What is it about Mitt Romney? The United States desperately needs smaller government, lower taxes, and less intervention, yet his comments and track record on issues such as the value-added tax, healthcare, Social Security reform, budget savings, ethanol subsidies, and the minimum wage leave a lot to be desired.
We can now add something else to the list. The former Massachusetts governor has come out of the closet as a Keynesian.
This is worrisome, particularly since he is speaking extemporaneously and thus more likely to be letting us see his real views.
To be fair, Romney’s statement doesn’t automatically make him a big-spending Keynesian. Even I have written that, in the short run, “there will be transitional costs when the burden of public spending is reduced.”
But when I say something like that, it is also in the context of explaining the myriad ways that the economy benefits when a bloated public sector is pared back.
And I like to think that I’m second to none in disseminating the medium-term and long-term advantages of less government.
Mitt Romney, needless to say, doesn’t seem to fully share those views.
For more information on this issue, here’s my take on Keynesianism.
I made a snarky comment in a previous post that, “If the answer is bigger government, you’ve asked a very strange question.” I’m worried, though, that Romney doesn’t think that’s a joke.
[…] more spending financed by higher taxes. Perhaps now people will understand why I was so hostile to Romney when he was running for President in […]
[…] P.P.S. There are some Republican Keynesians, so this is a bipartisan problem. […]
[…] P.P.S. There are some Republican Keynesians, so this is a bipartisan problem. […]
[…] And I wouldn’t even complain if they claimed that a sequester is painful because of short-term economic dislocation and transition costs. Heck, I even said that might be a legitimate excuse when Mitt Romney said something that sounded suspiciously Keynesian. […]
[…] indictment of Obama’s dismal economic track record does not suggest, I should hasten to add, that Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum would be any better. Both of them seem closer to Bush than Reagan, so it’s not […]
[…] Keynesian economics (Santorum has opposed all bailouts, including TARP. Romney supported the Wall St. Bailout but refused Detroit a bailout. Hypocrisy?) […]
[…] as the value-added tax, healthcare, Social Security reform, budget savings, ethanol subsidies, Keynesian economics, and the minimum […]
[…] as the value-added tax, healthcare, Social Security reform, budget savings, ethanol subsidies, Keynesian economics, and the minimum […]
[…] indictment of Obama’s dismal economic track record does not suggest, I should hasten to add, that Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum would be any better. Both of them seem closer to Bush than Reagan, so it’s not […]
[…] of Obama’s dismal economic track record does not suggest, I should hasten to add, that Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum would be any better. Both of them seem closer to Bush than Reagan, so it’s […]
[…] the Difference between a Libertarian, a Supply-Sider, a Keynesian, and an IMF Bureaucrat? Is Mitt Romney a Keynesian? If Even the International Monetary Fund Acknowledges the Laffer Curve, Why Doesn’t Obama Realize […]
[…] the Difference between a Libertarian, a Supply-Sider, a Keynesian, and an IMF Bureaucrat? Is Mitt Romney a Keynesian? If Even the International Monetary Fund Acknowledges the Laffer Curve, Why Doesn’t Obama Realize […]
“But when I say something like that, it is also in the context of explaining the myriad ways that the economy benefits when a bloated public sector is pared back.” But then didn’t he say that you need pro-growth policies (which given his other rhetoric would include reducing regulations and lowering taxes?
You’ve hit all of the candidates…but I’m curious which ones can could you say “No one’s perfect, but he’s the best we have, and he’s certainly better than what we have now” and vote for him…and which would make you just stay home?