Posted on 09/06/2011 5:04:17 PM PDT by americanophile
Mitt Romney rolled out a major chunk of his economic agenda yesterday, and we'll say this for it: His ideas are better than President Obama's. Yet the 160 pages and 59 proposals also strike us as surprisingly timid and tactical considering our economic predicament. They're a technocrat's guide more than a reform manifesto.
*** The rollout is billed as Mr. Romney's "plan for jobs and economic growth," and it rightly points out that to create more jobs requires above all faster growth. This may seem like common sense, but it's a notable break from the Obama Administration's penchant for policies that "target" jobs rather than improving overall incentives for job creation. So we have had policies for "green jobs," or construction jobs, or teaching jobs, or automobile jobs, or temporary, targeted tax cuts for jobs—even as the economy struggles. Mr. Romney seems to understand that the private economy will inevitably produce millions of new jobs—in industries and companies we can't predict—when it resumes growing at 3% or more. This is an important philosophical distinction that drives most of the Romney agenda.
So it's good to see the former Massachusetts Governor endorse the House GOP effort to review and approve major new regulations that cost more than $100 million. Mr. Romney also joins the other GOP candidates in vowing to repeal ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank. He'd pull the Energy Department from the role as venture capitalist that it has pursued since the Bush Administration, re-focusing it back on basic research, rather than backing solar companies that go bankrupt.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I did watch Romney’s wonkish jobs program presentation today. He did speak extemporaneously, turned his pad around to show a few doodles and said he did not need a teleprompter to talk about economics.Pretty good dig at the current occupant of the oval office.
"They're a technocrat's guide more than a reform manifesto. "
money sentence
Right there is a problem. If Mittens can't give clear, non nerdy language to the general public on these matters, he is finished.
I know we're in deep, but boil it down to a few simple steps (10 or less).
Romney couldn't boil it down any further than one for each of Obama's 57 states, plus one for DC and one for Puerto Rico.
That’s what I was thinking — regardless of what you think of Mitt or his chances, you have to know that this area should be his strong suit and if he can’t hit homeruns in this arena, his campaign is in trouble.
The summation is pretty good too:
“The biggest rap on Mr. Romney as a potential President is that it’s hard to discern any core beliefs beyond faith in his own managerial expertise. For all of its good points, yesterday’s policy potpourri won’t change that perception.”
i heard what i needed: cut 5% across the board, excluding defense/entitlements (which would be covered elsewhere)
I looked for it, but missed it, who broadcasted it?
If you want to see a Presidential candidate who understands the economy and is NOT afraid to take on the banking industry, check out Thad McCotter on FOX BUSINESS’ Follow The Money, tonight at 10 pm EDT
He may not be afraid of the banking industry, but he makes up for it with the auto industry.
It was on C Span at 3:40 EST today I do not agree with some of the WSJ analysis particularly when it comes to his approach to China.I do think at the core of our systemic problem is blind allegiance to all global trade relationships.There are some relationships that are toxic. I agree with Romney’s approach.
Looking forward to Rick Perry bringing his three decades of management experience in government to Washington. We are to believe that he is somehow going to flip a switch and keep gov out of peoples’ lives.
I’ve worked in private industry and I’ve worked in government.
Mitt Romney wants to make government more efficient and more honest.
Rick Perry wants to make government smaller.
Based on my experience, I’m certain that it’s much easier to make government smaller than it is to make it more efficient and more honest.
as a daily reader of the Wsj, they can be off the mark. i’ll keep an open mind and wait for Romney to roll it out bit by bit. i am in finance - and think the 5% will be plenty controversial
McCotter voted for the auto bailout because, as Moody’s pointed out, GM and Chrysler going out of business would have put a $300 billion burden on the social safety net, that obviously would not have been recoverable. In addition, US manufacturing jobs are dissappearing. Would you like the auto industry to go that same way? The auto industry also had to restructure. The Wall Street Bank Bailout, that MCCotter voted against, did not call for a restructuring of the banking system, which is why there is no credit flowing down to small business and entrepreneurs.
Jobs? Okay. I read somewhere that essentially all net job growth (averaged over an economic cycle) occurs during the first two years of the existence of a business. Job growth thus traditionally entails entrepreneurship—starting businesses. So what can the federal government do to encourage (or, better, cease discouraging) Americans to start businesses? And to make more startup businesses successful?
I have an idea: create a new tax system for small businesses. Did your businesses collect $250,000 or less in total revenues? Pay nothing, and file a simple return stating only your name(s) and net revenues. Under $25,000? No record-keeping or filing requirement; your business doesn’t even exist or count as income to the IRS. Start your first business? Pay nothing—and don’t even bother to file more than a simple declaration that your business exists for the first three calendar years.
Then drastically—and I do mean drastically—simplify the tax structure. Just the very existence and enormity of the tax system deters many Americans from even daring to attempt to start their own businesses.
Radically reduce the administrative burden on small (and I do mean small, especially those with revenues under $50,000 per year) businesses. Quit burying entrepreneurs under mounds of paperwork, taxes, fees, regulations, and other government initiatives that drive them straight to the unemployment line or deep into misery.
Am I thinking clearly? Or are the folks in Washington ...?
You do know that 5% is less than the current annual base line increase????
The WSJ already endorsed Huntsman’s plan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.