The two main parties are unlike, yet so very similar. Both of them are advocates of Big Government, just with different methods and angles. While Republicans savored the Iraq conflict, Democrats savor the war in Afghanistan. While Republicans offer corporatism to Big Oil, the Democrats extend the same to wind and solar. While Democrats favor social welfare, Republicans admire corporate welfare. One could go on and on about the two-faced similarities.
That said, those still reeling from Barack Obama’s Election Day defeat of Mitt Romney should be consoled by this: The candidates were so alike that having Obama in power really won’t be much different than having Romney at the helm had he won. Consider the following:
Both men are spendthrifts. It’s not news that Obama’s budget plan is over the top: Even with the improbability of tax revenues rising by a third over his second term, he would still rack up annual deficits to the tune of $650 billion. That’s par for the course for someone who, working in conjunction with Congress, had racked up a $1.1 trillion deficit this past year.
Romney was supposed to be the antidote to that. Turns out, his plan was anything but fiscal conservatism. While he may have cut taxes and programs (like Obamacare and Amtrak), he would have taken the savings and dumped them elsewhere, such as defense which by itself would have been $203 billion higher by 2016. Accumulating the impact of the cash-in and cash-out, Romney would have created an increase of $262 billion in annual spending.
Republicans would be shocked to find out that Obama’s plan is significantly better at deficit control – but that’s not saying much because he still has in the hole by hundreds of billions of dollars.
Both men love foreign intervention and war. When Obama won in 2008 it was on the strength of change and being the anti-Bush. He was supposed to stop the wars and get us out of the Middle East. He didn’t.