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: Glenn Hubbard of Columbia University, Greg Mankiw of Harvard University, John Taylor of Stanford University, and Kevin A. Hassett of The American Enterprise Institute. Both Mr. Hubbard and Mr. Mankiw served as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) under George W. Bush.

The title is promising: “The Romney Program for Economic Recovery, Growth, and Jobs.” The problem is, the plan is riddled with fundamental flaws. Here are six points where Mitt Romney and his economic advisers are mostly – if not fully – wrong about what ails the American economy and how to fix it.

1. Anemic recovery

Julie Jacobson/AP/File
Mitt Romney speaks to a crowd of supporters during a rally in Henderson, Nev., Oct. 23 as he holds up four fingers and asks if they want four more years of a bad economy under President Obama. Op-ed contributor Sam Thompson offers 'six points where Mitt Romney and his economic advisers are mostly – if not fully – wrong about what ails the American economy and how to fix it.'

Mitt Romney’s heavyweights criticize America’s current economic recovery because it is weaker than the recovery that occurred under President Reagan after the recession in 1981-1982. But the Reagan recovery came after a 0.3 percent decrease in GDP, whereas the current recovery comes after a 3.1 percent decrease in GDP.

Thus, the present recovery requires digging out of a much deeper hole, and the failure of Mr. Romney and his heavyweights to give consideration to the depth of the Great Recession is a fundamental flaw in their critique of the recovery under President Obama.

1 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.