I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
Count me among the many who never gave Santorum’s candidacy more than a passing shrug. Even after wave after wave of non-Romney surges, I never thought that Santorum would take his turn in that role in any serious way. I rolled my eyes at the very thought. He had a capital “L” on his forehead after he was thrashed in his last statewide run and was a Johnny-one-note when it came to a platform.
But his showing last night, and more importantly, his articulate criticisms of Romneycare in one of the Florida debates, forced me to reconsider my dismissive attitude. Of the four remaining candidates, he alone is in the position of providing a clear, meaningful contrast with Obama – to give this election a focus that goes beyond personalities. While Ron Paul certainly seems to be on a mission to reduce the size and scope of government, it is one that is irreparably compromised by isolationism to be viable. Romney and Gingrich, in contrast, do not give the impression that this election is about anything other than Romney and Gingrich – less lethal to the Republic than Obama, but what else do they offer? A Romney win would be a mandate for … what? The watered down gruel of scaled down statist me-tooism that Republicans have been hawking since the New Deal? And his recent embrace of Tea Party rhetoric notwithstanding, a Gingrich win in November would be a mandate for, what, lunar colonies?
And a Santorum victory? What would that mean? If nothing else, it would be an endorsement of the view that social institutions other than the government are worth supporting. If there is one thing that pervades Obama’s thinking, it is that the role of the government should be paramount in virtually every sphere of human activity (from dietary habits, to energy usage, to health care, to housing, and even to religious matters, which he has politicized to justify his economic agenda). There is no discernible respect for tradition in his many self-aggrandizing speeches, no respect for liberty in anything other than the most superficial or libertine senses. Santorum’s history makes him ideally suited to make the scope role of government a defining issue in the election. It may be Pollyannaish to see this as making him more electable, but Richard Nixon’s Silent Majority still exists and may find Santorum’s clarity of thought refreshing. Those who protest the loudest about Santorum’s social conservatism would never vote for a Republican anyway and their over-the-top caricatures will not likely be persuasive to many.
Given all that, the potential benefits of a Santorum nomination seem to outweigh those of his rivals’, including even Romney’s marginally (fictionally?) higher electability. So, rather than dreading my state’s primary next month, I’m actually beginning to look forward to it. It’s nice to be wrong (once in a while).
- Comment (39)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
May '10
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
I've just listened to the first hour of Rush. He sounds positively enthused. He was circumspect in his support of the rising Newt, and cautioned Republicans to realize that his SC victory came for two reasons:
1) He took it to the media and
2) He articulated conservatism
Rush seemed to hold back from full support for Gingrich, because there are so many reasons for not supporting Gingrich.
Now I think he's found his man.
May '10
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
That is a very nice interview, thanks. It shows that he knows his stuff.
Apr '11
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
George Savage: Worse, Mitt is preemptively surrendering on the economic front by crafting his 59-point recovery platform in a way that validates leftist class warfare nostrums--be careful to keep your big post-Romney capital gains under $200K, for example.
In contrast, Santorum frames the election as being about liberty. Smaller government is valuable in its own right, and will also lead to the growing economy we all desire. His economic program is frankly tilted toward revitalizing America's manufacturing base, which will improve both the stock market and the prospects for blue-collar employees. And now Team Obama and its allies on the federal bench have just reminded mainstream voters why social issues matter.
I think Rick has a real shot. · 9 minutes ago
I'm lost for how promoting middle class saving (those whose capital gains exceed $200k/ year are unlikely to need incentives to save; there are obvious, and tremendous gains to be expected from removing the tax on the richer 95% of capital gains, but also obvious and significant revenue problems) is surrendering to "class warfare", while tax breaks for "real jobs" is the sort of industrial policy that conservatives engage in.
Dec '10
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
James Of England
I'm lost for how promoting middle class saving (those whose capital gains exceed $200k/ year are unlikely to need incentives to save; there are obvious, and tremendous gains to be expected from removing the tax on the richer 95% of capital gains, but also obvious and significant revenue problems) is surrendering to "class warfare", while tax breaks for "real jobs" is the sort of industrial policy that conservatives engage in. · 1 minute ago
"Obvious and significant revenue problems" is a static-analysis worldview. The burst of economic growth from cutting capital gains taxes all the way up the income ladder will yield far more tax revenues than the amount collected directly from capital gains taxes on the rich.
