, and which ones fail instead of investing taxpayer dollars in what the federal government believes are a winners and losers. Romney must assure citizens that he has a clear-cut free market alternative to the Affordable Care Act, and that he will be in support of the legislature repealing it from day one as president. He must vow to curb the overreach of government regulatory entities like the EPA, and declare to the American people that he will allow business to fully develop all of the natural resources that America has been blessed with, allowing for energy independence in the U.S. Last, Mitt Romney must assure Americans that under his watch, that the U.S. will be as safe as possible, with diligence in how security is conducted domestically and internationally. He must be committed to keeping the U.S. military the strongest in the world.