Romney and the Republicans are not likely to reach 60 seats in the Senate, but they wont need them. The major issues on the table are budgetary. That means they can be considered using the budget reconciliation process, which cant be filibustered. But Romney, though he often buys into that sort of nonsense while criticizing Obama, knows better. Time magazine asked him about cutting spending in 2013. If you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5 percent, Romney said. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So Im not going to do that, of course. You couldnt have gotten a clearer definition of Keynesian budgeting from Obama. Remember, wrote Business Insiders Joe Weisenthal, Republicans were pro-deficit, and pro-entitlement expansion under Bush and Reagan. Deficit cutting only became part of the partys ideology under Obama. Compared to anything Obama is likely to get from a Republican House, that is, at least in the short term, a much more expansionary, Keynesian approach. But its also an awful precedent. In a sense, Republicans are holding a gun to the economys head and saying, vote for us or the recovery gets it. The Keynesian case for Romney ------------------------------------------ Reconciliation is only evil when Democrats use it. Republicans used it for both the Bush Tax cuts and for the "drugs for votes" bill, both costing unknown trillions. Romney wins and Republicans embrace all of Obama's economic policies. Except those that help the poor and middle class. Those are people, they can let "die".