Mitt Romney : A Republican Stimulus Plan

National Review ^ | Dec 19,2008 | Mitt Romney

[SeekAndFind]

What is Washington waiting for? The inauguration is less than five weeks away: At the rate we’ve been going, another 500,000 jobs will be lost by then. The downward spiral is deepening and accelerating: Congress and the president must act now.

American families have lost about $11 trillion in net worth as securities and home values have plummeted. This translates into about $400 billion less annual consumer spending, net of government safety-net funding. Exports won’t grow to make this up, as the dollar has strengthened with investors worldwide clamoring for its relative security. Investments won’t make up the gap either, as bank loans and secondary-market financing have shrunk and as fresh equity is virtually non-existent.

So this is surely the time for economic stimulus. But — and this is the crucial point — the government can’t just make itself bigger and more oppressive in the guise of stimulating the economy. That would make matters worse. Nor should we forget that fiscal stimulus is but one part of the solution. As Christina Romer, Barack Obama’s designee as chairperson of the Council of Economic Advisors concluded from her study of the Great Depression, bad monetary policy was its greatest cause and good monetary policy was its most effective cure. The Fed should continue to expand the money supply. And, it should confirm that it will not tolerate deflation — the pain of inflation pales in comparison.

That being said, a stimulus plan is needed without further delay, and there are some things that Republicans should insist on.

The first is that tax cuts are part of the solution. Harvard professor and economist Greg Mankiw points out that recent research confirms that tax cuts have a greater multiplier effect than new spending — more economic bang for the federal buck. We should lower tax rates for middle-income families and eliminate their tax on savings altogether — no tax on interest, dividends or capital gains. Let’s also align our corporate tax rate with those of competing nations. These actions will rapidly expand consumption and investment, and right now, time is of the essence.

On the spending front, infrastructure projects should be a high priority. But because infrastructure projects involve engineering, environmental studies, permitting and contracting, they can take a long time to actually boost the economy. Spending to refurbish and modernize our military equipment is urgently needed, and it has a more immediate impact on the economy. A great deal of our armament was damaged or lost in the Middle East, and the rest is long overdue for maintenance.

We should also invest to free us from our dependence on foreign oil, not by playing venture capitalist, but by funding basic research in renewables, material science, combustion, nuclear reprocessing, and the like. During the 2008 campaign, virtually every candidate agreed on the need for an “Apollo-like mission” to achieve energy independence. Now is the time to start.

Cities and states will clamor for government dollars. Like the Big Three automakers, states should first take advantage of the downturn to do some needed cost cutting and restructuring. State employee numbers, pensions, and health-insurance premium sharing — as well as duplicate and ineffective agencies and programs — should be high on the hit list. State budgets should be brought in line with those of the most efficient of their comparables. And the federal government should look to ease the burden of mandates on states, like Medicaid.

Republicans should also lay down a gauntlet: All new spending projects should be selected by the responsible federal agency according to published criteria, not by congresspersons and senators based upon favors and politics. Republicans should commit to vote no on any stimulus bill with earmarks that have not been voted upon by their entire body.

There is a danger that new spending and deficits will lead to runaway inflation, flight from the dollar, and another economic crisis. It is essential, therefore, that Congress and the president commit to reform entitlement spending as soon as the economy recovers. With the footing of our long term economy at risk, with entitlements already reaching 60 percent of federal spending and with baby boomers nearing retirement, this can be delayed no longer.

We must also be careful to avoid burdening the economy with excessive regulation in response to the need to reform regulatory oversight of the financial sector. Going too far could cripple the entire industry, further tightening the credit markets. And we should make it clear that Washington will not act to virtually impose unions on small business by eliminating the right of workers to vote by secret ballot in the workplace. This “card check” payback for the AFL-CIO’s support of the Democrats would devastate business formation and employment.

The Democrats may want to wait for Obama, but the country needs action now. Republicans can — and must — play an important role in shaping a stimulus bill that makes sense for America and lays a foundation for future prosperity and growth.

--— Mitt Romney is the former governor of Massachusetts.

[stockpirate]

There is no way the socialist/marxists coming in to office will agree to lower taxes.

[Impy]

I didn’t hear about that fake badge thing. Hilarius.

[Impy]

“All those on FR who are gonna flame me and/or Romney have NO solutions..”

Why post such an obvious mistruth?

[VictoryGal]

>... using this as an opportunity to show how we are different, that we have ideas that can work.
>But he’s wrong. Your Hero has no clothes.

Dude, he’s NOT my hero. Okay? At best, Romney was a nose-holding candidate for me (don’t even mention McCain to me... even worse). But at least he’s throwing ideas out there, so there is at least some counterpoint to ZeroB. If all you have is insults, you’re not helping. What’s YOUR proposal?