Of course, perhaps Romney agrees with Obama that it's not about revenue but about fairness. That would jibe with his observation to Gingrich in the Florida debates that under Gingrich's plan, Romney would have paid no income taxes last year -- he said that like it was a bad thing.
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
Embittered Redleg So he's for smaller government AND using the tax code to pick winners and losers on a grand scale.
It's the best of both worlds. · 3 hours ago
Not so. The United States imposes the world's first or second highest corporate income tax rate, depending upon the state. Companies areforced to locate operations overseas, where profits are often taxed at 5-10% vs. 40% or more at home. In addition, US manufacturers face ratcheting EPA rules, intentionally escalating electricity prices, NLRB hostility (c.f., Boeing and South Carolina), and difficulty securing permits to do much of anything--China doesn't require two-year studies supporting environmental impact statements in order to build a factory.
We need to lure corporations back to our shores, but especially manufacturers. A robust industrial base is a strategic asset but also a source of high-wage jobs for smart, hard-working individuals lacking an ivy-league education. Otherwise, we risk running an economy for financiers with overregulation forcing manufacturing jobs overseas but otherwise favorable tax policy rewarding non-industrial enterprises that don't employ that many people.
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
I wonder how much of the administration's recent assault on the Catholic Church propelled Santorum to victory last night. I haven't seen the demographic breakdown, but it may not be such a coincidence that a Catholic candidate did so well after the week of news about the potential loss of religious freedom for the Church; Catholics may have come out in full force to support "their guy."
Like I said, I have no hard data that suggests that is ultimately the case, but just as I'm surprised it hasn't been brought up yet, I wouldn't be surprised if it were true.
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
James, it all comes down to the formulation beloved of politicians: "My plan only taxes those earning above Your Income Here per year." Entrepreneurs and working stiffs with some real-estate or stock in a relative's small business don't earn a fixed amount "per year." These are the folks who work, save and invest for ten, twenty, even thirty years, and then, if the stars align, enjoy a liquidity event that makes them officially rich for one year. Just one. And it all gets taxed away.
Our entrepreneur, factoring in the price inflation overstating his economic gain and looking at a high tax rate on more than $200K may simply consume today instead. Money spent today is a sure thing.
Apr '11
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
et tu, brutus?
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
James, we do need "real jobs." We need to cut the corporate tax rate -- my preferred rate is zero across the board. While we still produce the occasional software company success story, over-taxation, over-regulation, and the promise of more of the same have made new manufacturing enterprises all but unimaginable in the United States.
I run a factory in California. We inherited the already-permitted facility from a bankrupt predecessor. In order to expand, we face a 2-3 year permit process (for a completely clean, zero emission facility) and a 43% combined corporate tax rate on any profit. The same facility in Singapore can be built in six months and the tax rate is 5%.
We employ a lot of PhDs at my company, but public policy effectively prohibits us from hiring local high-school graduates to start on the ladder to high-wage semiconductor manufacturing jobs.
May '10
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
Embittered Redleg
So he's for smaller government AND using the tax code to pick winners and losers on a grand scale.
It's the best of both worlds. · 4 hours ago
I see Santorum's plans for things like the corporate tax rate, and the child tax credit, as removing unjust burdens. Aren't lower taxes perfectly compatible with smaller government?
Edit: I see Dr. Savage has already addressed this better than I can :)
Edited on February 9, 2012 at 5:30amNov '10
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
I was against Santorum before I was for him. I was thinking the other day how I've beat the 'economy' drum myself over social issues. And there seems to be a certain wisdom in that. But Ive come to rethink that position over the last few weeks. In my own life focusing on being the right kind of person even when it doesn't seem to make sense to do so (such as tithing even when I was struggling to make my house payment) has always paid off in the economic sense. I wonder if the concept applies at the societal level too? Could it be that our slouch toward Gomorrah is the root cause of our financial trouble?
Apr '11
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
George Savage
Not so. The United States imposes the world's first or second highest corporate income tax rate, depending upon the state. Companies areforced to locate operations overseas, where profits are often taxed at 5-10% vs. 40% or more at home. In addition, US manufacturers face ratcheting EPA rules, intentionally escalating electricity prices, NLRB hostility (c.f., Boeing and South Carolina), and difficulty securing permits to do much of anything--China doesn't require two-year studies supporting environmental impact statements in order to build a factory.
