Romney does need to come out and tell the people what he will do, no doubt. the difference with Romney and Obama is that Romney believes the private sector will get us out of this mess and Obama believes that government will do that. so the people can choose the path they want. As far as President Clinton goes, we did have good economic times in the 90's but that bubble also burst, happens every time. His policies also help to create the mess we have today. http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/news/mn-42807http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Clinton's_mortgage_deregulation_bill

What Scot says today is true enough but I have to digress to another topic. Scot your column is well read and I apologize for taking advantage of it. Yesterday there were riots in Egypt and Libya fomented ostensibly by a Youtube video produced by an Israeli citizen with American backers. With a history of knowing that such extreme views on Islam inflames certain elements of the poorer Islamic countries of the world it went viral. Death and destruction has followed. The US recognizing a small group who sees red with such inciting material tried to bring calm to the situation. It stated that such views are not approved by our government but it is acceptable that people react with violence. Instead of letting his government, of which he is currently not a part, handle the situation he puts in his 2 un-welcomed cents by showing no sense. He called our government's action "apologizing." He shows little recognition how to minimize widening a conflict so we are again at war. If such a conflict does grow so American troops are needed the draft should be implement and his 5 amazing sons should be first in line. He would subject our soldiers to harm, death, and repeated tours because he does not get it. When oversees crises occur it is the President who is in charge, not a dangerously misinformed Republican candidate. Tax policy is a legislative duty and although the President can give direction that duty ultimately belongs to the Congress. But the questions dealing with War and Peace on an immediate basis falls to the Chief Executive. Sorry for tacking off but the Globe has yet to report on this and Mitt Romney's response was too disturbing to wait.

I'm a little surprised when people are surprised by Mitt.  What was Mitt when he was governor.  He was by any terms a "liberal".  He runs for Pres. and now he is a "conservative".  Whatever these titles have come to mean.  Mitt has always been the same.  Mitt likes to win.  Mitt will represent anything he believes will lead him to a win.  He will espouse any position, support any goal that will get him what he desires.  Loyalty, non-exitent.  A moral center?  I don't pretend to know Mormonism but whatever the moral center is it's probably something close to his own.  Would he allow it to get into the way of his politics?  I doubt it.  Mitt doesn't offer these details I believe because he doesn't know what they are.  He is what he says he is, a business guy.  By the numbers, unimaginative, the impact of what does upon others, unimportant.  Mitt calculate and right now he calculates if he says nothing, hammers on the wedge issues, subtely implies Obama isn't a "free enterprise" guy he can win simply through the mobolizing of the fading white working class.  I think he's wrong but he is fun to watch. 

Scott, you could make the same argument about Barack Obama. What will he do in his second term to reduce the federal deficit? We don't know for sure but "taxing millionaires and billionaires" won't do the job. I predict that he will propose a national value-added tax to raise large sums from the 99 percent. He certainly won't reduce federal spending except for the defense budget.

I think it is pointless to try and pin down a candidate on granular specifics, because they ultimately would need a willing congress to comply.  The broader theme, though is simply this:  The added tax revenues will come from a robust economy, as it did after the tax reform of 1986.  That led to more taxes paid, by more people, at a lower marginal tax rate.  It's the economy, Scot.

I think it would have been fun if Scot had played this narrative with Barack Obama in 2008.  He campaigned on ending all the war on terror policies which had kept us safe since 9-11, but had no specifics as to what he would do instead.  As many of us predicted, when he transitioned from being a candidate to being a president, he needed to keep the country safe, and kept all the policies intact.  

Mitt has absolutely no plan in mind other than buying the presidency, whether this takes demagoguery or outright lies.   There never has been any substance to this man beyond his desire for recognition.    

I too was appalled by Ryan's statement on a national television station about waiting to use specifics until there was a public view. But this is because I have not yet weaned myself from the illusion that stating valid specifics would be met with understanding by an intelligent, well-informed, properly educated public, as the arguments are covered without bias by the media which would, at the same time, be demanding valid specifics on ANY subject from Obama. Scot -- tossing in an afterthought phrase noting that Obama has a "vagueness of his own" but that "Romney's is in a fantasy land all his own" implies that you missed the entire 2008 election and the ensuing years. It just doesn't get any vaguer that "hope and change" now adjusted to "hope takes time". Give us just ONE column about Obama's bet-and-bluff campaign.

The Romney plan to cut loop holes that they refuse to reveal, indicates the fear that will be created if revealed. But the real question is how much will the deficit be cut by introducing these cuts? You can be sure that the loop hole cuts will cost the upper income earners LESS than returning the tax rate to 39.5%! The right complains that raising the rate will only reduce the deficit by 20%. Where are the Republican numbers indicating the deficit reduction by their loop hole scheme?

