Is Mitt Conceding the Premise Again?
In Chandler, Arizona today, Governor Romney announced an initiative to lower individual rates on every American by 20 percent. Contrasting his approach with President Obama's, Romney said, "Raising taxes will kill jobs. My plan will create jobs. That's the difference between the two of us." Excellent contrast.
Just in the event we become too enthusiastic, Romney tempered his initiative by saying he would limit allowable deductions and exemptions for high income earners, "…so that we make sure the top 1% keeps paying the current share they're paying or more." Thus does the premise of the left become the foundation for this Republican yet again. And in case you didn't understand that he prefers to divide fairness according to class, he added, "We want middle-income Americans to be the place we focus our help, because it's middle-income Americans that have been hurt by this Obama economy."
Why the division? Why the picking and choosing which class gets more relief? Why buy into the premise of the progressive thereby giving it, and by extension Obama, undeserved legitimacy? Why set yourself up to have your words thrown back at you in the general when you will hear Obama say, "Governor, you yourself agreed with me that the top 1% percent needs to pay '…the current share or more.'" Why does this gentleman insist on this kind of thing?
As I've said before, if he's the nominee, I'll vote for him, but I may need a Tylenol subsidy before it's all said and done. In the meantime, can someone get this guy a few Milton Friedman videos?
- Comment (34)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Re: Is Mitt Conceding the Premise Again?
Folks, our member Doug Lee has an excellent post on the same topic right here. I didn't realize he had covered this one when I posted this. He has an excellent take on the same topic, though and it's certainly worth checking out.
Jun '10
Re: Is Mitt Conceding the Premise Again?
You're not electing him as much as you're electing his pollster. That's my impression of Romney.
Mar '11
Re: Is Mitt Conceding the Premise Again?
"The shell is sometimes throwne into the fire, when the kernel is eaten as a sweet morsel."
Dec '10
Re: Is Mitt Conceding the Premise Again?
Another crack in the facade...
Jan '11
Re: Is Mitt Conceding the Premise Again?
Romney: My plan will create jobs. That's the difference between the two of us.
Why couldn't Mitt have said this instead:
The plan would be to peel back government so that an atmosphere for job creation would emerge. This would restore the needed incentives which prior government planning removed. That's the difference between the two of us.
Dec '10
Re: Is Mitt Conceding the Premise Again?
LowcountryJoe: Why couldn't Mitt have said this instead:
The plan would be to peel back government so that an atmosphere for job creation would emerge. This would restore the needed incentives which prior government planning removed. That'sthe difference between the two of us. · 0 minutes ago
But we want politicians to be honest with us.
Nov '11
Re: Is Mitt Conceding the Premise Again?
In a democracy it is always going to be a problem for a wealthy candidate/elected official to avoid hitting the wealthy and he will always want to be seen as being on the side of the middle class. Note the necessity Romney seems to have for insisting that he earned his way, and for legions of candidates to tell us how poor they once were. It's one of those tensions we probably have to live with, not that Romney could not do much better than he has (e.g., his pitiful comment on fixing the safety net). Yes, he does need those videos and yes, we will probably need something to dull the pain.
Oct '10
Re: Is Mitt Conceding the Premise Again?
Dave, it's because the independents buy this argument. And also because Romney isn't proposing to cut taxes (which would be irresponsible beyond all reason), he's planning to lower marginal rates while maintaining the same level of revenue.
Keep in mind that Bush-style deficit-financed tax cuts are inherently regressive. Fiscal deficits, by their nature, lead to currency appreciation, which kills manufacturing and makes the cost of living rise (either through inflation, or--if the central bank allows the nominal exchange rate to rise--asset price bubbles, as in housing). Any rise in the cost of living falls hardest on the poor, of course, and destroying manufacturing jobs only makes the pain worse.
Besides, true supply-side tax cuts are revenue-neutral. Putting money in the hands of consumers and businesses was always a Keynesian argument.
Aug '11
Re: Is Mitt Conceding the Premise Again?
His daddy got chucked out of the presidential race after maintaining he was brainwashed by the U.S. military during his fact-finding trip to Vietnam. He was, you might recall, also a very successful businessman and a former governor.
