Romney Appeals to Fiscal Conservatives

Yahoo! News ^ | February 7, 2007 | Jeff Karob, Associated Press writer

[circumbendibus]

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Wednesday made a direct appeal to Republican fiscal conservatives, arguing that the president should veto any spending bill that exceeds its targets.

Speaking to the Detroit Economic Club, the former Massachusetts governor addressed an issue that has riled the GOP base, who contend that the party's loss of power last November was based, in part, on excessive spending.

"When our party has been in charge, we didn't distinguish ourselves on spending restraint," Romney said. "That's got to change — and it would in my administration."

The one-term governor suggested giving Congress a spending target and insisting that it is met. "If Congress does not meet the spending targets, then its appropriations bills should be vetoed. I regularly exercised my veto power while governor," he said.

Romney served one term as governor. He also suggested that Congress give the president the power of the line-item veto, an oft-repeated proposal that is has little chance in Congress.

The Republican also called for making President Bush's tax cuts, set to expire in 2010, permanent. He said individuals should be able to save $5,000 a year without paying taxes on interest, dividends or capital gains.

Romney returns to Michigan on Tuesday to announce that he will formally seek the presidency.

[Unmarked Package]

"His health care proposal used existing funds that were spent paying for indigent care at hospitals. There is a fee employers have to pay but that was not a part of his proposal, it was added by the legislator, and he did veto it but it was over turned. I have no idea why the Dem's added it, it's a $295 per employee fee employers must pay if they do not provide coverage to there employees, but they only have to have one employee receiving benefits to get out of it. It is statistically an insignificant amount of money that was not necessary for funding."

Thanks, spikeytx86, that's good input on the healthcare initiative Mitt Romney sponsored in Massachusetts.

The only points I would add to your summary is that Romney changed state law to allow insurers to sell cheaper plans to young workers. He also found a loophole in federal law that enabled the self-employed to buy insurance with after-tax dollars, just like employees.

Based on my research, I agree that nothing added or modified by the ultra-liberal legislature of Massachusetts did anything to improve Romney's healthcare plan; quite the opposite. Screwing up good ideas is what Democrats do best.

[spikeytx86]

There are a lot of excellent points to his health plan. But people see "universal health care" and "Massachusetts" and just go knee jerk on it. The original plan that he and the Heritage foundation came up with was excellent, it even had an opt-out feature where folks could post an interest bearing bond as a statement of self insurance. But at least the measures to offer low cost basic insurance and the neat feature to let the self employed and those with companies that do not offer cover to designate the "connector" as there health plan so they can purchase insurance with before tax dollars.

[spikeytx86]

Those who are just truly passionate about there candidates I have learned to just let there snipes roll of my back, the ones to watch out for are the ones who attack every single candidate, those I have the sneaking suspicion are on the oppositions payroll.

[Chena]

Good observation there, spikeytx86. Don't you just hate wading through the crap to get to the truth? Apparently we need to wear hip waders even here on FR! Makes me want to sign off forever and leave it in God's hands.

[zarf]

Romneys a Mormon. He's dead in the water with the Christian hit squads.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Hey, I heard Hedgecock (subbing for Rush) yesterday refer to Mitt's Detroit speech. Is it on the web anywhere? Hedge said it was excellent. As a social, fiscal conservative of an evangelical bent, I am right now inclined to support Mitt. His past liberal ways and Mormonism notwithstanding.

Frankly, I am inclined to believe he's changed his mind regarding abortion. And his religion, well, I don't think it is the New Testament way, but I also think he won't be introducing polygamy or some weird Golden Tablet theology into his policy, either!

Let's put it this way: I'd rather have Donny Osmond as my next door neighbor--Mr. Mormon himself--than the Methodist Hitlery Clinton.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Not with this Christian.

I remember some saying "fundamentalist Christians" (as if having fundamental beliefs were a bad thing!) were going to have a problem with Ronald Reagan in 1980. After all, he was a part of the Hollywood elite, a one-time Democrat and a divorcee.

Nope. After looking at the alternative--a weak-kneed, pantywaist, loser of a candidate in Carter--those kooky Christians voted for Ronaldus Magmus.

The same could happen w/Mitt.

[circumbendibus]

Good morning, R-D!

See my post #24 for more on Romney's speech. You will notice that many of the elements of it were left out of the article by the Associated Press writer.

You can also tell that Romney has had to cope in the real world with the burdens placed on business by an overreaching Government, and, with that experience, he has come up with meaningful solutions.

National tort reform is one I like (Are you listening John Edwards?). Look what litigation has done to the cost of medical care, for example. Before you see the doctor today, you have to fill out a half hour of paperwork so he won't get sued.

[Afronaut]

Christian hit squads? What is that exactly? Please tell me I don't know what a Christian hit squads is.

[petercooper]

Christian hit squads are people who set out to destroy other people who do not believe exactly as they do. They will bash Romney for being a Mormon as if he has 6 wives or something. The man believes in Jesus just like them. He has the cleanest, most pro-business background of anyone in the race and can beat the Beast.