To borrow a political speech tactic from Tony Blair, the issue facing scrutiny in deciding the outcome of the November US elections can probably be summed up in three words: 'economy, economy, economy'. As Barack Obama came into office as President, so he inherited the responsibility for the state of the economy in 2008. As presidential responsibilities go, this one was a mighty weight indeed. For many of the voters who were thrilled to see Obama become President, the view that Obama has been a boost for the US, which has brought positive change, has remained solid. But among those voters who voted for change more than they voted for Obama, some resentment over the course of his presidency has already developed and they may be re-considering their party preferences.
Between the fine line of percentage points and the traditional party supporters' demographic being predictably true to form, it's impossible to say which way favour will swing with regard to the two candidates in November. The biggest criticism of Obama's presidency has been that he has tried to hedge his bets too much, in order to win favour that never came from the Republicans in Congress. It has been argued that he has not gone far enough in bringing about the dramatic change that was expected of him.
Healthcare reform
For Americans, the greatest change that he has been responsible for, is the healthcare reform that many people expected to fail. Though it didn't go as far as to offer an NHS-like, State run insurance system, it did provide reassurance to those who had lost their jobs, who otherwise would have automatically lost health insurance cover as a result, that they would be insured by Medicaid in the event that they became ill. The motivation for this healthcare bill, according to Obama, was that,"everybody should have some basic security when it comes to their health care.” The bill also benefited all those seeking to sign up for a new health insurance deal, by preventing insurance companies from charging more for pre-existing conditions, which many Americans from all income bands have been in favour of.
However, many Americans wish there were the same kind of support by means of deficit reduction that would ensure greater economic stability with regard to their jobs and indeed, their homes, in the first place. For some, job losses led automatically to losing their homes. Without some kind of mortgage safety net, homeowners were forced to rapidly downsize as job cuts brought unemployment to an unprecedented scale. In an effort to economise, many students have remained at home while attending college, instead of going to a particular university that offered a better reputation but higher fees, which has put pressure on parents to accommodate them. As such, the greater financial security of student loans with lower interest rates have been sought, while the provision for health insurance coverage for children up to the age of 26 under their parents' insurance policies was also a popular element to the healthcare reform among families.
In contrast with the criticism of Obama for not going far enough and being all too ready to appease instead of oppose the other party, Mitt Romney has been making his feelings about the work the President has done (or failed to do) abundantly clear. Not one to mince his words, at the Charlotte Pipe and Foundry Company Convention this year, Romney announced that the President had been, "borrowing about a trillion dollars more every year than we take in. That is bad economics. I think it's immoral for us as well to take from our kids' future for our present benefits." He referred to the President's economic policies as being "a throwback to the liberal ideas of the past". However, some have criticised Romney for vagueness in his explanation of how he would address these economic problems. At the same conference, he talked about, "taking some programmes" and getting rid of them, such as "Medicaid and housing vouchers and food stamps and work force training programmes", and give the funding back to the individual states so they can,"run the programme moreefficiently and more effectively."
Budget proposals
However, the LA Times referred to issues with comparing the economic proposals of the two candidates, mainly because Mitt Romney's long-term budget plan features mention of an 'as yet unspecified entitlement reform' along with plans for tax-cuts and increased defense spending. This proposal amounts to a debt percentage of 95% of GDP compared to Obama's proposal calculated at 75% of GDP. As such, Romney's statements and proposals have not only been criticised for their vagueness with regard to economic policy, but also foreign policy. It has been noted that Romney's stance on Isreali and Palestinian peace proposals and equally those with regard to withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan has essentially mimicked the President's. With the timetable for bringing troops back from Afghanistan he has disagreed with Obama that they should be returned home this year, but backs the NATO proposal of a withdrawal by 2014.
A recent nationwide poll has noted that the percentage of Obama supporters stands at 49 to Romney's 46, but it's too early to predict how things may proceed from here. The President has called for patience among voters who supported him in the last election, and for many, this seems a reasonable request. If the biggest grudge held by voters is that Obama has not gone far enough in the change and reform he stood for in 2008, the extent of the economic difficulties that America faces may well be his greatest ally in making allowances for the necessity for that patience. That small margin of 'the benefit of the doubt' may well be enough to see him through to a second term.
