Tag Archives: ObamaCare

The Issue with Romney is the Issues

By Max Pappas (citations in original article from FreedomWorks)

After keeping his distance from the tea party movement since its inception, the ever calculating Mitt Romney has realized he needs the tea party if he is to win his bid to be president of the United States.  So he is going to speak at his first tea party event soon.

Reminder to Mitt Romney: The tea party movement is not only a reaction to the big government policies of President Obama and the Democrats who ran Congress from 2006-2008.  It is also a reaction to the disappointment and frustration with big government Republicans like you, who ran the country too much like the Democrats for too many years.

To put it another way, we support free markets, constitutionally limited government, and fiscal responsibility and we oppose politicians from both parties who do not.

Romney does not, so we oppose him.

A few of highlights from Romney’s record showing just how unfriendly he has been over the years to the ideas the tea party holds dear (links and details further below):

  • Romney distanced himself from Reagan and Reagan’s policies
  • Romney didn’t like the Contract with America
  • Romney led the fight for and implemented health care reform almost identical to ObamaCare
  • Romney called his beta version of ObamaCare “a model for the nation”
  • Romney defended the individual mandate, saying,

 “I like mandates. The mandates work.”

  • Romney supports cap-and-trade “on a global basis”
  • Romney worked to regulate “greenhouse gas emissions” in Massachusetts
  • Romney got Massachusetts involved in a regional climate change pact
  • Romney supports ethanol subsidies
  • Romney wants to increase spending “substantially” on energy research
  • Romney opposes the Flat Tax
  • Romney refused to support the 2003 Bush tax cuts
  • Romney’s claim to not have raised taxes is called “mostly myth” by Cato Institute
  • Romney thought Obama’s stimulus would “accelerate the timing of the start of the recovery”
  • Romney supports TARP
  • Romney says there’s nothing wrong with companies asking for bailouts
  • Romney supports No Child Left Behind
  • Romney supports reappointing Ben Bernanke to chairman of the Federal Reserve

Health Care

  • In 2006, Mitt Romney imposed a health care law on Massachusetts that served as a blueprint for ObamaCare.  NPR states that ObamaCare

was based, almost line for line, on the Massachusetts model.”

  • Obama thanked Romney for RomneyCare, saying at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser in Boston,

“Yes, we passed health care with an assist from a former Massachusetts Governor… Great idea.”

  • RomneyCare, like ObamaCare, is based on an individual mandate, which Romney continues to defend. A presidential debate in 2008 featured the following exchange:

GIBSON: But Gov. Romney’s system has mandates in Massachusetts — although you backed away from mandates on a national basis.

ROMNEY: No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work.

  • Romney encouraged a broader use of government forcing individuals to make government mandated purchases, saying,

“Everybody in our state has to have health insurance and that’s a model which I think has some merit more generally.”

  • Romney’s plan, like ObamaCare, fines those who don’t purchase insurance that is officially approved and heavily regulated through an “exchange” and subsidizes with taxpayer dollars such purchases.
  • Romney said of his plan, with its individual mandate, “exchange,” and heavy subsidies:

“If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation.”

Obama and the Democrats agreed and did so.

  • The far-left was so excited about RomneyCare that Sen. Ted Kennedy made a trip to be at the bill signing and was all smiles as he stood center stage.
  • Despite his previous suggestion that RomneyCare is a “model for the nation”, he is now trying to use the excuse that it was OK because it’s a state plan and states experiment. But it’s wrong for government at any level to violate our basic right to liberty by forcing citizens to buy a product as the individual mandate does.
  • RomneyCare has failed, increasing health care costs dramatically. Between 2006 and 2009, cumulative costs increased by $8,569,000,000, emergency room visits are up 7.2 percent, and premiums rose 6 percent, according to the Beacon Hill Institute.
  • In the wake of RomneyCare, the Wall Street Journal says Massachusetts

“is now moving to impose price controls on all hospitals, doctors and other providers.”

We can expect that nationally, too, if ObamaCare isn’t repealed.

  • The Wall Street Journal offers more on RomneyCare, which they call a “fatal flaw” for this candidate, here.

Cap-and-Trade

  • Romney supports a global cap-and-trade scheme and involved Massachusetts in a regional cap-and-trade pact.  Romney was caught on video in New Hampshire in 2008 having this exchange with a potential voter:

Potential Voter: Do you support cap-and-trade?

Romney: I support it on a global basis

  • Romney won praise from global warming profiteer Al Gore for saying, “I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and global warming that you’re seeing.”
  • In 2008, Romney told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that “there’s nothing wrong with dealing with global warming.”
  • In 2004, as Governor of Massachusetts, Romney introduced the Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan to reduce greenhouse gases. The Heartland Institute finds,

“Though mostly voluntary, some provisions of the plan are mandatory and will impose economic hardship on Massachusetts citizens.”