Maybe the problem is that these Romney boys have unsanforized, non-colorfast brains. Every time he gets it right along comes somebody with a bottle of Spray'n'Wash and a brain attachment and all that reassuring stern conservative coloration goes right down the drain.
Aug '11
Re: Is Mitt Conceding the Premise Again?
.
Dec '10
Re: Is Mitt Conceding the Premise Again?
But it's a demonstrably false argument! I'd rather lose with the truth than win with a lie. That's just me though.
May '10
Re: Is Mitt Conceding the Premise Again?
So, now the progressive income tax system is unacceptable? Really?
Aug '11
Re: Is Mitt Conceding the Premise Again?
He's killin' me. Right here in my own backyard.
He's running for the Republican primary spot, right?
I'm dying here in Chandler, AZ. I made a case for Mitt. I was convinced. Now I'm waffling. These last two statements - first he channels Krugman citing a reluctance to cut spending. Next, he channels Obama with this 1% fair share drivel.
Unless he corrects the record and recants these two things in tonight's debate, I'm dropping Mitt like a bad habit.
And I'm not alone.
Edited on February 22, 2012 at 9:42pmDec '10
Re: Is Mitt Conceding the Premise Again?
It always has been. It epitomizes "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need."
May '10
Re: Is Mitt Conceding the Premise Again?
When did Romney say he isn't cutting spending?
Apr '11
Re: Is Mitt Conceding the Premise Again?
Joseph Eagar: Dave, it's because the independents buy this argument. And also because Romneyisn't proposing to cut taxes(which would be irresponsible beyond all reason), he's planning tolower marginal rateswhile maintaining the same level of revenue.
Keep in mind that Bush-style deficit-financed tax cuts are inherently regressive. Fiscal deficits, by their nature, lead to currency appreciation, which kills manufacturing and makes the cost of living rise (either through inflation, or--if the central bank allows the nominal exchange rate to rise--asset price bubbles, as in housing). Any rise in the cost of living falls hardest on the poor, of course, and destroying manufacturing jobs only makes the pain worse.
Besides, true supply-side tax cuts are revenue-neutral. Putting money in the hands of consumers and businesses was always a Keynesian argument. · 18 minutes ago
I'm not certain if I follow you here. Are you saying tax cuts cause deficits?
Re: Is Mitt Conceding the Premise Again?
Unless I am mistaken, the reference was to the contents of this post: http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Romney-Spending-Cuts-Will-Kill-the-Economy
Re: Is Mitt Conceding the Premise Again?
This news is not surprising, but it is also not encouraging. One does not encourage growth by discouraging investment. Like Romney's statement that he wanted to index the minimum wage to inflation, it suggests a real lack of understanding. It is hard to teach an old progressive new tricks.
Dec '10
Re: Is Mitt Conceding the Premise Again?
0l9
Professor, do you remember the Loyd Bridges character in the movie [edit: Airplane]? "It was a bad to quit drinking coffee", "It was a bad time to quit smoking", "It was a bad time to stop taking speed", "It was a bad time to stop shooting heroin", "It was a bad time to quit sniffing glue".
Romney and his more passionate supporters should be in the next [edit: Airplane] movie. "It's a bad time to cut ethanol subsidies", "It's a bad time to cut government spending", "It's a bad time to cut the taxes of the wealthy", "It's a bad time to let people make their own healthcare decisions", "It's a bad time to get upset about out of control government" ...
Edited on February 22, 2012 at 10:23pmJun '10
Re: Is Mitt Conceding the Premise Again?
I want to believe Ann Coulter, Hugh Hewitt and all the other happy defenders. But just when I do, Romney does another calculated move that seems to playing a game of moving an incremental data point some staffer has suggested will play well. Like waffling back in November on Gov. Kasich union fight. Or other examples mentioned by Prof. Rahe, above. In contrast, when I hear Sen. Santorum give a full-throated, smack down to the near-religious presupposititions behind radical environmentalism, and then (finally, someone!) connect the dots to energy policy, I find myself literally fist-pumping in the car on the commute home. Is this not what we want? A happy warrior?