I had a conversation this weekend with my dad that disappointed me. I wasn't so much disappointed in my dad as the extent to which the liberal media has been able to deceive people. My dad is fairly conservative politically and has almost always voted Republican. However, even he has fallen prey to the left's propaganda through the so-called "mainstream media".
My parents came to visit our family for the weekend and while the kids were sleeping my dad and I were discussing life. The conversation turned to history and politics and I mentioned that I thought history was such an important part of politics because so few people understand the lessons of history and we are constantly repeating our past mistakes. That prompted my dad to make a point that he had heard recently from a radio host (I don't know who). He said that we have learned from history that "tax cuts for the rich" don't work and neither does massive government spending, so we have to find something else to help the economy. I found that to be an interesting and disturbing comment and decided to dig a little deeper. I asked him where in history we have seen that tax cuts don't work and he said "the Bush tax cuts". I wanted to give him a history lesson and an economic lesson right there, but I remembered this was just a casual conversation so I just gave him a brief rebuttal. However, I decided that I would use this platform to give a little deeper explanation of what was wrong with this comment.
This is an example of a two related lies that have been repeated over and over by the left to the point that most (or at least way too many) people think it is true. It is also a case where Republicans have done a pathetic job of challenging and refuting this lie. The first lie is that the Bush tax cuts were for the rich. The rich did get a tax cut, but so did every other tax paying American. This point was greatly illustrated by the recent "fiscal cliff" debate where the Bush tax cuts were set to expire. Even though they have been heralded as just for the rich, somehow it was everyone's taxes who were set to go up with the expiration. It just happened that since the tax cut was a rate cut, the rich who pay more also got a bigger cut when the same percentage was applied to the amount they pay. If you apply this same logic, then the rich are hurt more by tax increases, but the left still insists they aren't paying their "fair share". As usual, the arguments of the left have no logical basis.
The second lie that has been driven home over and over by President Obama through his Saul Alinksy like tactics, is that the tax cuts caused the 2008 recession. Remember that I said that the arguments of the left rarely are based on logic. In this case, we refer to this as a logical fallacy, which is the assumption that because one event proceeds another that the first caused the second. In other words, because the Bush tax cut proceeded the recession it caused the recession. In an economic vacuum this might make sense. However, we have to put this into the whole context of history. First of all, we have seen the effects of previous tax cuts by both Kennedy and Reagan that dramatically improved the economy. Second, the Bush tax cuts has actually been extremely beneficial to the economy until late 2007.
Many people forget that Bush actually inherited a recession from Clinton. The internet bubble that drove the great expansion in the late nineties burst in 2000 and led to a small recession that carried over into the Bush administration. Instead of spending his entire term blaming his predecessor, Bush passed a tax cut to turn the economy around. On top of that, the September 11 terrorist attacks provided another big blow to the economy. However, the tax cuts were so effective that, by the end of Bush's first term, we were experiencing near historic low unemployment rates. So did these same tax cuts somehow cause the recession? NO! Just as a bubble caused the 2001 recession, another more devastating bubble caused the 2008 recession. This was the housing bubble that had been growing for more than 25 years and accelerated by different law changes around the turn of the century (largely under Clinton). Even though the tax cuts proceeded the recession there was very little relationship between the two.
I wanted to talk about this, because I am so sick of hearing these lies. However, I think this also greatly illustrates how ineffective the Republican party has been at refuting these lies even among their base. Republicans need to be just as persistent in attacking these lies as the Democrats and their media are in spreading them. If Romney had learned this lesson, he likely would be President today.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Friday, February 24, 2012
The Case Against Romney
I recently heard a local radio host proclaim that he hadn't heard an intelligent reason for conservatives to oppose Romney. After asking myself what hole in the ground his head had been stuck in, I decided I would share the reasons this conservative opposes Romney. I'll try not to ramble on for too long since I could probably write a whole book about it.
