For a vivid illustration of the opposing economic views of the Romney and Obama camps, see Phil Gramm and Glenn Hubbard’s article in the Wall Street Journal and Fareed Zakaria’s column in The Post. 

Gramm and Hubbard, pointing out the contrasts between Romney and Obama’s approaches to economic policy, state that Obama believes in growth driven by government, through stimulus packages and greater regulation; whereas Romney sees economic growth coming from the private sector, with restrained federal spending and tax reforms. 

Zakaria, on the other hand, states that the tax cuts Romney proposes are “highly unlikely to lead to increased economic activity,” presenting the argument that President Obama has offered substantial tax cuts for the past three years to appease Republicans, and that this approach just hasn’t worked.

Fareed overlooks the fact that the money currently being spent by the government is not being spent efficiently.  Why would anyone believe that by increasing taxes, the government would spend the extra money any better than how it is being spent now? 

Zakaria also boldly proclaims that “tax cuts have been a central cause of America’s deficit problems.” But Gramm and Hubbard raise a question that undermines the veracity of that statement. They question why, if Obama is correct that government spending is what boosts economic growth (despite what this adds to the national debt), Greece is not currently “experiencing a new Golden Age.”

America’s deficit problems are primarily the result of rampant government spending, not tax cuts, a point that Obama and Zakaria don’t seem to understand. 

Remember, Republicans believe we spend too much.  We are not taxed too little.