If people really want to understand what the candidates stand for, maybe a look at their own websites might help. Take Romney's website, as an example.

I began looking for what he proposes for the broad fiscal reform of the country, recognized as necessary by almost everyone, but remaining "unplanned" by virtually everyone except the Simpson-Boles Commission. What did I find? Not much really. No where near enough detail for me. Oh, the words all sound like good expanded soundbites, but nowhere near enough detail.

Romney addresses taxes and spending, but with little detail on both. And no explanation of what the effect will be on further deficit spending and the continued growth of the national debt. In fact, what he says on his campaign website would clearly result in continued significant deficit spending and grown of the national debt at an unsustainable rate.

Take taxes as an example. What does Mitt say? What would he do?

Tax policy shapes almost everything individuals and enterprises do as they participate in the economy. With bad design, tax policy can discourage economic activity. With good design, it can encourage it. Yet our current tax system is an accretion of decades of patchwork decisions that came into being with no systematic thought for their implications for job creation or economic growth. Every year, individual taxpayers are forced to confront a Rube Goldberg contraption of bewildering complexity that leads to a range of undesirable outcomes, including the fact that millions of Americans have to pay hundreds of dollars to have their tax returns prepared by a professional who understands the rules. Corporations, for their part, are subject to rules and regulations that all too often encourage tax gamesmanship while discouraging reinvestment in the American economy.

That's Mitt's "problem definition"...a pretty good one in my opinion. But how does he propose to address the problem? With broad tax reform, elimination of unjustified exemptions, deductions, etc.? No, all he does is list a bunch of decreases in taxes that will appeal to almost everyone. There's no expression of how much government revenues would be reduced, deficit and debt increased.

How about reigning in government spending? Romney says he'll try to get spending down to 20% of GDP by the end of his term. Then he proceeds to list a bunch of spending cuts that total only about $300 billion per year. That's less than 10% of government spending, but the effect on the deficit and the growths national debt would be offset by reduced revenues from his proposed tax cuts. It's not hard--it's only addition and subtraction.

How about the effect of his fiscal plans--the overall effect of Romney's proposals on the annal deficit and growth of national debt? Silence. No estimate. Romney says he expects his plans to result in a rate of GDP growth to 4% per year--assuming his proposals on tax and regulatory cuts have any chance whatsoever of getting passed by Congress. Our GDP growth rate is well less than half of that now. Based on Romney's campaign promises, someone will need to be a whole lot more aggressive, more fiscally responsible than Romney is proposing. We're borrowing 42-cents of every dollar we're spending. By my rough calculations, Romney's proposals would cut that by between 5-10 cents. The annual deficit would still be in the muti-trillions of dollars, with the debt growing almost exponentially. If we don't do better than this, China will determine the fiscal reforms we'll have to accept.

Oh how I wish he'd just simplify things and say he embraces the Simpson-Boles recommendations. I wish Obama would, as well.

I'll vote for Romney, but what he's said is nowhere near the amount of fiscal conservatism that I'd like to see in a new president. Based on what he's campaigning on, I have only limited expectations.