[Finny]

Here's the deal, Bronco Bill: The names McCain, Giuliani, Huckabee, and Bush don't come up as potential candidates for 2012. Romney's name DOES, and it's pretty obvious that Romney supporters and Romney think he should position himself as the Great Hope for the GOP. However -- start threads publicizing the current proposed "stimulus plans" as articulated by McCain, Giuliani, Huckabee, and Bush, in moves that appear to be those guys setting themselves up for another run in 2012, and you'd see the same degree of what comforts you to perceive as "hate" directed toward them. They were all losers, Romney included, and for the same reason: they were big-government moderates. What we need are limited-government conservatives. Not big government moderates who mislabel themselves conservatives.

You are blinded by your irrational affection for the man -- Romney thinks government is the solution. Government is the problem. You have your Romney-colored glasses on with regard to everything Romney says, and are absolutely blind to the truth -- so blind that the only reason you can conceive that people don't want your Hero is "hate." You really need to examine your own "side."

[rodeo-mamma]

Because if he commented on what Romney actually said then he might have to admit that the Republican Party screwed up really big by not nominating someone who was actually QUALIFIED to be President. News flash, we don’t live in England, the President is not supposed to just be a pretty figure head who gets people going at the rallies because he looks good. That’s what socialist England is about, it’s not what we are about.

[Finny]

Did you actually read his ideas? His ideas are for more government interference, more government oversight, more government planning, more government "guidance" of industry and policy, to "stimulate" the economy.

You can bet your ass that I will heckle, insult, and belittle any Republican candidate who does this. My counterpoint? Advocate less governmnent, not more. Advocate solutions through getting rid of the problem -- too much government "management" and the arrogant and foolish presumption that government knows best and can help. What we need are Republicans who understand and promote the truth that in order to "help," government needs to get out of the way. Romney clearly fails to grasp that truth.

It appears that any old ideas tossed out there by somebody with an R behind his name, including Romney, is okay with you. I say: Drive a stake in Romney's political heart now so we don't have a McCain redux in 2012.

[rodeo-mamma]

What Diogenesis doesn’t understand is that when she goes out of her way to be so cruel to Romney it just causes more division and makes it more likely that whoever people like her decide to back, there will be a fight. You live by the sword you die by the sword. There will be no coronation of any candidate, in fact, expect a blood bath because there has been too much bad blood. You reap what you sow.

[Finny]

So rodeo-mamma, why don't you comment on what Romney actually said in this piece? Could it be because what Romney actually said is contradictory to limited government, conservative principle?

Romney thinks proper government "guidance" ala his MBA management/executive "business" techniques are solutions, and you fall for it. A lot of us here see it for what it really is, and we're doing what we can to stop it NOW so we can get real conservatism in place. Romney is a danger to the Republican party future and to personal American freedom. I think one of the first things conservatives/Republicans must do is to soundly REJECT pretty-sounding, slick-tongued phony moderate liberals like Romney. You are all for hanging on to him, and that means you are opposed to limited government principle. You ought to rethink your political party affiliation, as should Romney.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

MITT: The White Obama
Issue	Obama	Romney
Gay Marriage	Favors	ALLOWED! "I would be better for gay rights than Ted Kennedy."
Judges	Favors Liberal Judges	APPOINTED! Liberal Judges: "Governor Romney appointed 36 judges but a check of their political affiliation confirms that only 9 of them are Republicans. Two are radical gay activists and 14 are registered Democrats."
Socialized Medicine	Favors	ENACTED! RomneyCare
Taxes	Wants to Raise	RAISED!
Fund Raising	Outspent Opponents	Outspent Opponents
Abortion	Favors	SUPPORTED! "I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's."
Weird Personal Name	Hussein	Willard
Weird Kid Name	Malia	Tagg
Would be the First...	Black President	Mormon President
If You Don't Vote for Me It's...	Racism!	Mittgotry!  [–noun, plural -ries. 1. intolerance of anyone’s creed, belief, conscience or opinion that precludes them voting for Mitt 2.  the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a Mittgot. Synonyms 1. histrionic, whiny]
Super Power	Invisible Man	Shapeshifter [running in 2012 as a moderate black or Hispanic woman]

[Finny]

Diogenesis doesn’t understand is that when she goes out of her way to be so cruel to Romney ...

Very telling that you equate posting facts with being "cruel." You are so emotionally vested in Romney that when the truth hurts, you call it cruelty.

You and Romney are both part of the problem. Please come home to limited government conservatism and start being part of the solution. Romney is a loser -- time for Romney adorers to move on if you want to save this nation.