I am so tired of hearing that the top !% are the job creators. The reality is that small businesses create jobs. When a business has a product to sell and the demand for that product increases, two things will happen, jobs will be added and probably equipment will be purchased.  The point made that the top 1% will invest and create jobs does not really make sense. They will invest only in companies that are already doing well. And finally, if you think that the wealthy will stop investing because their tax rate rose is also false. Through the 90`s when rates were higher the wealthy got richer and more millionaires were created. The wealthy will always find ways to make money, and good for them.

I haven't heard anyone say that the top 1% are the job creators. The CBO points out that wealthy Americans earn about 50% of all income but pay nearly 70% of the federal tax burden. Haven't heard anyone explain why they should be paying even more toward "their share". Remembering when wealthy Swedes leaft Sweden when the top rates hit them too hard; Sweden then got a really big percent of nothing. No reason why our wealthiest citizens can't leave, and let you pay more toward their share, Bob Ann.

And Obama's plan? This from the WP:

He [Obama] has offered a reasonable plan of $4 trillion in debt reduction over a decade. For every $2.5 trillion in spending cuts, he raises a dollar in new revenues, 2.5 to 1. And he has tight controls on future spending. That’s the kind of balanced approach proposed by the Simpson-Bowles commission, a bipartisan commission. … It passes the arithmetic test.”

— Former president Bill Clinton

“President Obama’s plan uses the bipartisan commission’s balanced approach. It reduces the deficit by more than $4 trillion.”

— Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.)

The repeated claim that Obama’s budget reduces the deficit by $4 trillion is simply not accurate.

By the administration’s math, you have nearly $3.8 trillion in spending cuts, compared to $1.5 trillion in tax increases (letting the Bush tax cuts expire for high-income Americans). Presto, $1 of tax increases for every $2.50 of spending cuts.

But virtually no serious budget analyst agreed with this accounting. The $4 trillion figure, for instance, includes counting some $1 trillion in cuts reached a year ago in budget negotiations with Congress. So no matter who is the president, the savings are already in the bank.

Moreover, the administration is also counting $848 billion in phantom savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though the administration had long made clear those wars would end.

In other words, by projecting war spending far in the future, the administration is able to claim credit for saving money it never intended to spend. (Imagine taking credit for saving money on buying a new car every year, even though you intended to keep your car for 10 years.)

Rather than good arithmetic, independent budget analysts called the maneuver “a major budget gimmick.”

The administration also counts $800 billion in savings in debt payments (from lower deficits) as a “spending cut,” which is a dubious claim. We didn’t realize that debt payments were now considered a government program.

There are a number of other games being played, so fake money is being used to pay for real spending projects. In effect, most of Obama’s claimed deficit reduction comes from his proposed tax increases.

Meanwhile, both Clinton and Van Hollen claim Obama’s budget has the “balanced approach” of the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission proposal. But the Simpson-Bowles plan is actually quite different, calling for tough spending cuts and substantial tax reforms — not the faux proposals contained in the president’s budget.

It is obvious that Lehigh is not within the inner circle of Romney's campaign team.

Romney's arguments are only surface deep.  If you're mad about the economy, blame Obama and put him in.  He knows business, business creates jobs and jobs are what everyone wants.  If you wander much deeper or ask a question about some other topic, good luck: he won't give you a straight believable answer.  It becomes unclear how being able to  restructure businesses to become profitable will help the unemployment picture -- the two aren't necessarily related and we know he disapproves of the government buying businesses and restructuring them as Obama did in the auto industry.

The 7:14 AM comments of "the System Worked" could be repeated a million times:

But, the Democrats and the media refuse to admit that Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney and Vice Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan have a specific campaign platform for reform.

There is a huge disconnect or avoidance of comprehension with the refusal to hear and admit the Republican Presidential Campaign has credible and viable options to the disastrous 4 years of the last President and his Chicago team.

So you want specifics froma candidate, which he has provided, yet ignore the outcomes of policies in action?

Mr. Obama claimed in his convention speech that he’s had to deal with an economic recession that is the worst since the Great Depression. But Ronald Reagan similarly faced a severe recession in which unemployment rose to 10.8 percent in November 1982. (Mr. Obama’s peaked at 10 percent.)

But Reagan “put in place a very different set of stimulus measures — emphasizing private-sector leadership — and when he faced the voters in 1984, the jobless rate had fallen to 7.3 percent,” economist Peter Morici points out.

