Election Day: Where do the presidential candidates stand on ABC’s core issues?
November 5, 2012
This election cycle’s “October Surprise” turned out to be a superstorm named Sandy. In addition to wreaking havoc on the Northeast and making strange political bedfellows, the storm and its destruction have brought climate change and infrastructure investment to the forefront of the political conversation. That’s a major development, considering how little play these two topics have received up until this point. Since these two issues are part of our core mission at A Better City, we thought we’d take this opportunity to compare how the two major presidential candidates stack up on the issues that we work on here at ABC: transportation, land development, and the environment. A couple of caveats. First, ABC is a nonpartisan organization, and we have a track record of working with both Democrats and Republicans in state and federal government during the Central Artery/Tunnel project and since. We worked with Governor Romney during his time in Massachusetts, and we partner with administration of Gov. Patrick, a key surrogate for the Obama campaign, on a host of issues. We are not endorsing any candidate for office but are simply presenting the candidates’ positions as best as we could discern them. Transportation and Infrastructure Both President Obama and Governor Romney have articulated multi-point plans to grow jobs and the economy. The President’s plan calls for “nation-building at home”: using half the money saved from ending the wars in Iraq in Afghanistan “to put Americans back to work rebuilding roads, bridges, runways and schools.” The other half of the savings would go towards paying down the national debt. (Some have criticized this plan, which relies on future savings rather than new revenues, as “budgetary sleight of hand”.) Obama's plan talks about eliminating “pet projects, government boondoggles, and bridges to nowhere” and proposes a “new independent fund that will attract private dollars and issue loans for new construction projects based on: how badly are they needed, and how much good will they do for the economy,” a reference to the national infrastructure bank proposed in the President’s 2012 State of the Union address. Gov. Romney’s 5-point plan for job creation does not mention transportation infrastructure, but the steps outlined to cut the federal deficit suggest that a Romney administration would result in a much diminished federal role in infrastructure investment. Romney would cut “non-security discretionary spending” by five percent immediately and cap all federal spending at 20% of the size of the economy. These cuts and caps would have a direct impact on federal aid to the states. Gov. Romney’s fiscal policy plan also calls for privatizing Amtrak, a move which the Romney campaign says would save $1.6 billion per year. This de-emphasis of the federal role in infrastructure is consistent with the budget plan laid out by Romney’s running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. By limiting federal transportation spending to the revenues in the Highway Trust Fund, Rep. Ryan’s budget would have resulted in a $30 billion cut in federal transportation aid to the states. (Presently, the Ryan plan would have also insisted that transportation expansion projects like high-speed rail by run as “self-sustaining commercial enterprises.”) On the whole, President Obama seems to place a higher-priority on transportation investment, and the federal role in transportation, than does Governor Romney. The Obama plan views federal investment as a key to economic growth, while the Romney plan seeks to cut spending on subsidies like the one to Amtrak. Land Development As Transportation Nation notes in their profile of Romney, both he, as Governor, and President Obama, created new government structures to better coordinate housing, transportation and energy policies and champion “smart-growth.” Romney created the Office of Commonwealth Development, and Obama created the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, a collaboration between the U.S. Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, and the Environmental Protection Agency. There is more than an echo on this issue of the role that Romney’s health care plan played as a model for the federal “Obamacare,” which Romney now says he would repeal. Given Romney’s fiscal policy goal of giving states bloc grants to pursue innovative strategies, and considering that House Republicans have already targeted the Sustainable Communities program in their budget, it seems unlikely that Romney would continue Obama’s multi-agency partnership if elected. Environment and Energy Up until Hurricane Sandy, climate change had received scant mention on the campaign trail. (The issue did make a cameo in each candidates’ convention speeches, albeit in very different ways.) Energy, on the other hand, is part of both candidates’ economic plans and has been a topic in the presidential debates. President Obama characterizes his energy plan as “all of the above,” increasing domestic oil and natural gas production while investing in wind and solar energy. Governor Romney contends that the Obama administration has stood in the way of increased domestic oil and natural gas production, and considers the administration’s support of alternate energy as a waste of government subsidies. Romney also supports building the Keynote XL pipeline between Canada and the United States; Obama has opposed the pipeline. Both candidates have spoken in favor of clean coal technology, perhaps in a play for votes in the coal-mining areas of battleground state Ohio. Perhaps the major difference between the campaigns is on the issue of energy conservation. The Obama energy plan leads with tighter fuel economy standards. Romney’s plan is silent on curbing demand and speaks of regulation only as a roadblock to increased production. Overall, both candidates tie energy to economic growth, but with different emphases. President Obama stresses the need to invest in clean and green energy, while Governor Romney favors traditional energy sources. Conclusion Conventional wisdom holds that jobs and the economy is the dominant issue in this election. As devastating as Hurricane Sandy was, it is unlikely that it will dislodge that issue from the top of the agenda. But the storm and its aftermath have driven home the very real economic costs impacts of inadequate infrastructure. A recent opinion survey by the Rockefeller Foundation indicated that Americans understand the relationship between infrastructure and the economy. But that same survey found far lower support for new revenues needed to address the problem, preferring instead to curb wasteful spending. Supporters of both President and Obama and Governor Romney could take comfort from these split results. The question is whether Sandy has tipped the scales of public opinion more towards investment, and whether that will play a decisive role in Tuesday’s vote.