To be fair, I'll actually start with what I like about Romney to show that I do give him credit. First of all, he's not Barack Obama. That's all that really needs to be said if you're a real conservative. Obama is so antithetical to the conservative viewpoint that any one of the Republicans would be a better President than him (notice I didn't say a good President, just better than Obama). I also think Mitt is a good speaker who people can see as President. He also has a better understanding of the economy and the importance of reducing spending. I think he truly believes in America's greatness and he would help restore our standing on the national stage. He believes in the free market and knows that too much government hinders the free market. He would be a formidable candidate this fall especially given that the economy isn't likely to be much better than it is now and people think he can fix it because of his business background.
I had to make those points to clarify that I intend to willingly support Romney if he is the Republican candidate this fall. It will take me a lot more space to explain my concerns about Romney and why I don't think he's the best choice for the Republicans and why I'm very concerned that he would lose if he's the nominee. Let me start with my first and biggest concern that I think gets to the heart of what most nags most conservatives about Romney. He's a panderer or perhaps a better word would be a chameleon. He tends to take on the ideals and rhetoric of whatever audience or electorate he's facing. Some people, such as Ann Coulter, have said that just makes him a smart politician. I say that makes him a liar. I don't trust that the conservative Mitt we hear today on the campaign trail is the real Romney any more than the liberal Mitt was when he was running for the Senate or the Progressive Mitt when running for governor. At least with Obama, you know you're getting a liberal. With Mitt, you have to hope you're getting a conservative.
The real fear that I think conservatives have about Romney is not that he's a liberal or even moderate. They fear that he's none of the above because he has no core principles. That's why he's able to so easily change his positions and so hard to nail down on where he really stands. We see this in the way he talks about economic policies. He's uses good conservative phrases like "unleashing the private sector", but then turns around and talks about the 1% versus the middle class and how the rich are doing just fine. He's learned the lingo but not the true conservative principles. He doesn't understand that tax cuts aren't about different classes and who's doing fine or not. It's about returning the power to the people by allowing them to keep more of their own money and distribute it as they see fit through spending or investing or employing people. If I actually thought Romney understood conservatism and meant what he says in his stump speeches, I would be all for him. However, I fully expect a different candidate in the general election who tries to appeal to "the middle". If he does that, I fear he will lose. (See my post "The Myth of Electability" for more about this.)
Another argument that Romney supporters make is that his experience as a businessman proves that he's conservative and makes him strong on the economy. I think this myth spawns from the criticism against Obama for never having a real job in a business or ever running anything. It is definitely true that Obama has no clue how a business works and perhaps having been involved in the business world would have given him a better perspective on the economy. However, to twist that into thinking that everyone in the business world must be a conservative is just plain stupid. A perfect illustration of this is another businessman who reminds me a lot of Romney for the way he has made his fortune through capital investment. In fact, by the reasoning people give to support Romney, this man would be a much better president than Romney because he's been much more successful than Romney. That person is Warren Buffett. I'm guessing there aren't too many of you who have been hoping Warren Buffett would jump in the race. And now that I think about it, Buffett's comments about how the rich should be paying more don't sound too much different from Romney saying the rich are doing fine. This doesn't prove that all businessmen are liberals, but it does show that pointing out Romney's business background has very little to do with any discussions about him being a conservative either.
If Romney's business background doesn't convince his experience with the Olympics or as governor should, right? Frankly, I don't see his experience with Olympics shows anything more than his time at Bain Capital did and the fact that he used federal earmarks to cover the cost of the security further weakens the case for making this out to be anything particularly brilliant. As for his time as governor, this just further illustrates my point earlier that he has no real core principles. He can talk about the things he did to illustrate his conservatism, which is great. But that all pales in comparison to Romneycare. There is not one thing that is conservative about Romneycare. Even his point about advocating "personal responsibility" falls flat because that is not the type of personal responsibility conservatives believe in. We don't believe in enforcing by adding more government. We believe in forcing it by reducing government so that people are responsible for there own actions and own care. He might be able to say that it was more conservative than Obamacare, but that's like saying Hillary Clinton is more conservative Obama.
