Status Quo or Change?

The Romney campaign is said to be switching strategies to one of “status quo or change”.  From where one sits, this has always been the compelling issue of the 2012 Presidential race.  However, the choice is not between status quo or change but change for the better or change for the worse.  President Obama has repeatedly set legislation to Congress that is designed to create more jobs and life more people out of poverty.  Unfortunately, those in Congress who support the Romney policies have seen fit to filibuster and obstruct any legislation proposed by President Obama.  On the other hand, the Romney policies of less regulation and lowering the tax rate for those in the top income tax brackets have been in effect for over 30 years and during this entire time did not contribute to middle class growth or increase tax revenues.  The change proposed by Romney, based upon historical economic experience, is change for the worse not change for the better.  The Romney/Ryan economic policies will negatively effect those most in heed of government assistance while benefiting those who are least in need of favors from the government.  Additionally, both Romney and Ryan will personally benefit from their economic policies as will many of those who are financing their campaign like the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson, Foster Fries, and the hundreds of unnamed millionaires and billionaires who are trying to purchase even more political clout.  The change that is needed is the change that will most benefit the middle class in America.  A growing middle class with increased discretionary income will create the necessary demand to re-grow the economy.  This is what occurred between 1945 and 1979.  Beginning in 1979, while the income and the wealth grew for those in the top tax brackets, the remaining 90% of Americans experienced either no growth in income or wealth, or fell behind.  As this happened, the 90% cut back on spending and the end result was the second worst economic downturn in the history of the country.  Change for the sake of change is not the solution.  Neither is change for the worse.  What is needed is change for the better and that is the change offered by a second Obama term.  This change for the better can only advance by ridding Congress of those with Tea Party thinking and political policies that are only aimed at preventing a second Obama term in office.  The President (any President, by the way) needs a Congress that will put country ahead of party politics.  Members of Congress that are characterized by the likes of McConnell and Cantor are so fixated on party politics that they are unable to enact any legislation that will benefit their constituents and grow the middle class in America.  It is not just important to re-elect Obama, but equally important to send people to Congress who are equally concerned with preventing change for the worse.