In the three months after President Obama swore his oath in 2009, more than 2 million American jobs disappeared.

He has owned the economic disaster he inherited ever since, fair or not. And that fact is the core rationale behind Mitt Romney’s candidacy. To us, that is not enough.

Lets face it: Neither candidate has a credible strategy to spark a more robust recovery in the short term. Financial crises take many years to overcome. Most economists, including Moody’s Analytics, expect only gradual progress, no matter who wins.

But the distinctions between Obama and Romney are profound when it comes to America’s prospects over the longer term. Romney is sticking with a hard-line conservative program — lower tax rates and a huge military buildup that gives the Pentagon far more than it asked for. That would inevitably cause the debt to explode.

Related Editorials:

Editorial: Criticism of Obama for Libya attack, world unrest are misplaced

Editorial: Obama winner of second debate

Editorial: Mitt Romney has wrong ideas on defense

Editorial: Obama loses war of words to Romney in first presidential debate

Editorial: Pennsylvania judge does right in voter ID ruling

Enough. America has been living beyond its means, in good times and bad. We have cut taxes while waging two wars — a first in our history. We have failed utterly to face the tough choices on entitlements, even as a flood of Baby Boomers begins to draw benefits.

At the same time, we have neglected nation-building at home. Our infrastructure is decaying and our schools are falling steadily in world rankings. It was once a given that an American born in any station could move up the ladder, but we lag even by that defining measure of economic justice.

Every bipartisan group that has examined this has prescribed a painful mix of spending cuts and tax increases. That’s because we are in such a deep hole that it will take $4 trillion just to stabilize the debt as a share of the economy.

To see what that means, look at the most prominent bipartisan plan, the Simpson-Bowles compromise. It would increase the gas tax by 15 cents a gallon. It would chop Social Security benefits, along with Medicare and Medicaid. It would cut back on sacred tax breaks for home mortgage payments. Discretionary programs would take a beating, from highways to national parks.

Instead of facing these hard truths, Romney runs from them. He would cut income tax rates by 20 percent, and says he’ll cover the cost by closing magical loopholes he won’t name. Even if that were true, his goal is to break even, ignoring the need for more revenue.

His military buildup would dwarf Ronald Reagan’s, adding $2 trillion in spending over the next decade. The $4 trillion hole would deepen to more than $6 trillion.

He then promises to restore the $700 billion cut in Medicare growth. That digs the hole to nearly $7 trillion. And if closing loopholes doesn’t cover the cost of his enormous cut in tax rates, that cost would be layered on top.

This is not an honest plan. It is an undisciplined jumble of political planks — some designed to woo his base during the primary, others to attack the president during the general election.

* * *

Obama’s problem on the debt has been his lack of courage. He appointed the Simpson-Bowles commission, then punted on its report — the biggest mistake of his presidency.

But he has at least staked out the reasonable middle ground, embracing the bipartisan framework of a mix of tax increases and spending cuts. When and if the Republican fever breaks, he is clearly ready to cut a deal.

nj.com-phone-app-pic3.jpg

STAY CONNECTED 24/7

Download our

free NJ.com mobile and tablet apps

to keep up with the latest New Jersey news, sports and entertainment.

On this decisive issue of the national debt, it is not a close call. We endorse President Obama.

And while the debt is at the top of our list, he has scored important wins in other areas, too. He is ending two wars, and has crippled al Qaeda by killing Osama bin Laden and conducting an aggressive campaign of attacks with drones and special forces.

His health care reform will bring coverage to 31 million people and gives consumers new powers against insurers. Doubling automobile efficiency will lead to historic gains in clean air and energy independence.

He has broken the hold of the teachers unions over the Democratic Party, sparking an unprecedented wave of school reform with a cleverly designed policy that offers grants to states that innovate. He ended the inane policy of kicking homosexuals out of the military, and has endorsed gay marriage. And his decision to bail out the auto industry helped save the economy from an even deeper dive.

He never delivered on promised immigration reform or climate change. And while he’s faced a Congress in the grasp of extremists, he’s never found an effective answer, or even made them pay a price. He is, in the end, a good president but not a great one.

* * *

Romney was an effective governor in Massachusetts, and few people question his competence. His charity through his church has been impressive.

But his policies consistently favor the wealthy over the middle class, and the budget plan drafted by his running mate, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, relies on spending cuts that overwhelmingly land on low-income families. His plan to starve Planned Parenthood is extremist nonsense that will leave many women without basic cancer screening.

He has flipped positions on abortion and gun control, on health care and taxes, on gay rights and climate change. The list goes on and on, and reflects a serious character flaw. Yes, Abraham Lincoln compromised on slavery and Reagan compromised on taxes. Good politicians stay flexible to manage their coalitions.

But Romney’s flip-flops are chronic and self-serving. He is consistent only in the way he floats with the political winds. That is not leadership; it is pandering. And it means he can’t be trusted.

A final concern: Romney is an unsteady player in global affairs, striking a belligerent tone in almost every theater and relying on many of the neocon advisers behind the disastrous policies of George W. Bush. That is unnerving, especially when combined with his inexperience and his promised military buildup.

Our hope is that Obama wins decisively and that Republicans respond by moving toward the middle, as Democrats did under Bill Clinton. That may be wishful thinking, but it is the nation’s best hope.