« GOP Debate | Main | Take-out Chinese »
Mitt Whispers Sweet, Sweet Fiscal Music
From tonight's GOP debate (perhaps slightly paraphrased):
"The new tax rate on dividends and capital gains will be absolutely zero."
For my money, this is the single best fiscal issue for any Republican to run on. Alas, as I've noted before, Mitt seems to have wavered a smidge on this one.
I'd already been a Romney guy, but he absolutely won me over at CPAC on this issue when he first unfurled it, then broke my heart a month later at the first GOP debate when he seemed to partially back away from this marvelous fiscal position (suggesting it might only apply to low-income Americans).
Tonight, his crystal clarity has won me back.
Not that I ever wavered from my Mitt support, but his answer tonight has re-gained him probationary most-favored-policy status on this vital issue.
Handcrafted by Flip on September 5, 2007 |
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572653ef00e54ed82b5e8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Mitt Whispers Sweet, Sweet Fiscal Music:
Comments
romeny is *also* the guy who presided over the installation of hillarycare in his state; along with signing off on the "have a gun, go to jail" billboards. this is a conservative? a guy who believes in individual freedom?? no thanks. all i see is a pseudoconservative smart enough to say "cut taxes" a lot. we already have one of those guys in the white house *right now*. based on the unbuilt border fence, the unconfronted chinese adventurism; the drunken-sailoresque spending; the charlie sierra rules of engagement he's saddling the troops with; the 'wait 6-and-a-half years to veto something' gutlessness ..... i don't believe we want another guy like that.Posted by: bloodrage bob | Sep 6, 2007 1:02:26 AM
Bob: I can appreciate your frustrations, but I'd counter with a couple points. 1) Saying "cut taxes" is one thing. Recognizing that the 2003 Bush tax cuts represent the greatest fiscal policy change for the American economy in more than 20 years is another. Romney seems to get that, in that he's pledging to do what amounts to doubling down on that policy shift. For that reason alone, if no other GOP candidates pledge to do likewise, economic conservatives (and indeed all 300 million or so Americans who participate in the American economy) will find no better champion than Mitt Romney. 2) It's wrong to view what Mitt instituted in Massachusetts as Hillarycare, or even Hillary-lite. It's not perfect, but it's the best real-world approximation of the state-based solution prescribed by Heritage (more info here: http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/stateinitiatives/ ). Hillary (and any candidate that toes a similar line) is of course completely off the reservation when she espouses socialized medicine. And however she chooses to euphemize her proposals, we know from experience that that's what she's all about. The Massachusetts solution is far from optimal, but it does represent the boldest and soundest effort put forth to date to expand healthcare coverage (a net economic and societal benefit to the citizenry at large) while acknowledging and indeed leveraging market forces, rather than disavowing them, as Hillarycare (as any socialist ideology) is forced to do.Posted by: Flip | Sep 6, 2007 1:40:51 AM
flip, i'm new to your blog & like it quite a bit, but on romney, we shall have to agree to disagree. leaving romney's apparent antipathy/lack of sympathy to an armed populace aside for the nonce, ("have a gun, go to jail!"), i'll just concentrate on mass.'s "not exactly hillarycare" scheme. heck, i'll even leave aside the fact that 'providing healthcare' *isn't* the responsibilty of government, and is *guaranteed* to lead to loss of personal liberty. that lady in england who's going to have her baby taken from her (as soon as she gives birth) because "we think she has the *potential* to abuse the infant"? the national health service made that determination based on information given to them by "her" doctor. information she "didn't" authorize that doc to release. guess what, lady? the doc doesn't work for YOU, dearie. camel's nose; slippery slope; yadda yadda. instead, let's just focus on *cost*. when fdr started up social security, it cost 1% of a worker's first thousand or so dollars earned, plus employer match. a whopping 2%. it's now **14+ percent** of the first *hundred* thousand, isn't it. back in the '60's, when they were debating medicare, i've read old life magazines that quoted ted kennedy saying that "in the year 2000, it'll cost at most $10 billion." he was off by a factor of ...what? 10? 15? and now we have mittcare in massachusetts. what'll you bet *it's* costs are underestimated by 900, 1000, 1500% *TOO*? it's ALWAYS more expensive than they promise it will be; it's ALWAYS less efficient than they promise it will be; it ALWAYS leads to loss of freedom - can't get a job or have a bank account without a SS number, can ya. they "promised that will never happen", right up to the time it DID. we don't need any more guys & gals who "think that's a good idea!" in the white house. joe lunchbox already pays more taxes as a percentage than medieval serfs did. we **can't afford** any more government "help".Posted by: bloodrage bob | Sep 6, 2007 2:24:46 AM
