Comparison Chart President Obama vs. Mitt Romney

 

President Obama

Mitt Romney

NEA

 

 

 

 

Education Funding

The FY 2013 budget request makes education funding the highest domestic priority— with the largest percentage increase than any other area of the budget proposal (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsheet/an-economy-Built-to-last-and-a-world-class-education-for-our-children)

 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act saved 400,000 educator jobs and Education Jobs Fund saved an additional 150,000 jobs (http://www.whitehouse.gov/recovery/about/)

 

The Administration continues to ask Congress to pass the American Jobs Act, which contains $30 billion in funding for states to retain, rehire, and hire early childhood, elementary, and secondary school educators (“Jobs & The Economy: Putting America Back to Work,” WhiteHouse.gov)

Romney has a long history of supporting education cuts– first as Governor, and then as a candidate for president. Governor Romney slashed $2.3 million from special education, and $25 million from school readiness grants, early literacy programs, and school meals for low-income students (Gloucester Daily Times, 11/30/06; Mass. Budget and Policy Center 3/05/03)

 

Even when he proposed increases in school funding, it was $134.6 million less than levels the year he took office (Massachusetts Budget And Policy Center, 2/6/04)

 

Most recently, Romney has pledged his support for Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget, which would cut funding for education and other priorities, such as cutting Title I by $2.7 billion and slashing Head Start access for 100,000 kids (The Note, ABC, 3/20/2012; “Duncan Blasts Ryan Budget Plan,” Education Week Blog, 3/22/2012.)

NEA believes public schools need consistent and substantial funding from federal, state, and local programs to help students learn and thrive. The federal government should increase its investment in and fully fund critical programs that benefit students, such as Title I, Title III, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

 

 It is imperative to ensure stable, adequate, and equitable funding of public schools. 

 

Students nationwide cannot afford the consequences of reducing the rolls of educators—larger class sizes, less personalization, and less support for behavioral, emotional, or social challenges. 

 

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Ryan budget “would likely produce the largest redistribution of income from the bottom to the top in modern U.S. history and likely increase poverty and inequality.” 

Vouchers

President Obama opposes school vouchers.   In 2011, when Congress was pushing to extend the controversial D.C. school voucher program, the President stated that “private school vouchers are not an effective way to improve student achievement.” President Obama also believes that vouchers are not a long-term answer to the educational challenges that face public schools (Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 471, Office of Management and Budget, March 29, 2011; “School Vouchers Will Be a Test for Obama,” Politico, January 26, 2011.)

Romney has consistently promoted “school choice” with his support for vouchers (Fox News, 9/22/11; “No Apology,” 2011, pg. 320)

 

As a 1994 Senate candidate, he pledged to vote for  a means tested school voucher program (Boston Globe review of 1994 campaign issues, Glassbooth.org, 3/3/02)

 

As a candidate for president, Romney said states should “make sure [they] have school choice.” He would take tax dollars from public schools to fund private for-profit schools at taxpayers’ expense (Florida Republican Debate, 09/22/11; Boston Globe review of 1994 campaign issues, Glassbooth.org, 3/3/02)

NEA opposes voucher programs that create taxpayer-funded subsidies for private schools because they are a bad idea.  We  should invest in local public schools to improve the quality of education and help our children compete successfully in the fast-changing economy.

 

Instead of taking money from public schools 90 percent of our children attend, we should invest in reducing class sizes, increasing parental involvement, and expanding students’ access to high-level math and science courses. These steps are vital to providing an excellent education and preparing our children to compete for jobs of the future.

 

We must make education a priority. Robbing public schools of resources so private schools can operate at taxpayer expense is bad for us and our children’s future.

Early Childhood Education

President Obama’s FY13 budget maintains Head Start funding to ensure services for the additional children served due to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsheet/an-economy-Built-to-last-and-a-world-class-education-for-our-children)

 

President Obama “supports a seamless and comprehensive set of services and support for children, from birth through age 5…he will urge states to impose high standards across all publicly funded early learning settings, develop new programs to improve opportunities and outcomes, engage parents in their child’s early learning and development, and improve the early education workforce”  (http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education)

As Governor, Romney cut early education and pre-k funding, vetoed $10 million for kindergarten expansion, questioned the benefits of early education, and suggested Head Start was a failure (Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, 3/5/03)

NEA believes high quality early child­hood education programs should be a priority and should be considered an integral part of the education continuum.

 

The federal government should provide support for early childhood education programs, including Head Start and full-day kindergarten. 