But Romney's going to appeal Obamacare, right? Not according to Romney advisor and former Senator Norm Coleman. Checkout this article http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/25/romney-advisor-no-obamacare-repeal/ or many other places online discussing this. But let's say Romney does repeal Obamacare (as will all of the other candidates, so he really doesn't stand out on this matter). He still clearly doesn't get the point. In a debate earlier this year, he told Rick Santorum that it wasn't worth getting angry about. However, that's exactly what drove the Tea Party and the election in 2010. People were mad as you know what over Obamacare. In the debate this week, Romney listed his reasons for opposing Obamacare. He mentioned that it was too expensive, cut medicare and raised taxes. Those are all definite problems. However, he missed the biggest reason conservatives oppose it, which is it that it is a massive overreach of government intervention in our lives. He may have just forgotten to mention that, but I think someone speaking from true conviction and not just memorized talking points wouldn't forget that.
I think if you really want to know what Romney would be like as president, I think both President Bush's would give you a pretty good idea. They both did some good things and were a lot better than Obama but they abandoned conservatism when things got tough and in the end that cost US dearly. The first time they gave us Bill Clinton after Bush 41 raised taxes. The second time we got Barack Obama because Bush 43 signed TARP (supported by Romney). Of course Romney knows that he can't convince people he's a real conservative. That's why he spends most of his money trashing his opponents to make people thi.k they're not conservative either. It's an interesting tango watching him criticize his opponents (except Ron Paul, of course) from the right while trying to appeal to moderates a sprinkling of class warfare rhetoric. Maybe that's why he has to team up with Ron Paul to attack his opponents since Paul seems more sincere hitting them from the right. (Checkout the various stories online discussing Ron Paul and Romney's relationship if you're not familiar with that already.)
Hopefully this will help convince our local host that there are intelligent reasons for opposing Romney. If not, perhaps he should try listening to another host on his own station, Mark Levin.
To be fair, I'll actually start with what I like about Romney to show that I do give him credit. First of all, he's not Barack Obama. That's all that really needs to be said if you're a real conservative. Obama is so antithetical to the conservative viewpoint that any one of the Republicans would be a better President than him (notice I didn't say a good President, just better than Obama). I also think Mitt is a good speaker who people can see as President. He also has a better understanding of the economy and the importance of reducing spending. I think he truly believes in America's greatness and he would help restore our standing on the national stage. He believes in the free market and knows that too much government hinders the free market. He would be a formidable candidate this fall especially given that the economy isn't likely to be much better than it is now and people think he can fix it because of his business background.
I had to make those points to clarify that I intend to willingly support Romney if he is the Republican candidate this fall. It will take me a lot more space to explain my concerns about Romney and why I don't think he's the best choice for the Republicans and why I'm very concerned that he would lose if he's the nominee. Let me start with my first and biggest concern that I think gets to the heart of what most nags most conservatives about Romney. He's a panderer or perhaps a better word would be a chameleon. He tends to take on the ideals and rhetoric of whatever audience or electorate he's facing. Some people, such as Ann Coulter, have said that just makes him a smart politician. I say that makes him a liar. I don't trust that the conservative Mitt we hear today on the campaign trail is the real Romney any more than the liberal Mitt was when he was running for the Senate or the Progressive Mitt when running for governor. At least with Obama, you know you're getting a liberal. With Mitt, you have to hope you're getting a conservative.
The real fear that I think conservatives have about Romney is not that he's a liberal or even moderate. They fear that he's none of the above because he has no core principles. That's why he's able to so easily change his positions and so hard to nail down on where he really stands. We see this in the way he talks about economic policies. He's uses good conservative phrases like "unleashing the private sector", but then turns around and talks about the 1% versus the middle class and how the rich are doing just fine. He's learned the lingo but not the true conservative principles. He doesn't understand that tax cuts aren't about different classes and who's doing fine or not. It's about returning the power to the people by allowing them to keep more of their own money and distribute it as they see fit through spending or investing or employing people. If I actually thought Romney understood conservatism and meant what he says in his stump speeches, I would be all for him. However, I fully expect a different candidate in the general election who tries to appeal to "the middle". If he does that, I fear he will lose. (See my post "The Myth of Electability" for more about this.)
