After the Debates: How the Candidates Stack Up on the Issues

So how do Obama and Romney measure up on key issues—abortion, economic policy, healthcare, religious freedom, taxation, international affairs, marriage and family, immigration, the military, and the environment?  More than at any time in recent memory, the two candidates differ sharply.

The excerpts below detail the candidates' positions on the issues that were brought up in this past week's town hall debate.  Read Ron's full article for more information.

Abortion

Romney used to support "abortion rights" but now is "pro-life." He opposes abortion, believes life begins at conception, would nominate Supreme Court justices he believes would overturn Roe v. Wade, and supports the Hyde amendment banning the use of federal funds to pay for abortions.  He also opposes the use of human embryos for stem cell research.

Obama is "pro-choice," supports abortion, would nominate Supreme Court justices that would support Roe v. Wade, and overturned President Bush's ban on the use of human embryos for stem cell research.  Obama faithfully implements current law prohibiting federal funding of abortions.

Taxes

Obama and Romney both agree that we must substantially reduce federal budget deficits—although Romney promises to have a balanced budget by some unspecified time, and Obama is even less clear.  But there is a huge difference in how the two propose to achieve deficit reduction.  The key components of Romney's budget proposals are (1) increasing defense spending dramatically; (2) giving more big tax cuts (mostly for the richest Americans); and (3) dramatically cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and discretionary programs that include many important supports for poorer Americans.

Romney wants to keep all Bush's tax cuts (65 percent went to the richest 20 percent), reduce individual income taxes by 20 percent, repeal the estate tax, and keep the very low 15 percent tax rate on capital gains and dividends (which is why rich people like Romney and Warren Buffett pay at such a low rate) rather than tax them at the same rate as other income.  These tax cuts would mean a loss of $4.9 trillion in federal revenue over10 years.  These tax cuts would also substantially widen the gap between the rich and the poor, which is already more extreme than at any time since 1928.  Experts at the urban-Brookings tax Policy center say Romney's tax proposal would give an additional average tax cut of $250,000 to persons making a million dollars or more a year, while those earning $40,800-$50,000 would get an average tax cut of about $512. People earning between $10,000 and $20,000 a year would actually pay an average of $174 a year more, partly because Romney wants to shrink tax advantages implemented by Obama to help lower-income families.

Obama proposes a very different federal budget. He wants to keep, not cut, effective programs that empower poor people.  He also wants to somewhat increase spending to improve our national infrastructure, schools, and clean energy programs. Obama's tax proposals reflect what many polls indicate a majority of Americans favor—that the richest Americans should pay more, not less.  A Buffett Rule would require that people earning more than a million dollars would pay income taxes of at least 30 percent.  For people earning more than $250,000, dividends would be taxed at the regular income tax rate rather than today's low rate of 15 percent.  Obama also wants to retain the estate tax.  Obama fails to provide a clear plan for getting to a balanced budget within the next five or even 10 years.  His fiscal year 2013 budget projected adding $6.4 trillion to the nation debt over 10 years, which is not acceptable.

There are good ways to retain effective programs that empower poor people and get to a balanced budget over five to 10 years.  But neither Romney nor Obama tells us how to do that.

Environmental Issues

Obama and Romney also disagree sharply on environmental issues. Obama has worked with auto manufacturers to essentially double the fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks by 2025.  His administration has sought to use the authority of the clean air act to regulate (and reduce) carbon emissions.   Obama has a 10-year goal to develop cost-effective clean coal technology and plans to spend $150 billion over 10 years to develop a "green economy."  Obama refused to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.  Romney would reverse Obama's regulations designed to reduce carbon use and would amend the clean air act so it cannot be used to regulate the use of carbon.  Romney favors the keystone XL Pipeline. Romney used to accept the scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change but now says, "My view is that we don't know what's causing climate change."

