Does an Effective Campaign = Effective Presidency?

On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace grilled David Axelrod on the president's record and Obama's insistence on the need to let some of the Bush tax cuts expire.  Wallace asked him a very simple and direct question:

"In January 2010, the president said that it's no time to raise taxes on anyone because the economy is too weak, it's only growing 2.3%.  If the economy was too fragile then for a tax increase on the wealthy, why is it okay now when it is growing more slowly at 1.5 percent?"

Image from Foxnews.com

It should come as no surprise that Axelrod would not answer the question.

Our president and his allies are trying to make the case that it is time to raise taxes on the wealthy.    Economists and even the president argued it was a bad idea two years ago when the GDP was 2.3%.  The economy has slowed to 1.5%.  Why would it be more effective this time around?

Allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire when our economy is so fragile is a risky move at best.   Why?  The vast majority--80% of small business owners---file their small business taxes at individual rates.  Our tax codes recognize sole Proprietorships, LLC partnerships and S Corporations as "individuals."  This means that small businesses, not just the uber rich like Mitt Romney are considered "wealthy."

Raising taxes on the wealthy, raises taxes on small businesses.

Image from USA Today

Our president continues to make the case that wealthy have an obligation to pay "a little more," but his refusal to allow an exemption for small business owners is a blaring reflection that the president does not understand our economy.

Mr. President, small businesses are responsible for 65% of new hiring in this country.  Why would we want to make it any harder for them to hire more people?

***

The president is relentless in his pursuit to portray Mitt Romney as being too wealthy and too out of touch to relate to the American people.  Why?  Because it helps his campaign.  Period.  This might be an effective way to smear a rival, but in the end it is no way to help our economy.

How different would things be if we had a president who was more focused on running the country than he seems to be focused on running an effective campaign?

Image from boston.com

I will continue to make the case for the candidate whose record reflects an individual who also "inherited" a few messes in his career, but the blaring difference is that Mitt Romney actually turned those messes around.  Furthermore, is there even one situation where Mitt Romney blamed a failure on a predecessor?

Romney's record reflects job growth, job creation, lower taxes, and lower deficits.  The same cannot be said for our president.

It speaks volumes that our president is more often credited for running a "brilliant campaign" than he is credited for the job he has done in the oval office.

We deserve better.

Go Mitt!