Romney, the vanguard of Reaganomics? The guy who said he’s not trying to go back to the era of Reagan and Bush?
Romney is a liberal businessman like John Corzine and Warren Buffett. His biography fits the profile. He has no blue collar or middle class roots and was born into a political family as the son of a governor. He never actually ran a business with blood, sweat and tears, he just pushed massive sums of money around in sweetheart deals where he might not always win but the structure of the deals dictated that he COULD NEVER LOSE. He’s someone who had everything in life handed to him. Therefore he thinks everyone should have things handed to them by a socialist government.
He passed Romneycare. ‘Nuff said.
He raised fees and taxes (or as he tells it, “closed loopholes”) in Taxachusetts to the tune of about 700 million dollars in new revenue, even while job creation ranked only 47th among all states in the nation.
He had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 20% across-the-board tax cut he’s promising, after his tax plan was described by the WSJ as “timid” and similar to Obama’s. We’ll have to see if his new plans survived the Etch-a-Sketch shake-up.
His earlier plan said he would not cut taxes for anyone making over $200,000. Obama said he would give tax cuts up to $250,000. So Romney was more liberal than Obama on tax cuts.
He said on the campaign trail that he would index the minimum wage to inflation. I think that’s a more liberal policy than Obama’s.
He refused to speak up in favor of John Kasich’s union-busting legislation when asked.
His vision for the “very poor” is for them to be permanent members of the underclass supported by the “safety net.” That is exactly what every socialist’s vision includes. They don’t believe in class mobility, they believe in class division and class warfare. And their goal is to redistribute income through the state to the lower class from everybody else.
Romney’s an economic liberal and a progressive socialist. For some strange reason most Republican voters seem to assume that being a businessman or being rich automatically makes you an “economic conservative.” One way or another, Romney has managed to pull a thin veneer of wool Republicans’ eyes on that point. They are going to have a rude awakening if this man is elected and they get to find out what his economic philosophies really are.
I'd rather see him go over the heads of the media and make a principled case for Reaganomics. But that is a matter of tactics.
Romney is in favor of cutting taxes, cutting spending, and cutting regulations. I think he genuinely supports the Ryan plan, a free market solution to the entitlement mess.
Newt is more conversant with these issues, but he has a negative image. Many conservatives like him, but they're voting Republican in any case. Santorum's focus on social issues is, I think, also a deal breaker for too many independents, women, and youth. He's also too negative. Romney is genial, and he can win.
When it comes to past hypocrisy on issues, well, Romney survived in left-wing Mass., and Newt and Santorum have even worse outrages to explain, in my estimation.
I don't think he has anything in common with the criminal reprobate Democrat Corzine, or stock picker extraordinaire economic ignoramus Buffet. He's not blue collar. He's rich. I have no problem with that. And I respect private capital firms.