Romney ad: President Obama’s spending habits have created a “prairie fire” of debt

posted at 12:01 pm on September 18, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

The Romney campaign is out with a new round of ads, and given that much has been made of whether/how Team R is going to re-strategize in the now t-minus 49 days until election day, this latest attack on President Obama’s spending policies is bringing some focus to the national debt, in no unclear terms.

A pretty apt metaphor, I’d say — the tone is kind of scary, but heck, so is the problem. As the WSJ pointed out yesterday:

Did you know that annual spending by the federal government now exceeds the 2007 level by about $1 trillion? With a slow economy, revenues are little changed. The result is an unprecedented string of federal budget deficits, $1.4 trillion in 2009, $1.3 trillion in 2010, $1.3 trillion in 2011, and another $1.2 trillion on the way this year. The four-year increase in borrowing amounts to $55,000 per U.S. household. …

Did you know that the Federal Reserve is now giving money to banks, effectively circumventing the appropriations process? To pay for quantitative easing—the purchase of government debt, mortgage-backed securities, etc.—the Fed credits banks with electronic deposits that are reserve balances at the Federal Reserve. These reserve balances have exploded to $1.5 trillion from $8 billion in September 2008. …

Did you know that funding for federal regulatory agencies and their employment levels are at all-time highs? In 2010, the number of Federal Register pages devoted to proposed new rules broke its previous all-time record for the second consecutive year. It’s up by 25% compared to 2008. These regulations alone will impose large costs and create heightened uncertainty for business and especially small business.

…Yikes. In that same vein, however, this next ad is one that, on a personal level, I find extremely effective. As you may have read in my various rants against the Democrats’ completely manufactured “war on women,” I am fed up with being told that I’m not a ‘real woman’ because I dare to have political concerns that transcend contraception, abortion, and the Lilly Ledbetter Act. I’m supposed to believe that Mitt Romney’s policies would make it a “scary time to be a woman” (I’ll say it again: Are you flipping kidding me!?), but the only things that “scare” me about the upcoming election are the exact same reasons that everybody, man and woman, should be scared. I’m scared that, because of our spending habits and our growing government, our economy is contracting; that jobs and opportunities and wealth creation is going to be that much harder to come by; and that my and my children’s future incomes (if we can find jobs, that is) are going to get the bejesus taxed out of them because our political system couldn’t get its act together. That is what I’m scared of.

What women (should!) care about is the economy — can it ever be said enough? I think this is a great parry to the Obama campaign’s scare-tactic spin machine trying to make women believe that somebody is going to swoop in and confiscate their contraception, or whatever it is they’re always on about. What say you, ladies (and gents!)?

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air