Another argument that Romney supporters make is that his experience as a businessman proves that he's conservative and makes him strong on the economy. I think this myth spawns from the criticism against Obama for never having a real job in a business or ever running anything. It is definitely true that Obama has no clue how a business works and perhaps having been involved in the business world would have given him a better perspective on the economy. However, to twist that into thinking that everyone in the business world must be a conservative is just plain stupid. A perfect illustration of this is another businessman who reminds me a lot of Romney for the way he has made his fortune through capital investment. In fact, by the reasoning people give to support Romney, this man would be a much better president than Romney because he's been much more successful than Romney. That person is Warren Buffett. I'm guessing there aren't too many of you who have been hoping Warren Buffett would jump in the race. And now that I think about it, Buffett's comments about how the rich should be paying more don't sound too much different from Romney saying the rich are doing fine. This doesn't prove that all businessmen are liberals, but it does show that pointing out Romney's business background has very little to do with any discussions about him being a conservative either.
If Romney's business background doesn't convince his experience with the Olympics or as governor should, right? Frankly, I don't see his experience with Olympics shows anything more than his time at Bain Capital did and the fact that he used federal earmarks to cover the cost of the security further weakens the case for making this out to be anything particularly brilliant. As for his time as governor, this just further illustrates my point earlier that he has no real core principles. He can talk about the things he did to illustrate his conservatism, which is great. But that all pales in comparison to Romneycare. There is not one thing that is conservative about Romneycare. Even his point about advocating "personal responsibility" falls flat because that is not the type of personal responsibility conservatives believe in. We don't believe in enforcing by adding more government. We believe in forcing it by reducing government so that people are responsible for there own actions and own care. He might be able to say that it was more conservative than Obamacare, but that's like saying Hillary Clinton is more conservative Obama.
But Romney's going to appeal Obamacare, right? Not according to Romney advisor and former Senator Norm Coleman. Checkout this article http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/25/romney-advisor-no-obamacare-repeal/ or many other places online discussing this. But let's say Romney does repeal Obamacare (as will all of the other candidates, so he really doesn't stand out on this matter). He still clearly doesn't get the point. In a debate earlier this year, he told Rick Santorum that it wasn't worth getting angry about. However, that's exactly what drove the Tea Party and the election in 2010. People were mad as you know what over Obamacare. In the debate this week, Romney listed his reasons for opposing Obamacare. He mentioned that it was too expensive, cut medicare and raised taxes. Those are all definite problems. However, he missed the biggest reason conservatives oppose it, which is it that it is a massive overreach of government intervention in our lives. He may have just forgotten to mention that, but I think someone speaking from true conviction and not just memorized talking points wouldn't forget that.
I think if you really want to know what Romney would be like as president, I think both President Bush's would give you a pretty good idea. They both did some good things and were a lot better than Obama but they abandoned conservatism when things got tough and in the end that cost US dearly. The first time they gave us Bill Clinton after Bush 41 raised taxes. The second time we got Barack Obama because Bush 43 signed TARP (supported by Romney). Of course Romney knows that he can't convince people he's a real conservative. That's why he spends most of his money trashing his opponents to make people thi.k they're not conservative either. It's an interesting tango watching him criticize his opponents (except Ron Paul, of course) from the right while trying to appeal to moderates a sprinkling of class warfare rhetoric. Maybe that's why he has to team up with Ron Paul to attack his opponents since Paul seems more sincere hitting them from the right. (Checkout the various stories online discussing Ron Paul and Romney's relationship if you're not familiar with that already.)
Hopefully this will help convince our local host that there are intelligent reasons for opposing Romney. If not, perhaps he should try listening to another host on his own station, Mark Levin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
