From the Hotline:

Given the choice of Huckabee, McCain, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney, 26% of VA GOP voters and 27% of MD GOP voters chose Romney as the most qualified candidate to manage the economy, despite the fact that he suspended his campaign nearly a week ago.

Labels: economy, Maryland, Virginia

Of course, for us Romney supporters, we have known that Romney is the choice for a long time.

Vin Weber and Ceasar Conda have an article over at NRO stating exactly why Romney is the choice. Specifically, they review Romney's economic stimulus plan. They outline the basics of the plan:

For individuals, it would permanently reduce the lowest tax rate from 10 percent to 7.5 percent, providing up to a $400 tax cut for those affected. It would also eliminate payroll taxes on workers older than 65.

Additionally, the plan will allow Americans with adjusted gross incomes of less than $200,000 to save tax-free, by eliminating their tax liability on interest, capital gains, and dividends.

For businesses large and small, the plan would provide new incentives for job-creating investment. Companies could immediately write off or expense the cost of new equipment purchased for a two-year period, retroactive to January 1, 2008.

Romney proposes to permanently reduce the corporate rate to 25 percent for 2008 and 20 percent in 2009.

All of these changes to the tax code work not only a short term gain for individuals and businesses, but represent a significant step in the right direction in keeping our economy healthy. Here's the bottom line:

In 2008, we have a clear choice. We can select a nominee whose economic views have been shaped by almost 30 years spent in the free market, making businesses work and creating jobs. Or, we can pick a longtime politician who has never run a corner grocery store, much less the largest enterprise in the world — the federal government. The choice is clear, and the choice is Mitt Romney.

Labels: economy, Taxes

Kind of rolls off the tongue, doesn’t it? Whether or not it strikes your fancy as a word, it should as a substantive matter. One thing that has become clear from the Michigan primary is that voters trust Romney on the economy, and rightfully so. One reason is background and personal history. There is one Republican candidate that has actually worked at creating jobs: Romney. The other candidates are former lawyers, lobbyists, preachers, and servicemen. As honorable as those professions are, they teach little if anything about what it takes to succeed in the free market. Romney spent his professional life looking at and evaluating business opportunities. He then went in and implemented a plan to make those opportunities succeed. To do so successfully, Romney needed a broad knowledge of the economy, both in the US and globally. Thus, part of the trust voters have in Romney on the economy is biographical.

The other reason is Romney’s economic policies. Romney has advocated conservative answers along with realism and pragmatism. Cut corporate rates. Reduce regulation. Cut marginal rates. Eliminate taxes on savings. Eliminate the death tax. All of these proposals are both sound policy and politically feasible. They are reachable goals that will make a significant difference in the health of the economy.

The combination of personal history and sound policies lend not only credibility to Romney on economic matters, but make him the best suited to lead our economy in the years to come.

Labels: economy

Oh the wonderful 70's, time before time (or at least before some of us, ahem, were born). It was a magical time when gas was in short supply, evironmentalists were telling us that the world was in for another ice age, and we were ending our involvement in a long war. Stagflation was all the rage and America looked weak and vulnerable. Of course we have have many people to thank for those blissful times. Prominent on that list was a southern governor named Jimmy Carter. Jimmy was a nice enough fellow, but incompetent and misguided. Of course, that's become more apparent as time has gone by, and the decision to elect him looks foolish now.

I generally don't like to make comparisons of candidates to former presidents. Most of the time the comparisons are unfair and superficial. However, the more I look at the potential presidency of Mike Huckabee, the more I am persuaded that his presidency would look like Jimmy Carter's.

It's funny how we forget as time passes at how bad the national financial situation was back then, with the gas lines and stagflation at the top of the list. The environmental movement was coming of age, also, making it particularly difficult to fix the energy and monetary problems. The Carter administration, through populist economic policies and sympathy towards environmental restrictions, did nothing to help. The nation, still sour over the Vietnam war, saw gloom and doom in a self-perpetuating negativity cycle, furthering the despair.

This, to me, is where a Huckabee presidency would take us. His populist economic policies would do nothing to help problem areas in the economy. Indeed, it is likely that they would further deepen the problem. Likewise Huckabee's affinity towards environmental restrictions would make our energy problems worse, not better. All this would add to a nation in a sour mood over our involvement in Iraq. Huckabee, like Carter at the time, is a nice guy, but misguided and capable of serious harm to the country.

I also think that we now underestimate the importance of Reagan's economic policies in turning around the national mood and healing the wounds of past national hurts. Time has dimmed the memory of how important it was to get our finances in order and the resulting confidence, in all facets of life, that it gave the nation. Mitt Romney could do for the economy what Reagan, in his time, did. He would breath new life into an overstuffed government, and allow the citizens of this great nation to feel confident once again about themselves and their country. Commitment to conservative economic policies, both for spending and taxes, is one of Mitt's hallmarks.