 

Federal legislation should be enacted to implement fully funded, high quality early childhood education programs through public schools.

Fair Pay for Women

The President supported and signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act; supports Paycheck Fairness Act and acknowledges that “gains in education and labor force involvement have not yet translated into wage and income equity” (Obama Signs Lilly Ledbetter Act,” Washington Post, January 29, 2009; “Obama Administration Record for Women and Girls,” WhiteHouse.gov; “Women in America,” WhiteHouse.gov, 3/2011)

Romney does not take issues that affect women seriously.  It took him two hours to respond to a question about his position on the Paycheck Fairness Act (Lilly Ledbetter, Ann Romney, and the War for Women Voters, http://mojoe.msnbc.msn.com /_news/2012/04/12/11161222-lilly-ledbetter-ann-romney-and-the-war-for-women-voters)

 

As Governor, Romney’s policies were viewed as hurting women (Boston Globe, 12/8/04)

 

He thinks low-income mothers should be required to work outside the home or lose their benefits, “even if you have a child 2 years of age” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/15/mitt-romney-mothers-welfare-moms_n_1426113.html#s8

64890&title=Debbie_WassermanSchultz)

 

Romney pledged to repeal the law that ensures insurance companies can no longer charge women more than men for the same care (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JtxAvAgrMVU)

NEA believes women should have equal access to employment, promotion, compensation, and leadership.  In the workplace, policies for family leave, maternity leave, paternity leave, child-care leave, and professional leave are critical to the participation and growth of women at all levels.     

 

All workers should be paid on the basis of requirements, skills, and worth of their jobs, and factors such as gender or race should never play a role in determining salary.

 

Higher Education

The President signed into law $36 billion over 10 years to increase the maximum Pell Grant award and $2 billion for community colleges  (http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/higher-education)

 

The President led the charge to stop the student loan interest rate hike (http://www.whitehouse.gov/dont-double-my-rates)

 

President Obama protected the maximum Pell Grant award in his FY13 budget (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsheet/an-economy-built-to-last-and-expanded-college-opportunity)

 

The President signed an executive order protecting men and women who have served or are currently in the military from unscrupulous “diploma mills” (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/04/26/we-can-t-wait-president-obama-takes-action-stop-deceptive-and-misleading)

Romney has continually supported policies to cut funding to higher education. As Governor, he proposed raising tuition by 15 percent and reduced higher education funding. As a result, student fees were increased by 63 percent to offset budget cuts (Boston Globe, 3/3/03; Boston Globe 6/29/07)

 

Immediately after becoming Governor, Romney proposed privatizing public state colleges (Chronicle Of Higher Education, 11/23/07)

 

“Romney said he would support increasing the number of for-profit institutions. He said he believes that schools such as the University of Phoenix help drive down the cost of college and give students lower-cost alternatives to traditional higher education institutions” (Ames Tribune, 12/29/11)

It is critical to support efforts that ensure access to financial assistance and choice for all students who wish to pursue postsecondary education regardless of personal financial means.  This includes emphasizing needs-based financial aid through grants, rather than loans, and full federal funding of financial assistance programs like Pell Grants. 

 

Postsecondary education serves as an invaluable function for intellectual development, research and scholarship, career preparation, and preparation for life.

 

Access to postsecondary programs should not be impeded by age, gender, sexual orientation, gender identification, disability, race, military registration status, or ability to pay. 

 

 

NCLB/ESEA

“I want to take us in a new and better

direction...This agenda starts with

education... We cannot be satisfied until every child in America— and I mean every child—has the same chances for a good education that we want for our own children” (Weekly Radio Address, 5/21/11)

 

President Obama believes providing a high-quality public education for all children is critical to our economic future. He emphasizes the “path to the American Dream depend[s] on providing every child with an education that will enable them to succeed in a global economy 

(“Education,” WhiteHouse.gov; Presidential Proclamation, Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, 9/2/11; “U.S. Department of Education 2013 Budget Continues Investments to Strengthen Workforce and Rebuild American Economy,” U.S. Department of Education.)

