Sorry, but here's why. For the past three-and-a-half years, I've visited many public and private companies. In almost all cases, I hear the same thing: they're afraid. They're afraid to invest in their business because they don't know what their future profits might look like. They're afraid to hire people because they don't know what increased liabilities that will bring to their firms. They're afraid to spend any of their cash for fear of increased regulatory costs.

Folks, I've been in this business for 30 years, the last half of which focused on meetings – whether one-on-one or in a conference setting – with business owners and executives of all different sizes and shapes. Never has their collective assessment been so dire.

Not during the bursting of the internet bubble, (most figured it was merely a cleansing of unrealistic optimism). Not during horror of 9/11, (most figured it was merely a cleansing of unrealistic pessimism). Not even during the first stages of the credit crises (most figured it was merely a short-term cleansing of poor business decisions).

It's clear this current culture of economic fear has been bad for business. Sure, at first the streamlining of costs helped increase corporate productivity, and we saw the benefits of this in corporate profits and rising markets. Unfortunately, productivity gains can only get you so far, and we're now beginning to see this both in third quarter earnings report and an anemic GDP. This isn't good for investors. This isn't good for America.

And this isn't good for those who I owe a fiduciary duty to.

The question of the presidential election, then, doesn't come to who I feel is best positioned to advance the fiduciary standard. Rather, the question comes down to which presidential candidate is best positioned to turn the economy around, just as he's managed the turnaround of so many other public and private initiatives.

That presidential candidate is Mitt Romney.