  • Romney’s plan, much like the widely rejected Kyoto Protocol states its goals as
    • SHORT-TERM: Reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2010.
    • MEDIUM-TERM: Reduce GHG emissions 10% below 1990 levels by the year 2020.
    • LONG-TERM: Reduce GHG emissions sufficiently to eliminate any dangerous threat to the climate; current science suggests this will require reductions as much as 75-85% below current levels.
  • Having pushed carbon regulations Obama could only dream of, Romney uttered this line, which sounds eerily like what Obama would say,

“These carbon emission limits will provide real and immediate progress in the battle to improve our environment… They help us accomplish our environmental goals while protecting jobs and the economy.”

  • According to Sandy Liddy Bourne of the American Legislative Exchange Council,

“The Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan can be compared to a slick advertisement with no price tag. It is packaged with the same doom and gloom rhetoric of the environmental activists and commits the state government to long-term contracts for renewable energy without the benefits of a free market check-and-balance system.”

Ethanol

  • Romney makes no bones about it, he supports ethanol subsidies. “I support the subsidy of ethanol,” he told an Iowa voter. “I believe ethanol is an important part of our energy solution for this country.”
  • Romney goes so far as to support trade barriers on ethanol.
  • Romney also supports energy subsidies in general, unequivocally stating in his 2008 campaign platform a need for a “dramatic” increase in “federal spending on research, development, and demonstration projects that hold promise for diversifying our energy supply.”

Taxes

  • Romney refused to support the Bush tax cuts in 2003.
  • Romney strongly opposes the pro-growth Flat Tax. So much so that he, as a “concerned citizen” ran a newspaper ad opposing it. He said, “I’m probably not going to be recommending throwing out the code and starting over” and says the flat tax is “unfair.”
  • In 2002, while Romney was running for governor, limited government activists in Massachusetts were supporting Ballot Question 1 to eliminate he state income tax. Forty five percent of the voters supported eliminating the tax, Romney opposed eliminating it.
  • When Romney ran for governor in 2002, he refused to sign a no-tax pledge.

“I’m not intending to, at this stage, sign a document which would prevent me from being able to look specifically at the revenue needs of the Commonwealth.”

  • Romney enacted $432 million in fee hikes and $300 million in higher taxes as governor of Massachusetts.
  • In a recent “Fiscal Policy Report Card” on governors, The Cato Institute, gave him a “C.” As far as the image Romney cultivates as “a governor who stood by a no-new-taxes pledge,” Cato called it “mostly a myth.” As evidence, they cited the hefty fee increases and business tax hikes achieved through the closing of loopholes.
  • Romney proposed a tax shift that would have increased taxes on SUVs.
  • Romney instituted a 2-cent-per-gallon increase on a special gasoline fee that takes in $60 million per year.

Spending

  • As Governor, Romney proposed a budget in 2007 that was an outrageous 8.5 percent higher than the one he proposed the year before.
  • Romney, despite calls from many fiscal conservatives to keep everything on the table when looking for spending cuts, recently stated that “I’m not going to cut the defense spending.”
  • Romney parroted discredited Keynesian economic thinking when he wrote in No Apology,

“The ‘all-Democrat’ stimulus that was passed in early 2009 will accelerate the timing of the start of the recovery.”

  • Romney sounds a lot like Obama when he says in an op-ed to what was surely a fawning New York Times audience,

I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today.

The Wall Street Bailout

  • Romney supports the Wall Street Bailout/TARP program.  In his book No Apology he says:

Secretary [Hank] Paulson’s TARP prevented a systemic collapse of the national financial system.

It was intended to prevent a run on virtually every bank and financial institution in the country.

Had we not taken action, you could have seen a real devastation.

  • Romney reaffirmed this position in 2009 saying, “I believe that it was necessary to prevent a cascade of bank collapses.”

More Mitt, More Problems

  • Romney supports federal involvement in education, long held by constitutional conservatives as a state prerogative, offering his support for the Bush-Kennedy No Child Left Behind law. In a 2008 debate, Romney stated, “I supported No Child Left Behind, still do.”
  • Romney ran on raising the minimum wage and putting in place automatic increases by indexing it to inflation.
  • Romney signed in to law a smoking ban.
  • Romney thinks it’s OK for companies to ask for bailouts, stating in a New York Times op-ed about the auto bailout, “It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition”
  • In April 2009, Romney told The Hill newspaper that:

“We as Republicans misspeak when we say we don’t like regulation. We like modern, up-to-date dynamic regulation that is regularly reviewed, streamlined, modernized and effective.”

