Romney’s Goal as a President: Get rid of fire fighters, policemen and teachers!


Keywords or Terms: Public Safety Officers and First Responders; Monetary and Keynesian Economics theories; Government Expenditures or Programs; Stakeholders; Profits vs. Non-Profit; Trust and Commitment; Illusion and Doubts.

What’s not to like about a Presidential Candidate who wants to get rid of fire fighters, policemen and teachers? That’s quintessential Republican! (I can hear you laughing aloud). The presumptive Republican Party flag bearer has been quoted as saying, getting rid of first responders, public safety and or last point of defense professionals, fire fighters, policemen and teachers in Wisconsin, is a positive change. To quote him appropriately: "[Obama] wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more firemen, more policeman, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It's time for us to cut back on government and help the American people." To the presumptive Republican Party Nominee, what the nation needs right now, is getting rid of public safety officials. This is exactly how to help the American people, if you are Governor Romney!

Now, except Mitt Romney has plans to turn America into another third world country or banana republic, it maybe in his interest to rethink this type of lousy loose talks, that is characteristic of some Republicans, who would like to privatize everything, including their mother’s social security check! In case Governor Romney is oblivious to some facts, local and state government expenditures, benefit directly or indirectly from some federal government programs and expenditures. Except his resentment of such government expenditures is just a bluff or slip, we, as the nation, will expect the presumptive republican nominee to be circumspect; and, abstain from making comments that is tantamount to ignorance. Investing in first responders like firefighters, policemen and classroom teachers are necessities, not luxuries. These types of expenditures guarantee that we are prepared to handle society eventualities; prevents unnecessary huge government spending in times of huge catastrophes; and, make room for a well educated labor force that can handle the management of a better future.

Once Again, we know Republicans are critical of increased government spending during recessions. Incidentally, given the gap in American household spending in the past three years, the only other option available to government under Keynesian Economics theory is to expend money, to help stimulate economic activities that would help generate employment. Conservative Republicans subscribe to the Monetarist Economics theory; wherein, the mantra is to shrink government by cutting government spending; hoping that this will help the economy grow better. Unfortunately, this idea or concept has been tried before under Republican Administrations, and it has failed woefully. The failures of excessive tax cuts, unyielding management of the economy and a choice to engage in two foreign wars are parts of the reasons for the dilemma we are going through, not the employment of public safety officials!

Notwithstanding, Republicans continue to subscribe to the failed doctrine of Supply-side Economics; one that has led the nation nowhere, except misery. Republicans continue to criticize Obama’s Administration for increased government expenditures on stimulus programs and plans; most of which went to save police officers, teachers and firefighters jobs in many states across the federation. In the world of Republicans, it is a proven fact that increased government expenditures do not help increased economic activities, nor make good on the gap in households expenditures during recessions. To these men and women of doubt, anytime government expend money to bring back life to the economy, the government is trying to tell the people how to think, what to do and what not to do. Except such increased government spending is used or earmarked to save banks, defray taxes for big multinational corporations or engage in wars, such investments are necessarily unacceptable; or sacrilegious!

Frankly, there lies the ignorance; there lies the unfortunate confusion regarding what government ought to be doing for the public; and what misinformed Republican politicians would like to get away with, with the public. The premature obsession with cutting down on federal deficits, by cutting down on government expenditures, is only but an illusion. Without some government investments or spending, the current recession will still be around or take a longer time to overcome. If we don’t have business activities going on, either through government spending or increased household expenditures, government can’t collect taxes; and without revenue coming into government, the likelihood is, government will go a borrowing or engage in printing money; which ends up increasing inflation. These are all economics jargons that many of us do not appreciate, want to deal with, or would rather ignore. It is on the notion of out site is out of mind, that Mitt Romney and his campaign team are playing on. Yes, increased government spending may help balloon our deficits temporarily; however, without it, the economy would be in doldrums or worse shape. Further, many of us would rather have our first responders available for our safety, rather than stay ignorant and delusional about what is expected of our government and what is expected of us as citizens.

Spending money on crucial public safety officials is synonymous with planning ahead for a rainy day. If we are to engage in the after-the-fact doctrine, or subscribe to reasoning like those of Mitt Romney and his Republican cohorts, who are often inconvenient with increased government spending in times of recession, then we are setting ourselves up for huge failures. Subscribing to the notion that we hardly should invest in the employment of firefighters, policemen and teachers, is a recipe for disaster or greater troubles, in times of emergency. It is much easier and prudent to invest in teachers and first time responders rather than offering tax brakes to people and corporations that do not need them. To hands off investments in aforementioned professionals is to lack good judgment in state and local government governance; and by extension, national government. If there is a trick to jobs creation without increased government expenditures in times of recession, we believe many governments that came before us, will have done that; or, engage in this endeavor.

Reading too much meanings to the result of Wisconsin governor’s recall vote, or characterizing the failure of the recall vote in Wisconsin as tantamount to cutting back on investments in the employment of firefighters, policemen and teacher is not only short sighted, it explains why Mitt Romney must not be voted into the Presidency. He has shown too much ignorance regarding what is essential for America and what confused Republican Party members are seeking for America. Now, from Romney’s statement, we can now understand why Republicans want to get rid of the United States Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services; repeal the Affordable Care Act and get the nation into militarism, in preparation for engaging in another lousy and unnecessary war. Once again, whatever economic problem the nation is going through, has very little to do with employment of public safety professionals like firefighters, policemen and teachers. If the presumptive Republican Nominee does not believe me, let him move to an outpost without firefighters, policemen and teachers!

Given the gap in household spending and current government investments in stimulus programs, given the exasperating banking crisis in Europe, and the unyielding problems of unemployment worldwide, it is imperative that we begin to ask Mr. Romney the following questions:
  • What are the major initiatives that you would like to bring into the White House regarding permanent employment and absence of future recessions in America?
  • What, outside the criticism of employment of public safety officers and teachers, do you plan for re-juvenating employment in state and local governments?
  • What is happening inside your campaign regarding your foreign policy agenda and how to move America ahead on the wars that we are currently committed?
Once we can get clear answers to these questions, we can now start to consider your suitability to replace the current occupant of the White House. Going by your current pronouncement regarding cutting jobs of our first responders and public safety officials, we hardly can predict what you’ll do, if we voted you into the office of the Presidency. We just don’t trust you as understanding the current problem of the nation. For us, the nation is not a business enterprise where everything is measured by how much profit you can bring to the stake holders!


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

SECOND 2016 PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE: A New Development in possible Use of Presidential Power?

Events and Narratives in American Presidential Campaigns: Are Americans listening to either of the Presidential candidate for 2016 White House?

President Barack Obama: Farewell Address as he rode to sunset!