Here is some food for thought about Romney's abilities and leadership versus Obama's and who would be most likely to solve the economic problems facing the nation.

Take for example the Olympics that Romney was hired to rescue. When he took over, they were in an abysmal condition and on the brink of disaster. As I recall, they were seriously behind schedule, deeply in the red financially, and fast approaching being a catastrophic embarrassment to this nation.

I don't know how many diverse and divergent groups, special interests, committees, contractors, and regulatory agencies he faced. They probably numbered in the hundreds. To compound the problems, each entity undoubtedly felt their needs should be the No. 1 priority. The resulting cacophony of noise was surely deafening.

But Romney made no excuses. He just buckled down and in short order pulled them all together into an efficient cohesive organization that produced an Olympics that was a spectacular event to behold and resounding financial success. To add to the story, the salary he was given for the job he donated to charity.

In contrast Obama has not been able to pass a budget since he came to office. Unemployment is over 8 percent and there are more than a million fewer Americans working today. In just three years the deficit is more than $6 trillion bigger. The value of our personal incomes and assets is about 40 percent smaller.

Obama pointedly makes the excuse that he couldn't get anything done and blames Congress. He then conveniently omits the fact that his party controlled both houses of Congress in his first two years.

Need more be said to contrast their abilities, leadership and who is most likely to solve our economic problems?

William M. Santina

Spotsylvania