Romney: Man of Pastel

Now that Mitt Romney has officially clinched the Republican nomination, most of the political Right has rallied around him, out of antipathy for President Obama if for no other reason. Recent polls show that if the election were held today Romney would receive 90 percent of the Republican vote, and three-quarters of the vote from self-described conservatives. One can expect even more conservatives and Republicans to “come home,” as the bitterness of the primary season fades, and the contrast with Obama becomes clearer.

Yet, for anyone concerned with the size, cost, and intrusiveness of government, dark clouds continue to hang over the Romney campaign.

For example, if as is often said, “personnel is policy,” Romney’s decision to name former Utah governor Michael Leavitt to lead his presidential transition team is particularly disturbing, especially since Politico reports that Leavitt may become White House chief of staff if Romney wins.

As George W. Bush’s Secretary of HHS, Leavitt was a principle architect of the Medicare prescription-drug benefit, which created the first new federal entitlement program since the Great Society. And Leavitt continues to call the program “a success,” despite the fact that it will add as much as $17 trillion to Medicare’s unfunded liabilities.

As governor, Leavitt was a tax-and-spend liberal. During his ten years in office, real spending per capita rose by nearly a third. Leavitt pushed for higher taxes on Internet sales, gasoline, and cigarettes. And, as head of the National Governors Association, he lobbied for a federal law to allow states to tax out-of-state Internet companies. He also blocked several attempts by the Utah legislature to cut taxes, including a $25 million state income tax cut in 2001. Between 1996 and 2002, Leavitt never received a grade higher than “C” on Cato’s Fiscal Report Card, and twice earned a failing grade. In 2000, he ranked below Vermont’s Howard Dean, and, in 2002, he scored lower than 7 of 16 Democratic governors.

Of even greater concern, Leavitt has spent the last two years lobbying on behalf of Obamacare. Leavitt’s company, a Utah-based consultancy called Leavitt Partners, has raked in huge profits helping states set up exchanges under the law. In fact, Leavitt’s firm has doubled in size over the two years since the health care law was signed. And, Leavitt hasn’t just made money from Obamacare grant money, he has used his influence to urge state lawmakers to set up exchanges. He has publicly said that he opposes repeal of at least this portion of the new health-care law. Given Romney’s rather spotty history on the health-care issue — to be charitable — Leavitt’s appointment is not a great sign.

And, as if this wasn’t enough cause for concern, as EPA administrator, Leavitt was an early advocate of cap-and-trade legislation. He was also an enthusiastic backer of numerous other job-killing environmental regulations. Indeed, it’s hard to find a big-government policy over the past two administrations, that Leavitt didn’t support.

Of course, Leavitt’s appointment is not the only reason why advocates of limited government remain uneasy with a Romney candidacy.

For example, while Romney speeches have generally been excellent on the need to cut spending and reduce the deficit, he has still not provided much in the way of specifics about what he would actually cut. We know that he would not cut defense — indeed, he wants to increase it. Taking defense off the table means that cuts in other areas will have to be deeper. Yet, in an interview with Time magazine, Romney said “If you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5 percent. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I’m not going to do that, of course.”

As the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein noted, “You couldn’t have gotten a clearer definition of Keynesian budgeting from Obama.”

Finally, it is worth noting that Romney continues to hold the door open for a potential Value Added Tax (VAT), a hidden form of national sales tax embedded in the production process. In an interview last December with the Wall Street Journal, Romney suggested that he might consider a VAT as part of a larger tax reform. The Journal describes Romney’s position on a VAT this way (emphasis added):

he ‘doesn’t like the idea’ of layering a VAT onto the current income tax system. But . . . philosophically speaking, a VAT might work as a replacement for some part of the tax code, ‘particularly at the corporate level’ . . . .What he doesn’t do is rule a VAT out.”

Unlike a national retail sales tax, a VAT is hidden, making it particularly insidious. One only has to look to Europe to see how quickly a VAT would become a cash cow for the government, and would wreck economic growth. Yet, to this day, despite repeated opportunities to do so, Romney refuses to rule out a VAT.

It is traditional for candidates, once they’ve secured the nomination to reposition themselves to appeal to the political center. But, with Romney, it is less a question of repositioning than questions about his core convictions.

In a campaign that calls for bold colors, Romney remains a man of pale pastels.

— Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution.

Can’t help myself, I’m compelled to post my Romney endorsement again.

“Who thought a year ago when Conservatives were saying “ANYBODY BUT oBAMA” we would actually get the anybody? It’s time to “swallow the bitter pill”, “eat crow”, “gangrene has set in, time to cut off the foot”. I do not believe voting third party or not voting will result in obama being removed from office. I also believe that electing Romney will not begin to solve our problems but at least we will be able to look forward to elections in 2014 and 2016. If obama is re-elected I believe any future elections will be a complete sham. A bumper sticker that read “VOTE for the RINO, IT’S IMPORTANT” would be in order but may dampen enthusiasm for those that have it.

There, that does it Romney now has my official endorsement, my promise to vote for the Republican nominee will be honored, I’m also going to send a small check to the NRC, probably with a note attached, and a small check to the Romney campaign, with a note attached, and a check to Newt to help pay off his obligations and a note attached thanking him for what he has done for Conservatives, Republicans and the Nation and for stepping forward again in these troubled times and pointing us to the right path even though we chose to turn left.”

>>The math, however, will remain.

As Jerry Pournelle has been pointing out for many years now, the gods of copybook headings will be appeased, no matter what. We appear to be overdue a good hard reminder of this. It won’t be pretty.

THE GODS OF THE COPYBOOK HEADINGS

Rudyard Kipling

(1919)

As I pass through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market-Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.

We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn That
Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.

We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market-Place;
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in
Rome.

With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch.
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch.
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings.
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would
cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Heading said: “Stick to the Devil you know.”

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “The Wages of Sin is Death.”

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “If you don’t work you die.”

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards
withdrew,
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four—
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

I do not believe voting third party or not voting will result in obama being removed from office. I also believe that electing Romney will not begin to solve our problems but at least we will be able to look forward to elections in 2014 and 2016.

I respect your right to see this FUBARed situation in any way you wish, but allow me to just lay out another view.

It's a documented fact that Romney is a liberal with a record that would make any left-winger proud. He's not going to suddenly change his stripes, just because he's now the president. In fact, like most first term presidents, he'll feel omnipotent and freshly confident in his vision for America. This means that he'll be following much the same political path as Obama has, albeit without the racist, Marxist overtones of anti-Americanism.

We're very likely to have a Republican dominated Congress next year. If Romney becomes president, he also becomes the de facto head of their party. Given the reality of the game of politics, they're not likely to oppose his agenda, even if it goes against the grain of everything they personally campaigned for in their own quest for office. They're going to circle the wagons around the 'boss'. Such has it ever been in US politics.

Now, if Obama is re-elected, that same Congress will fight him tooth and nail over his agenda. They'll oppose him for the simple fact that he's on the other side (and perhaps because they really don't support his agenda).

In these two scenarios, at the end of four years, you're going to see a lot more progress of the Socialist agenda with the Republican as president, than you'll see with the Democrat as president.

Art of War 101.

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.

Oh, just in case you don't know, this is in reference to people who have no cogent argument (ABO is not an argument) against people who do not support that liberal Romney, so they resort to name calling and sissy fits.