I’ve dinged Mitt Romney for his less-than-stellar record on healthcare, his weakness on Social Security reform, and his reprehensible support for ethanol subsidies, but I haven’t bothered to address his budget plan – in part because it seemed rather underwhelming.
Sounds like I haven’t missed much. Jacob Sullum has done the tedious work of reading through Romney’s plan, and he is unimpressed.
Mitt Romney said he wants to “eliminate every government program that is not absolutely essential.” That sounds good until you realize that Romney’s goal of cutting $500 billion from projected federal outlays in 2016 would, at best, leave the budget about 8 percent higher than it is now and only 11 percent lower than it would be without any attempt to restrain spending. The implication: Mitt Romney thinks 89 percent of what the federal government does is “absolutely essential.” And that’s what he says when he is trying to appeal to the fiscally conservative Republicans whose votes he will need to win his party’s presidential nomination. Who knows what he really thinks, assuming he has any firm convictions at all on this crucial question. …By contrast, the plan outlined by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), one of Romney’s rivals in the race for the Republican nomination, would balance the budget by 2015. Clearly, Paul’s idea of “absolutely essential” government programs is a bit narrower than Romney’s. But whose isn’t?
Jacob’s analysis is on the mark, and he doesn’t let Romney get away with the business-as-usual Washington scam of claiming that a reduction in the projected growth of spending is actually a spending cut. Using honest math rather than DC math, Romney’s budget plan (assuming he is serious) would increase spending by 8 percent over the next four years.
To be fair, a budget that allows federal spending to jump by 8 percent over the next four years would satisfy Mitchell’s Golden Rule. Barring an unexpected downturn, the private sector would be growing faster than the government.
The problem is that even good politicians usually fail to fulfill their campaign promises. So if a politician today is saying that he will let spending climb by about 2 percent each year, that probably means it will increase 5 percent each year.
And if he isn’t proposing to eliminate a single cabinet-level department, that doesn’t suggest a strong commitment to fiscal responsibility.
It also means Mitt Romney thinks the Department of Housing and Urban Development is “absolutely essential.”
I’ve yet see any candidate propose limiting government spending and programs to those laid out in the Constitution. Our federal government was supposed to be limited in size and scope but an inattentive citizenry and various misinterpretations by the Supreme Court (read Commerce Clause) have left us with a giant bloated squid of a government who’s tentacles reach into every life and pocket in the country. Any candidate who wants my support need only support the original letter and intent of the Constitution and work to harpoon the giant squid.
United States of America before the event the increase in internal debt ceiling had the option to negotiate their debt securities in the possession of other Countries. You can still do this, of course with minor success. But it can. The internal political struggle did not let anything happen. Now lost again with China buying all the gold possible in the world. All believe that Chinese is to control inflation in China. It is not. China buys the gold at ridiculous prices through exploration contracts with miners and mining cooperatives worldwide. What astonishes and terrifies any observer is that the United States observes everything as if oblivious to the fact that serious. Or into this vein of gold with purchase at ridiculous prices or will bitter over a big headache to balance its economy very soon. You should see who knows. Political fights are for later.
So the best possible scenario the American people can come up with, for a remedy that would allow then to maintain a prosperity level 6x world average is: …elect Romney? Who has a plan for America decline at only half the rate of HopeNChange?
So, best scenario, he gets elected, decline continues, albeit at a slower pace, “The People” decide that, well conservatism didn’t work either so go back for another dose of HopeNChange. ‘At least we’ll get some more “free stuff” under HopeNChange’.
Haven’t you figured it out yet? The prosperity you had, 6x world average, is over! You’re done! You reverted to the same voter mentality that is so common to the rest of the world. Ordinary voters = Ordinary prosperity. When I tune to NPR all I hear is the same stuff that I’ve been hearing for years now from Greek media, except that it’s in English.
You haven’t seen the European movie. You have lots to learn yet dear Americans… but by then it’ll be late… too late … way too late. Many cultures before you — most even equipped with more intelligent citizens — walked down that same road to decline; the delusion of prosperity through communal management.
By talking to Americans these days, I realize how shallow their belief in individualism is. Mere vague adherence to a two hundred year old document upholding individualism, based on tradition or some sort of historical debt to your forefathers is not enough. The belief must be rotted in rational thinking to survive. Otherwise, you’ll loose it. Well. You’ve already lost it for all practical purposes.
The vicious cycle of [decline]->[stress]->[ask for more collectivism] will predictably take care of the rest.
So, your best hope? Elect Romney!! It’s comical.
I guess there is some bottom of the barrel hope:
Most other countries are already screwed up and will screw things up even worse — and Americans will keep their 6x average worldwide living standard. But they’d have to screw up 6x times worse seems like – and that’s unlikely. Three billion people that once the west left for dead are finally waking up. So the best hope for Americans can be summarized as:
“We grow at 2% but others will grow even less, so America still feels like a rich place in 20-40 years”.
You figure out the odds…
Romney is underwhelming at best and down right scary for conservatives at worst. However, I have to apply the Buckley Rule and throw my support behind Romney because he is the best chance against against the socialist Obama.
Anyone who foolishly thinks Romney is the only candidate to beat Obama is a
Democrat. You are not a conservative. Any Republican who votes for Romney will
live to regret it. You simply have not done your homework on Romney.
Romney opposed the two most successful conservative policy efforts of the last 30 years… the Reagan policies of the 1980`s and the Contract With America of the 1990`s. Romney was rated by Human Events as the TOP 10 RINO in 2005. Look it up. Romney was rated 47 out of 50 Governors in job creation in Mass. Google that too. The “Club For Growth” said ‘Romney broke his ‘no tax’ pledge in MA!’ ..Look it up! Romney is publically on record as saying that Romneycare is a model for the nation! Google it!!.
He cannot win in a General election and he shares many positions with Obama; Man-made GW, EPA mandates, RomneyCare, Tax increases, liberal appointments to judicial vacancies. Wake up people. You haven’t researched this flip flopper.
[...] by his less-than-stellar record on healthcare, his weakness on Social Security reform, his anemic list of proposed budget savings, and his reprehensible support for ethanol [...]
[...] by his less-than-stellar record on healthcare, his weakness on Social Security reform, his anemic list of proposed budget savings, and his reprehensible support for ethanol [...]
[...] by his less-than-stellar record on healthcare, his weakness on Social Security reform, his anemic list of proposed budget savings, and his reprehensible support for ethanol [...]