The Economist has finally noticed how different the past few months would have been had there been a Romney presidency rather than the continuation of the low grade Obama disaster zone. Here is what is no doubt only a partial list of what would have been taking place right now instead of the scandal-ridden vast under-performance of the present administration:
Team Romney’s 200-day plans included immediate, 5% cuts to public spending excluding security and social payments (though more money for defence), a weakening of the rules that Republicans say favour trade unions, a squeeze on public-sector jobs and pay, and a global push for free trade. Mr Romney would also have proposed lower income- and corporate-tax rates, offset by closing loopholes. Abolishing the Environmental Protection Agency, a conservative dream, was not on the cards. But “personnel is policy”, notes Glenn Hubbard, Mr Romney’s chief economic adviser. Those chosen to regulate energy and tackle climate change would have weighed costs against benefits minutely. A long-term squeeze on welfare and health spending was a priority: wholesale immigration reform was not.
Noted by Instapundit since the article begins with the Glenn Reynolds “the told me if I voted for Obama” meme without giving the credit where credit is due.