The presidential debate managed to clear up some misconceptions about Mitt Romney that some voters may have held before Wednesday night. And that might now lead to more independent votes coming his way.
One of those misconceptions pertained to his alleged eagerness to overburden the middle class with more taxation. Not so, according to the man himself, who told the viewing public that his plan was to cut taxes by 20 percent across the board instead; and that he had a plan that would make it a reality without having to tax the middle class or raise the deficit.
Holy cow Batman! Americans needed Romney four years ago.
(Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore)
Another misconception about the Republican presidential nominee that finally was corrected during the hour and a half debate shown on Fox News pertained to the assumption that Mitt Romney wants to do away with Medicare—or knock current retirees out of the benefit amounts they deserve and would receive now.
Definitely a wrong assumption on both accounts for those who watched Fox News' live coverage of the Debate. Romney says that he has no desire or plan to make any changes to Medicare benefits for those currently 60 or older, and that the changes he does plan to make if elected would only affect the younger generation—and even then it would be for the better.
Sounds good.
In fact, Romney wants to give control of Medicare back to the individual states, so they can make the best use of their resources and dollars for their state's citizens, cutting out the federal government as the middleman.
Another good move.
And he believes that his success in Massachusetts gives him the ability to duplicate that achievement at the federal level. Who can argue with that? The Republican also says he wants to keep Medicare spending at its current rate, as well as provide extra money in order to equal inflation costs, as well as an additional one percent increase. Hot diggity dog!
But how does he propose to pay for that and not drive up the deficit doing it?
First he said during the televised debate that he would not allow the $716 billion cut made to the program by President Obama to move forward. He says that Obama's Medicare cuts have left 15 percent of hospitals and nursing homes refusing to take patients with Medicare. How tragic.
In addition to putting the $716 billion back into the program where it belongs, Romney proposes to take a good hard look at some programs created and funded under the Obama administration that need to be shelved instead, so there are no more repeats of the $90 billion the president spent on "green" energy companies, like Solyndra, which filed for bankruptcy.
According to Romney, that $90 billion would have been better spent on more important programs, like hiring $2 million teachers, instead of throwing money at businesses in which half have already defaulted and gone out of business—or were recipients due to being contributors to the Obama campaign.
Oh dear. Now that doesn't sound like the current administration were very wise in their investment of tax payer dollars.
$90 billion could go a long way to help the elderly in Medicare for sure. And it does appear that those "green" companies are not making any significant headway in alternative energy despite that huge investment. So maybe Romney is right.
One last area that some may have harbored a misconception about in regards to the Republican presidential nominee appears to be in the area of education. Romney has been painted with the brushstroke of someone who is against teachers, as well as being hesitant to pay them--or fund schools--with the money they need in order to educate America's children.
It would be horrible if that were true.
The former governor put that illusion to rest during the first presidential debate of 2012 on Wednesday, stating emphatically that "Massachusetts schools are ranked number one in the nation," and that they didn't get that way by accident, since he was committed to the education of America all along, including when he took his state to that number one spot nationally.
He also added, however, that he wants the money that is spent on education "to follow the child" and not the school institution, per se.
In other words, Mitt Romney believes that a family deserved the right to choose where their child goes to school rather than force-feeding poorly operated or performing schools with lots of federal tax dollars to blow.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 7
Another thing Romney lived up to was just what Bill Clinton explained about him in his DNC speech ... ask Romney for details - after the election.
I'm not sure there are misconceptions about Romney, we have seen how he operates for over year, anyone who's been paying attention.
Many of his remarks did seem to completely abandon his prior campaign platform.
On taxes Romney completely violated Clinton admonition to use arithmetic. He said he wanted to lower tax rates by 20% but would eliminate loopholes to keep revenues up and this would stimulate the economy. First of all, he's wrong about the stimulate effects of a tax cut, they just don't work that way. But if he succeeds in eliminating enough loopholes to keep revenues up then the net effect of his tax cuts would be zero, eliminating any potential benefit of the rate reduction.
In other words he is trying to have his cake and eat it to. He is trying to eliminate the deficit by sleight of hand. And on the backs of those 47% of Americans who rely on government support to some degree.