Romney “likes” NCLB because it “reins in national teachers unions” and calls for testing kids (Fox News, 01/24/08; Union Leader, 10/30/07; Detroit Free Press, 2/16/12)

 

In his book “No Apology” Romney wrote: “Former president George W. Bush was right to champion [NCLB] which requires states to test student progress and to evaluate school performance… Only the federal government had the clout, to force testing through the barricade mounted by the national teachers’ unions” (“No Apology,” 2011, Pg. 234-235)

 

“Romney said the federal government has a role in encouraging high teacher achievement. He favors some sort of standardized testing but said elements of NCLB may no longer make sense” (Seacoast Online, 11/4/11)

ESEA created for the first time a partnership among federal, state, and local governments to address part of the larger national agenda of confronting poverty and its damaging effects by targeting federal aid to poor students and schools. Our country cannot walk away from that commitment at a time when there are more students and families in poverty than ever. The federal government must balance support of states and local school districts’ efforts with its critical role in ensuring equitable access to a quality education so students in need have what they deserve to thrive in today’s society.

 

NCLB distorted earlier interpretations of the federal role and the U.S. of Department of Education’s mission.  While the law’s broad goals and commitment to closing achievement gaps should be applauded, NCLB disregards the realities of school, district, and state capacity and practice and requires unrealistic outcomes without supplying the requisite support and resources.

Workers’ Rights

President Obama believes “collective bargaining is a ‘fundamental American value.’” The President cited labor as “the reason we have a minimum wage, weekends away from work to rest and spend time with family, and basic protections in our workplaces.” He said “making it harder for public employees to collectively bargain generally seems like more of an assault on unions” “(Presidential Proclamation,” Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, 9/2/11; WTMJ-TV, 2/17/11; “Obama on Wisconsin Budget Protests:  ‘An Assault on Unions,’” Political Punch, ABC News, 2/17/11

 

The President supports workers’ rights to form unions; opposes “right to work” legislation (Obama Uses Labor Day Speech to Condemn ‘Right to Work’ Laws,” The Washington Independent, 9/6/11)

 

President Obama said “public employees should not be blamed for a financial crisis that they had nothing to do with,” and he “strongly disapproves of new laws restricting public employee unions in Ohio”  (“President Obama Opposes New Collective Bargaining Law in Ohio,” WSAZ.com, 4/26/11)

Romney would sign a national “right-to-work” law if president because it restricts workers’ rights (Perry, Romney Embrace a National Right-to-Work Law,” The Street, September 28, 2011; “Right-to-Work Law Curbing Unions Sought by Romney, Republicans,” Bloomberg, 11/23/11).

 

Romney supported the failed New Hampshire “right to work” law and waffled on restricting teachers’ collective bargaining rights in Ohio, ultimately supporting restrictions (“Unions survive anti-labor push in New Hampshire,” LA Times, November 30, 2011; Mitt Romney supported Gov. John Kasich laws in June,” Politico, October 25, 2011. “Romney Says He Backs Ohio Measure Limiting Union Power,” Real Clear Politics, 10/26/11)

 

Romney also supported the attack on teachers’ rights in Wisconsin (“Romney Weighs in on Wisconsin Battle,” Boston Globe, 2/24/11.)

NEA believes that attaining and exercising collective bargaining rights are essential to the promotion of the needs of both students and educational professionals.

 

When states try to reduce public salaries and pensions by eliminating collective bargaining, they take an economic hit in the long term. The lower the wages of public employees, the less discretionary income they have to spend in the local economy. The higher the wages, the higher the reinvestment into the economy. And research shows that most public employees stay—and spend—within the state after retirement.

 

Restrictions on school employees’ right to bargain collectively leaves teachers and education support professionals with little say in the quality of public education.  Workers have a right to organize and join a union without harassment or retaliation from employers.

 

 

Health Care Reform

President Obama expanded access to reproductive health care through the Affordable Care Act, which also provides for access to domestic violence screenings.  Today, new insurance plans must cover women’s preventative health care with no deductibles, copayments, or coinsurance. Starting in 2014, many plans must cover the cost of pregnancy (“Women's Preventive Services: Required Health Plan Coverage Guidelines,” HRSA.gov.)