  • On Neal Cavuto on January 28 2010, Romney supported the reappointment of Ben Bernanke to chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 GOP Primary, 2012 Presidential Election, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Politics

Paul, Sanders on FEMA: Anti-Federalist vs. Federalist, or a Battle Over Bloat?

by Jarrett Stepman 08/31/2011 Human Events

In the wake of Hurricane Irene battering the East Coast, two politicians of dramatically different ideologies, Rep. Ron Paul, a libertarian Republican from Texas, and Sen. Bernie Sanders, a far-left Socialist from Vermont, made bold statements regarding the effectiveness and existence of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Before Irene even hit, Paul was airing his frustration with FEMA, which is a federal bureaucracy created to respond to national disasters.

Paul called the agency “a system of bureaucratic central economic planning, which is a policy that is deeply flawed.”

Recalling the wastefulness and poor response of FEMA after Hurricane Katrina, Paul stated, “We’ve conditioned our people that FEMA will take care of us and everything will be okay, but you try to make these programs work the best you can, but you can’t just keep saying, ‘Oh, they need money.’  Well, we’re out of money, this country is bankrupt.”

Of course, liberals and even some on the right were quick to jump on Paul’s comments and expressed desire to end this federal agency.

Joining a list of liberal pundits and columnists lauding the effectiveness of FEMA, Sen. Sanders took a shot at Paul during a CNN interview.

Being interviewed because of the disastrous flooding in his home state of Vermont, Sanders said, “On these issues he is completely out to lunch.”  He then said, “We are not 50 individual states.”

Sanders and Paul represent opposite sides of the ideological spectrum, but the question is, which one is right?  The not-so-simple answer may be that in a sense both can be right and both can be wrong.

This fight is in part a very old battle over the federalist—or more correctly, nationalist—and anti-federalist beliefs espoused at the nation’s founding, but perhaps even more so, this is a more modern battle over what some Americans have come to see as federalism and rule by a massive, centralized bureaucracy.

Paul seems to have staked out an anti-federalist position, which is that the states should essentially be left alone to provide for their own defense and their own safety in a disaster.  Paul, much like the anti-federalists, and in fact most modern conservatives, believes that the extension of control by the federal government over the states will reduce the liberty of the citizens of all states at one time or another.

Robert Yates warned in the “Anti-Federalist Papers” that a nationalized government may “possess absolute and uncontrollable power, legislative, executive and judicial, with respect to every object to which it extends.”

This warning came from the inclusion of the so called “commerce clause” and the “necessary and proper clause” of the Constitution, which states that “Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution, in the government of the United States, or in any department or office thereof.”

On the flip side it might seem like Sanders is taking the federalist position, which justifies having a centralized government that would have the power to tax citizens in the states and provide for national defense, these actions, of course, being “necessary and proper.”

In the early years of the American Republic, the federalists seemed to be justified.

Many states were generally breaking down into near banana republics, sinking under a mountain of debt created during the Revolutionary War and waging economic warfare against one another.  The nationalization of the economy allowed for a safe reduction in debt, which was extinguished for a brief moment in 1837, and for the creation of the largest free-trade zone in world history.

There were other challenges for states as sovereign entities as well.  Even after the Constitution, the country did not have a national, professional military and relied on state militias.  When the war of 1812 broke out, many of these militias simply refused to cross state borders, leading to mass chaos and dramatic failure in the invasion of Canada.

The fact is, though, that no aspect of the Constitution has been as overused and abused as the commerce clause, and in time it would open up the country to all kinds of machinations, under the New Deal of President Franklin Roosevelt and The Great Society under President Lyndon Johnson, which were justified as “necessary and proper.”  It has been used to justify the creation of FEMA in 1978, and also ObamaCare.

While critics of Paul may be right in the belief that disasters in one state require a national response, they err when believing that a massive federal bureaucracy can in fact revive a damaged or war-torn area.  FEMA’s bumbling and waste in the response to Hurricane Katrina is a perfect example of the challenge of coordinating any national response.

Even the military, with its ability to smash any other military force in the world and defeat countries in a matter of days and weeks, is unable to rebuild a country’s economy, and is in fact dramatically wasteful in using economic resources.

The modern-day argument over government is less between federalists and anti-federalists—nationalist against sovereign states’ rights advocates—and more of an argument of federalism vs. centralized and permanent government rule by bureaucratic planners.
Continue reading

1 Comment

Filed under 2012 GOP Primary, 2012 Presidential Election, Politics, Ron Paul, Texas