Imagine what Reagan could have done had he been elected in 1976 instead of Jimmy Carter. We have a similar choice again this time around. Being pro-life is simply not a sufficient condition to be president, especially when coupled with a populist economic ideology. We need a president who can lead us to economic success once again. Mitt Romney is the man that can do that.

Labels: economy, mike huckabee

The New American Challenge. First, economic conservatism

Labels: cpac, economy, Taxes, video

Boston, MA – Governor Mitt Romney announced today that noted economist John Cogan will serve as Co-Chair of the Romney for President Exploratory Committee Economic Advisory Council. He will join Glenn Hubbard and Greg Mankiw in advising Governor Romney on economic policy development.

"I am pleased to welcome John Cogan to the Exploratory Committee. As one of our country's leading economists, John has an accomplished record of successfully developing pro-growth policies based on conservative principles," said Governor Romney. "As America faces extraordinary competition from abroad, we will work together to develop the policies needed to maintain our economic leadership. Through sound conservative values like low taxes and smaller government, we can help ensure a more prosperous America."



Background On John Cogan:

John Cogan Has Had A Distinguished Academic And Public Service Career. Cogan is the Leonard and Shirley Ely Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, and since 1980, a Stanford University Public Policy professor. Focused on domestic policy, he is an expert on U.S. budget and fiscal policy, Social Security, and health care. In addition to his academic achievements, Cogan has had a long career of public service. From 1981 to 1983, he served as Assistant Secretary for Policy in the U.S. Department of Labor, and from 1983 to 1986, as an Associate Director in the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In 1988-1989, he was OMB Deputy Director.

In 2000, he served as a senior economic adviser to then-Governor George W. Bush on tax, budget and Social Security issues. Following the election, he directed the President's budget transition team, and most recently, was a member of the Commission to Strengthen Social Security.

Labels: advisors, economy, endoresements, Endorsement

Governor Romney today delivered a thorough economic address to the Detroit Economic Club. An excerpt:

"One hundred years ago, Golden Jubilee for Queen Victoria, unthinkable England would ever be surpassed as a superpower. But 50 years later, America roared passed.

"Inconceivable to us today that America could ever be passed. We've been competing with Europe for so long that we've gotten a little over-confident. But look east. Asia is emerging as an economic powerhouse. Great news, can buy our goods and products - I was pleased to see all the Buicks when I was in Beijing in December. But also a real challenge. Will Rogers: 'even if you're on the right track, if you don't move, you'll get run over.'

"Standing still isn't a viable option. The question for America is this: what direction should we take?"

Afterwards, the Club for Growth issued a press release containing the glowing approval of Club President Pat Toomey:

“Governor Romney outlined today an economic platform that is, generally speaking, very pro-growth despite the surprising limit he suggests for tax-free savings,” Toomey said. “As the governor develops the specifics of his economic policies, we hope he will boldly build upon the limited government, free-market policies he discussed today.”

Finally, the Governor appeared on CNBC's Kudlow & Company for a detailed interview on economic policy. Here's a segment on YouTube.

It's clear that no Presidential candidate on either side of the ballot is as prepared to discuss issues of economic importance as Mitt Romney is.

Labels: economy, event, Taxes

From Drudge:

Democratic U.S. presidential candidate John Edwards on Sunday said that he would raise taxes, chiefly on the wealthy, to pay for expanded healthcare coverage under a plan costing $90 billion to $120 billion a year to be unveiled on Monday.

"We'll have to raise taxes. The only way you can pay for a healthcare plan that cost anywhere from $90 to $120 billion is there has to be a revenue source," Edwards said on NBC's Meet the Press news program.

Tax cuts have always been proven to increase government revenues, stimulate the economy, and brought us out of Clinton's recession so raising taxes does what??

John Edwards = Walter Mondale + Hillary Clinton. He's all done.

Labels: democrats, economy, Edwards, election, Scott Allan

We all knew Hillary was up to no good with her failed socialist universal health care program. Now Hillary is stating she wants to seize the profits of oil companies and start a "strategic energy fund". I think she is slipping from her carefully crafted moderate position. This is good information for Mitt to have when he faces her in the general election. After all, Mitt is an extremely successful capitalist and instituted an innovative Republican style health care program in Massachusetts. For someone who claims to care about the common worker, Ms. Rodham is quite reckless with our economy and our jobs. Let's let Mitt handle our economy and health care instead.



On a related note see this website: TakeThoseProfits.com

Labels: campaign, economy, hillary, mitt romney