Immigration

Obama and Romney also differ sharply on immigration. in 2007 Romney supported legislation that would have offered a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants but now opposes it.  He wants to complete a high-tech fence on our southern border and expand border patrol.  He opposes the Dream Act and promises to develop a tamper-proof verification system to make sure undocumented immigrants cannot get jobs.  The result, Romney says, is "self deportation."

Obama favors additional personnel and technology to support the integrity of the border.  Unable to persuade Republicans in Congress to pass the dream act, Obama used his executive power to accomplish largely the same thing for two years.  Obama wants to increase the number of legal immigrants to keep families together and favors a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who have not committed crimes.

Both want to expand the number of visas for highly skilled workers and grant permanent residency to graduates with advanced degrees in math, science, and engineering.

Contraceptive Coverage

In early 2012, the Obama administration raised a major issue of religious freedom as it developed federal regulations for implementing the Affordable Care Act.   The regulations specified that nearly all organizations, including religious ones, must provide health insurance coverage that includes contraceptives (including some that are probably abortive) even if the organizations have religious convictions against them.  Obama has promised some modification of this regulation but has not yet done that. Romney has condemned this violation of religious freedom and would clearly change it.

So who does God want us to vote for?  I honestly do not know.  I urge you to do what I plan for myself.  Follow the debates.  Keep learning about each candidate and his polices as they are stated, attacked, defended, and developed.  Talk to others.  Pray fervently that God will guide in this election.  And then vote for the person you think will be at least a little better in moving our nation and the world a bit closer to the shalom God wills.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

You May Also Want to Read

Comment policy: ESA represents a wide variety of understandings and practices surrounding our shared Christian faith. The purpose of the ESA blog is to facilitate loving conversation; please know that individual authors do not speak for ESA as a whole. Even if you don\'t see yourself or your experience reflected in something you read here, we invite you to experience it anyway, and see if God can meet you there. What can take away from considering this point of view? What might you add? The comments section below is where you can share the answers to those questions, if you feel so moved. Please express your thoughts in ways that are constructive, purposeful, and respectful. Give those you disagree with the benefit of the doubt, and assume they are neither idiots nor evil. Name-calling, sweeping condemnations, and any other comments that suggest you have forgotten that we are all children of God will be deleted. Thank you!

2 Responses

  1. jane tucker says:

    I appreciate your analysis of the two candidate's views. Of course, we know that voting and speech records from years ago and even recently don't always fit with what they say while campaigning. I am still a registered democrat, since my work in helping the poor through Bread for the world and local church always seemed more in line with the democrats' voting records. Unfortunately, over the years the dems moved away from biblical values and started supporting attitudes and regulations that oppose faith expressions outside of the church community and supported what God defines as sinful behavior. It's gotten to the point that I have to choose between an economic harm to people which would mean the church community would have to be less self-indulgent and more sharing and caring for the poor, and a policy that allows no restriction on the killing of a pre-born person for any reason and the redefinition of people whose sinful behavior (same sex relations) elevates them to the status of a protected and privileged class which means that laws now allow punishment or fines to people who refuse to use their businesses or religious buildings for the advancement of same sex marriage or unions. Even speech is now restricted, whether against same sex behavior or pro religion in some buildings or venues. What do I do? Once an economic policy is changed, we can still recoup that whether through policy and accountability or the next election, but how do we recoup the loss of foundational and constitutional rights when our ability even to voice opposition is punished? I am so distressed that I think only God can save us from ruin, and my only recourse is to pray for a huge deepening of the church's commitment to repentance and prayer.

  2. Ed says:

    Biased propaganda against the republican candidate. I find it disappointing that a "Christian" blog would post such propaganda. I do not think either candidate is a good choice, however the Republican candidate does have a greater stance for Christian values.
    I do not think that either candidate or government entity will do much to pull our nation out of the sinful state in which we are in. (Note: It is our job to carry the good news.) Putting someone into office that apposes everything that we as believers stand for only makes that job harder.
    Therefore, I find your post very disheartening.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.