Reagan’s across-the-board tax cuts — which Democrats ridiculed at the time — injected needed capital liquidity into every part of the nation’s economic bloodstream, and the economy took off like a rocket. Quarterly economic growth rates in 1984 were 8.5 percent, 7.9 percent, 6.9 percent and 5.8 percent. Compare that to Mr. Obama’s quarterly economic growth rates this year: 2.0 percent and 1.7 percent.

Mr. Obama told the country to be patient and the economy would improve under his infrastructure spending policies. But that hasn’t happened, and forecasters are predicting growth rates in the 2 percent range at best, far too weak to create the millions of jobs needed to bring unemployment down to 6 percent or less.

Hi Guys,

The problem here is that Romney's plans have a $5 to $6 trillion magic asterisk (that is, details to come later). We've seen how that works out in the past. I'm surprised that some of you seem ready to buy a pig in a poke.

As to being tough on Romney, my column isn't half as tough as the conservatives have been this week and last.

Scot

To argue that Mitt has offered details is delusional.  His own economic advisor Chen refused to identify cuts to FOX news, their own media outlet.  What have conservative columnists said,  "Where's the details Mitt", they ask.  If someone has numbers can say what Mitt will cut.  Who will pay what?  Let them say.  But they won't and they don't.  Instead we get a lot of comments on what a bad guy Obama is.  Heck I can do that too.  Tell me what Mitt stands for.  Will the mortgage deduction go>  Will the charity deduction go?  Will the health insurance go?  I'm not asking anything different than George Will asks.  Further where does he stand on the Republican Platform?  Last I heard he represented the Party.  Let's quit with the noise and if you like Mitt defend Mitt.

Attaturk is exactly right on that. And as I've said, the difference between the two plans is that Romney's detail-free plan would cost at least $5 trillion more than Mitt's. It's worth some attention if one really cares about the deficit.

AS I have stated before, the problem with the review of Romney's plan is that it is a static analysis and makes assumptions about what he will and will not do. Here is a new study that tries to address these short comings:

In this paper, I analyze the Romney proposal taking into account the additional income that might be generated by economic growth. The main conclusion is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on high-income individuals about the same. That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral.

http://www.princeton.edu/ceps/workingpapers/228rosen.pdf

OT - Quiz: who was President the last time a US Ambassador was killed?

How about a discussion of FOREIGN POLICY? You, know, let's talk about Obama's foreign policy EXPERIENCE. How's that "Arab Spring" working out? Mus;im Brotherhood takover in egypt and Libya.---Now, due to Obama's and Hillary Clinton's foreign policy INCOMPETENCE, the Libyan ambassador has been killed. And with complicity by the Libyan government. No apologies by Egypt.--At the Democratic party convention, John Kerry and a host of others blasted Mitt's lack of foreign policy experience. --And kerry blames a film for causing the violence. NOT AT ALL. Radical Muslims EVERYWHERE are ENRAGED by the Obama Admionsitration's and Democratic party convention's constant SPIKING THE FOOTBALL over the bin laden killing. Kerry WON'T tell you the truth. The film had NOTHING to do with it. The Libya killings were REVENGE by al Queda over Obama's, John Kerry's and others continued BRAGGING over the bin laden killing, at the Democrstic party convention. -- Then Kerry and Obama insist that Romney stop criticizing obama while an "investigation" is under way. Of course, we all know, that the "investigation" would be delayed until after the election.--Just like Holder and "Fast and Furious". --And how's Obama's "Foreign policy against Syria and Iran going? Pretty POOR according to Benjamin Netanyahu.----

Really, can anyone even use the phrase buying a pig in a poke as a criticism of any Republican after the country voted for Barack Obama in 2008? This is getting ridiculous. We knew NOTHING about him except that he was going to spread the wealth around, which was all I needed to know but others seem to think being well-spoken off a teleprompter was enough information. He was going to half the deficit his first term. Did anyone in the media question this? I'm still waiting for the MA media to ask Deval Patrick how that property tax relief in the poke works. Scot please post link to your columns on these questions.

"Barbara"  Even George Will asks the question,  "What are you proposing."  I suppose it is an argument to say we voted for Obama without knowing what he stood for.  Okay, I'll buy your argument.  If your argument is correct then why on earth should I do it again.  I have asked for a defense of Romney from his supporters.  I have asked for a defense of the Republican Party platform.  Unlike some who simply rip on Obama I don't rip on Romney.  I have asked basic questions.  Questions that any voter should know the answer too.  I have listed the deductions in question.  I have previously raised the issues in the Republican Platform.  I get no answer.  Instead I get Obama is a bad guy.  That is not an answer and not a reason to voter for Romney.  I know you dislike Obama and favor Romney and I get why.  But others reading these comment sections might be looking for answers.  I know why I oppose Romney someone needs to give some reasons to vote for him.  Instead of attack comments how about some fact arguments.