 

The Affordable Care Act has ensured that Medicare is stronger for seniors; women have access to life-saving mammograms; and children won’t lose coverage for pre-existing conditions.  The law has expanded health care options for millions of Americans:  180 million Americans have protection against denial of care to the sick, excessive premium increases, lifetime caps on the care, and protection against gender discrimination; 86 million Americans have access to free preventive care, including cancer screenings; and 2.5 million young adults have insurance under their parents’ plans  (“Understanding the Reforms,” Whitehouse.gov, accessed 3/30/2012; “Affordable Care Act:  The New Health Care Law at Two Years,” Whitehouse.gov, 3/23/2012)

 

The President believes health reform should make health care more affordable, hold insurers more accountable, expand coverage to all Americans and make our health system sustainable   (Whitehouse.Gov/Healthreform)

Romney has pledged to “eliminate Title X family planning programs, “ which cover preventative screenings, reproductive health services, and cervical‐cancer exams for low‐income women  (How I'll Tackle Spending, Debt, MittRomney.com, 11/3/2011)

 

Romney would issue “ObamaCare

waivers” for  states and work with Congress to repeal the legislation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JtxAvAgrMVU)

Health reform should provide universal, quality, affordable health care coverage:  it should guarantee coverage for the uninsured; control costs, regardless of income or employment status; result in comprehensive health care coverage including long-term care services and choice of providers; and include preventative and rehabilitative programs.

 

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act opened the door to health care possibilities for millions of children and their families who never before had access.  When children and students of all ages lack necessary medical and dental services, serious impediments to the learning process occur.  Ensuring quality, affordable health care is vital to great public schools. 

Social Security & Retirement Benefits

“We have an obligation to keep that promise, to safeguard Social Security for our seniors, people with disabilities and all Americans — today, tomorrow and forever” (Weekly Radio Address, 8/14/10)

 

President Obama is committed to protecting and strengthening Social Security.  He believes in finding a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations, but without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities. The President opposes slashing benefits for future generations or subjecting Americans’ retirement income to the whims of the stock market (“Seniors & Social Security,” White House Blog.)

 

 

Romney would change Social Security as we know it by privatizing it, raising the retirement age, and reducing payments (Florida Republican Debate, 10/27/07; Romney, Mitt. No Apology: The Case

for American Greatness. Pg 173)

NEA strongly opposes any privatization of Social Security. Social Security did not contribute to the nation’s deficit and should not be cut to address it.  Educators are particularly vulnerable in their retirement security, both because of their comparatively low salaries and increasing attacks on their pension plans.  They, like the majority of middle class Americans, rely on Social Security for their future.

 

Cuts to Social Security would fall disproportionately on low-income individuals, particularly minorities, who depend on Social Security and Medicare. 

 

Privatization will drain money available to pay current retirees.  The cost to replace these funds could reach $1 trillion over the next decade.  The push to privatize Social Security is a risky scheme for America, but a sure bet for the financial services industry.  Financial firms stand to gain potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in fees from private accounts. 

Tax Fairness

President Obama successfully urged

Congress to pass an extension of the

Payroll Tax Cut. He challenged Republicans to not “raise taxes on nearly 160 million hardworking Americans because they refused to ask a few hundred thousand millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share” (Obama

Challenges Republicans on Payroll Tax,” CNN, 11/30/11; “Senate Votes

Against Payroll Tax Cut: Unacceptable,” WhiteHouse.gov, 12/01/11)

Romney wants to make sure the wealthy and corporations continue to benefit from the Bush tax cuts, despite the fact that as many as two out of three U.S .corporations paid zero in federal income taxes over much of the previous decade, according to the GAO. In fact, the only tax cuts he opposes are the ones that benefit the middle class (“Mitt

Romney on Obama’s Prime-Time Press Conference, Stimulus Plan,” Fox News, 2/9/09; “Mitt Romney: ‘I’m Not Looking To Put Money In People’s Pockets.’” Huffington Post, 11/23/11; “What Mitt Romney’s Fiscal Plan Says About GOP Tax Cut Mania.” Time, 11/7/11; “Tax Administration:  Comparison of the Reported Tax Liabilities of Foreign- and U.S.-Controlled Corporations, 1998-2005” General Accounting Office , 7/2008.)

A fair and progressive tax system should generate the necessary revenue to support investments in priority areas such as education, infrastructure, and high-value research and development.  The increasing erosion of the corporate tax base has contributed to the country’s economic position.  It is unconscionable to expect children, the elderly, the poor, and the disabled to suffer while wealthy corporations and greedy CEOs continue to prosper without paying their fair share.

 

Instead of raising taxes on working families and the most vulnerable in our communities, tax reform proposals should include attracting expatriated business and in­vestment to return for the benefit of our American economy and discouraging corpora­tions from moving their interests abroad to avoid tax liabilities. 

 

Tax policy should safeguard families’ critical needs,, such as extending unemployment benefits, the educator tax deduction, child care tax credit, earned income tax credits, and the American Opportunity Tax credit.