[KC_Conspirator]

I tell you what, Romney is the only guy who has had any ideas.

[Finny]

Romney is the only guy who has had any ideas.

Romney's ideas are bad ideas. And you exaggerate -- he's not the only Republican with ideas. He's the only big government liberal moderate Republican who's ideas are being pushed on Free Republic in an effort to set him up as the next Great Hope for the GOP.

Please look at the bigger picture.

[AuntB]

“Get over it. Romney at least understands economics and has a business head unlike the vast majority of those in Congress. “

Agreed. Most members of congress couldn’t maintain a household budget and they have the background of debtors, spendthrifts to prove it.

[broncobilly]

Okay. I will accept your point.
However, it may come as a surprise to you, but he is not my hero and I don't have an irrational affection for him.
I don't think I have ever initiated a promotional post about him. I think he has some positives concerning the economy. I never wanted him for president. I wanted him for vice president. When Thompson fell through, he was just an acceptable fall back, preferable compared to Huckabee or McCain.
Almost all my post are in defense of him concerning criticism that I think involve exaggeration and distortion. We don't have a perfect candidate, not even Palin, as good as she is. So we have to go with the ones that best fit our goals.

[Edit35]

“All those on FR who are gonna flame me and/or Romney have NO solutions..”

Why post such an obvious mistruth?

Well, maybe it's because the little cabal of obsessed Romney bashers only bashes Romney .... and never offers any solutions.

At least Mitt Romney has the fortitude to offer solutions, even if they are all not 100% perfect.

[Edit35]

What Diogenesis doesn’t understand is that when she goes out of her way to be so cruel to Romney it just causes more division and makes it more likely that whoever people like her decide to back, there will be a fight. You live by the sword you die by the sword.

EXACTLY!

I love Rush Limbaugh.

But the one thing he says with which I strongly disagree is that "conservatism works every time its tried."

Now, I know what he means (most moderates are wimp ass dorks and lousy candidates) but there are MANY examples where conservatives have lost.

The biggest recent example is US Sen. Rick Santorum's loss to liberal empty suit Bobbie Casey Jr. (D) here in Pennsylvania.

And just look at the other conservative Republicans who lost in 2006 and 2008.

If "conservatism" was the only criteria to winning, then Duncan Hunter would have won the 2008 GOP primary, and the general election by a landslide because Hunter was by far the most conservate, followed by Fred Thompson, who also could not get support.

The the simple truth is that personality, charisma, politics, AND the ability to promote CONSERVATIVE VALUES are essential to having a winning candidate.

Simply being a conservative is far from enough.

Again, McCain was such an awful candidate because he was a boring, Washington insider who not only is a Democrat-loving liberal... but he PHYSICALLY turns people off due to his age, his frumpy looks, his 'out of touch' personna, and a dozen other reasons.

Romney supporters like myself were not so much ga-ga over Romney, but the truth is that HE was the only candidate with personality and style that could articulate the conservative message.

Republicans seem to forget that personality and style (think Reagan) plays a HUGE difference in getting the support of enough mainstream voters necessary to win.

Dole and McCain might have been great war hero's, but they were downright AWFUL candidates -- and thus got demolished.

The Freepers who incessantly bash Romney offer no alternative viable candidates. They simply live to bash.

And like you said, THAT simply divides the Republican Party.

[Impy]

“and never offers any solutions.”

On what?

On who to run for President? I believe most suggest Palin.

On healthcare? They suggest not to socialize it.

[Diogenesis]

[Finny]

The the simple truth is that personality, charisma, politics, AND the ability to promote CONSERVATIVE VALUES are essential to having a winning candidate.

When we point out that Romney has demonstrated already that he lacks those qualities, you write it off as "bashing" and attribute it to hatred, rather than taking a long hard serious look at your flawed candidate Romney. It is very shallow on your part, whereas Romney's record as a big government moderate is deep and wide -- including his own words in the article that started this discussion. And you further insult your fellow FReepers by saying those who object STRONGLY to Romney with good cause "simply live to bash." You reveal a lot about Romney himself -- the gaul, ugliness, and arrogance of Romnney supporters alone raises enough red flags to soundly reject Romney.

Where is it written than in order to reject Romney NOW, I must already have made a firm commitment to an alternative candidate? Again, YOU seem to think that's the case, even though it's years to 2012. I may not know yet who's RIGHT for the ticket, but I certainly know who is wrong for it, and that's Romney. Romney would be the kiss of death for conservatism, and you need to either wake up to it or go join another party.

You seek to finish off the Republican party by pushing on the GOP a moderate, big government proven loser. You reject the concept of limited government -- you need to rethink your political party affiliation.