The assertion in the article is that Mitt Romney not being castigated for making an off the cuff claim that reducing spending in his first year would be counterproductive "proves" that Republicans are trying to slow economic growth to gain power. Thus:
So Republicans in Congress are blocking Obama’s jobs plan, in the correct understanding that this will redound to their party’s advantage. When Obama attempts to explain this state of affairs, Romney can accuse him of making “excuses.” Obama can hammer home the point that Republicans are blocking his plan, but doing so has the side effect of making him appear partisan and ineffective.
Obama was arguing, correctly, that Republicans are the ones satisfied with slow private sector growth, and he is the one trying to boost it through economic stimulus. But his argument is complicated, and theirs is very simple.
However, is that really what the discussions have been about? No.
BO wants to INCREASE spending AND increase taxes on the "wealthy". So Mitt saying he is going to hold the line on spending and saying nothing about taxes is actually significantly different than the meaning reported, and likely far less nefarious.
Republicans just believe that the private sector tends to allocate capital better than the public.
It is an article of faith for Democrats that GOVERNMENT spending is positive for the economy, but also that high taxes on the WEALTHY are beneficial. Having Bill Gates sell a billion worth of MS Stock so that BO can send $500 M to some Solyndra, and 500m to various folks so they can spend it as they see fit is a FAR better investment than leaving the money in MS stock. ]