Certainty vs. Uncertainty (Death and Taxes, continued)

Mitt Romney's economic agenda for expanding jobs and shrinking government conveniently follows on certainty vs. uncertainty in the earlier post, Death and Taxes. Mr. Romney makes the previously mentioned complaint regarding uncertainty: "Almost every action the president has taken has deepened and lengthened the downturn. The private sector has retreated, frightened by his agenda and paralyzed by the uncertainty, lack of predictability, and outright hostility he has engendered."

In presenting his agenda, Mr. Romney ignores that energy, trade and entitlement reforms are all major topics that will have to be addressed in detail over a long period of time, and are also reforms that have no sure path to success. There is much research,, legislating, regulating and lobbying to be done. For a good result, a period of uncertainty is both necessary and welcome, in my view. Eliminate the capital gains tax? That alone guarantees paralysis while investors wait to see whether their earnings might receive more favorable tax treatment later.

In his call for certainty, Mr. Romney is not promoting certainty of the outcomes of expanding jobs and shrinking government, and is using it as a pretext for something else. What is that something else? I encourage your own answers, but here is mine, based on a less well known definition of certainty. In this case certainty represents a contract between Mr. Romney and people who will work for him, contribute to his campaign, and  vote for him. The contract is that they will share the same destiny. In this specific instance, that destiny would be the result of the economic agenda in the article below.

Mitt Romney - Grow jobs and shrink government