America’s recovery from the recession has been so lacking in vitality that it doesn’t seem like much of a recovery at all, particularly with respect to jobs.
So, in a rational political world, President Barack Obama would face a contestant offering serious criticisms of his economic policies — specifically his job-creation policies — and propose legitimate alternatives.
Unfortunately, that world no longer exists because of radical personalities like Rick Santorum.
The GOP has become contaminated by a radical faction that is more an ideological protest rather than a pragmatic, governing alternative.
Republican politicians in Congress now treat politics like a game where they use voters’ emotions to promote their reckless and irresponsible fanaticism. Their inflexibility and unwillingness to accept compromise has inhibited our nation from performing to its full potential and put us in positions of grave
economic uncertainty.
Members of this movement have dramatically transformed the political landscape in Washington.
And, as a result of this political transformation, Obama will not be facing the ideal candidate: a Republican who offers constructive conservative proposals on key issues and who is prepared for strategic compromises for the collective interest of our nation.
Instead, Obama will almost surely face either former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney or former Pennsylvania Sen. Santorum.
For once, let’s give poor Mitt a break from the perpetual scrutiny and focus on Santorum.
Last week, Santorum released his first economic plan — what he calls his “Economic Freedom Agenda.” In this plan, he pledges to “submit to Congress and work to pass a comprehensive pro-growth and pro-family Economic Freedom Agenda” within his first 100 days in office.
I’ll be honest and say that I didn’t pay much attention to Santorum until he swept the Colorado, Missouri and Minnesota primaries earlier in February, so I was more then receptive to hear economic
rhetoric contrary to that of the Romney campaign.
After reading his plan, however, I was a bit disappointed.
Although Santorum’s agenda did offer a few decent proposals that would help our economy in the short run, there was nothing within it that would make our country thrive in the 21st century.
Santorum proposed that he would cut government spending by $5 trillion over the next five years, trimming programs such as Medicare, Social Security and entitlements.
He plans to submit to Congress a simplified income tax plan as well. Santorum would mandate that there be only two tax rates: 10 percent and 28 percent.
Another way Santorum is trying to grow the economy in the short run is by halving the corporate tax rate to 17.5 percent, which will allow firms to expand their business and hire new workers.
Robert Newman, chair of the University’s Department of Economics, concurred that reductions in spending from discretionary
programs as well as taxes
would be conducive in promoting
economic growth.
This economic growth is good for the short run, but it isn’t sustainable.
Tax levels are not everything. Santorum, along with most members of the Republican Party, have taken this piece of economic theory and turned it into their sacred religion. When I realized Santorum’s agenda was almost entirely predicated upon the manipulation of taxes, I came to the conclusion that he is essentially just a reactionary candidate with no real vision for America’s future.
In order for America to remain a major economic player for the remainder of the 21st century, lowering taxes isn’t going to cut it.
Jay Meyers is a 19-year-old economics freshman from Shreveport. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_jmeyers.
 
So, in a rational political world, President Obama would face a contestant offering serious criticisms of his economic policies — specifically his job-creation policies — and propose legitimate alternatives.
Unfortunately, that world no longer exists because of radical personalities like Rick Santorum.
The GOP has become contaminated with a radical faction that is more an ideological protest rather than a pragmatic, governing alternative.
Republican politicians in Congress now treat politics like a game where they use voters’ emotions to promote their reckless and irresponsible fanaticism. Their inflexibility and unwillingness to accept compromise has inhibited our nation from performing to its full potential and put us in positions of grave economic uncertainty.
Members of this movement have dramatically transformed the political landscape in Washington.
And, as a result of this political transformation, Obama will not be facing the ideal candidate: a Republican who offers constructive conservative proposals on key issues and who is prepared for strategic compromises for the collective interest of our nation.
Instead, Obama will almost surely face either Former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney or the Former Pa. Sen. Rick Santorum.
For once, let’s give poor Mitt a break from the perpetual scrutiny and focus on Santorum.
Last week, Santorum released his first economic plan — what he calls his “Economic Freedom Agenda.” In this plan, he pledges to “submit to Congress and work to pass a comprehensive pro-growth and pro-family Economic Freedom Agenda” within his first 100 days in office.
I’ll be honest and say that I didn’t pay much attention to Santorum until he swept the Colorado, Missouri and Minnesota primaries earlier in February, so I was more then receptive to hear economic rhetoric contrary to that of the Romney campaign.
After reading his plan, however, I was a bit disappointed.
Although Santorum’s agenda did offer a few decent proposals which would help our economy in the short run, there was nothing within it that would make our country thrive in the 21st century.
Santorum proposed that he would cut government spending by $5 trillion over the next five years, trimming programs such as Medicare, Social Security and entitlements.
He plans to submit to Congress a simplified income tax plan as well. Santorum would mandate that there be only two tax rates: 10 percent and 28 percent.
Another way Santorum is trying to grow the economy in the short run is by halving the corporate tax rate to 17.5 percent. By doing this, it will allow firms to expand their business and hire new workers.
Chair of the University’s Department of Economics, Robert Newman, concurred that reductions in spending from discretionary programs as well as taxes would be conducive in promoting economic growth.
This economic growth is good for the short run, but it isn’t sustainable.
Tax levels are not everything. Santorum, along with most members of the Republican Party, have taken this piece of economic theory and turned it into their sacred religion. When I realized Santorum’s agenda was almost entirely predicated upon the manipulation of taxes, I came to the conclusion that he is essentially just a reactionary candidate with no real vision for America’s future.
In order for America to remain a major economic player for the remainder of the 21st century, lowering taxes isn’t going to cut it.
Jay Meyers is a 19-year-old economics freshman from Shreveport. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_jmeyers.
 
____
Contact Jay Meyers at [email protected]