I am not sure if you have read this article in the NYT, but I think it does a good job of showing why many manufacturing jobs are not coming back to america regardless of our tax code. The fact is China has already captured much of the manufacturing chain, and they have NO WORK standards compared to the US, and their cost of living is lower allowing for companies to pay less. The simple fact is US workers will not live in dorms, to be roused in the middle of the night to start making iPhones, unless you give them over time and maybe not even then.
May '10
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
Valiuth
I am not sure if you have read this article in the NYT, but I think it does a good job of showing why many manufacturing jobs are not coming back to america regardless of our tax code...
You are right in saying that some manufacturing jobs are not coming back. And for good reasons, which you mentioned.
However, some manufacturers are already relocating to the U.S. for various other reasons, and tax incentives will only help accelerate that trend. Wages in China can't stay depressed forever; already Korean manufacturers who outsourced their factories to China are complaining the wages are getting too high in China for them too.
There is quite a spectrum of manufacturing jobs to be had, some lower paying and others paying more. Basically, what we're saying is that the U.S. may be competitive for more manufacturing jobs in that spectrum than at present, if we remove the tax disincentive.
Dec '10
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
Valiuth
I am not sure if you have read this article in the NYT, but I think it does a good job of showing why many manufacturing jobs are not coming back to america regardless of our tax code. The fact is China has already captured much of the manufacturing chain, and they have NO WORK standards compared to the US, and their cost of living is lower allowing for companies to pay less. The simple fact is US workers will not live in dorms, to be roused in the middle of the night to start making iPhones, unless you give them over time and maybe not even then. · 3 hours ago
You miss that many jobs go to China because they simply must. When the only choice is using laborers barely above slave status and making nothing at all the choice is obvious. When the environment here (litigation, taxation, regulation) allows for manufacturing to come back it will. Those making the decisions aren't automatons who make decisions based only on profit. They are people just like you and me, and they'll make the better choice if/when it becomes available.
Apr '11
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
Yah, we may be able to make some gains in manufacturing by altering our tax policy, and certainly anything that makes the business environment more streamlined and rational can only help. I feel though that the expectations people will have is that we can get back the kind of manufacturing environment that we once had. That is not going to happen no matter how many tax cuts we pass. For that to happen we need to have China change is labor practices, and revalue the Yuan to higher value.
The best thing for American manufacturing will be the creation of a strong Labor movement in China. I mean from that article I liked to, those worker in China really need a union or some one to stand up for them. I mean fighting a monopolized and state backed company is the proper use of Unions. Rick Santorum should push for Unions to Organize Chinese Laborers. This stone would kill a lot of birds: We make American manufacturing more competitive, we can promote human rights, and undermine the Chinese oligarchy which can only help us Geopoliticaly.
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
Valiuth, you miss the central point of the article you cite: cheap labor isn't the Chinese advantage.
Why are the Chinese outpacing us? Why is it worth spending enormous sums to off-shore production of American inventions? 1) There's a lot more money to invest in "vast scale" at a 10% local tax rate than a 40+% levy; 2) Success is impossible in a fast-paced global market with production saddled by a massive, meddlesome administrative apparatus.
Cut corporate taxes, downsize the regulatory state and watch manufacturing blossom again..
Dec '10
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
Don't discount the value of cutting shipping time and costs out of production.
(I agree about Chinese unions and Chinese civil liberties in general. One of the rights people seek as they rise from oppression is the right not to have their labor exploited.)
Jun '11
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
DrewInWisconsin: I'm pleased by the results of yesterday's voting. However, I have a very conservative friend -- socially conservative, but very libertarian as well -- who, though no big fan of Mitt Romney, said he would prefer Mitt Romney over Rick Santorum. When asked why, he offered up this little editorial.
Friends, is there anything to that list? My gut tells me that a lot of it is leftist distortion by someone who simply hates Rick Santorum (the opening paragraphs certainly communicate that). But I am surprised that my Very Conservative/Libertarian friend would jump on it. · Feb. 8 at 10:01am
Some of that information will probably be more widely known after Team Romney fires up the ol' negative campaign machine, Drew. It will be interesting to see how good Rick looks after he endures several million dollars worth of frontal assault from Mitt's media minions. Those lads carry big sticks and Santorum is the next pinata.
May '10
Re: I Was Wrong. Thank Goodness!
I expect this boomlet to fade after the jeweler's eye is applied, just as the previous four have. The criticism by John Podhoretz is on point though- biography and pointing out the shortcomings of the opponents is not enough for the long haul.
And the youth vote, which was sliding away from Obama, is about to get re-awakened and re-energized if Santorum rises further.