As an business consultant, Romney attempted to make businesses more efficient, productive, and profitable. Often times this meant laying off workers and finding cheaper labor overseas. These acts may have been essential for the survival of bankrupt or struggling companies.
However, the US government, can borrow forever and run up deficits. Would it be more prudent for the President to borrow and spend on keeping Americans employed, even if that increases inefficiency and the deficit?
Is it even possible to make a leaner federal government, but also upset fired workers and losing votes? Do you think American workers are just happy at getting paychecks, living off loans, and voting for whoever gives them the most benefits? Is it better to get votes by deficit spending and building bubbles?
As an efficiency expert, would Romney be forced to decide whether to cut jobs and spending or create jobs through inefficient means?
Cast off a few million workers and the relief ranks swell, so such is a false economy. Mitt Romney would bring the 'double dip' and turn a recovery from the worst economic meltdown in 80 years into something as bad as the meltdown that began the Great Depression.
