Romney, Gingrich and Obama: Three Do-Gooders Shoving "Morality" Down Your Throat

Here's Romney recently: "[I]t is fundamentally a conservative principle to insist that people take personal responsibility as opposed to turning to government for giving out free care.”

Here's Gingrich in 2006: The Romney plan attempts to bring everyone into the system. The individual mandate requires those who earn enough to afford insurance to purchase coverage . . .. We agree strongly with this principle . . ..

Yankees everywhere agree: "Doin' right ain't got no end."

What I See When I Look At Mitt Romney

Tom Dewey

Mitt

Newt Gingrich Has Believed in Healthcare Mandate and Subsidies Since 2006

These guys Gingrich and Romney and Obama are all about federal interference and compulsion in healthcare, a private matter between an individual and a doctor.

From Newt Notes, April 2006, here:

We agree entirely with Governor Romney and Massachusetts legislators that our goal should be 100% insurance coverage for all Americans. Individuals without coverage often do not receive quality medical attention on par with those who do have insurance. We also believe strongly that personal responsibility is vital to creating a 21st Century Intelligent Health System. Individuals who can afford to purchase health insurance and simply choose not to place an unnecessary burden on a system that is on the verge of collapse; these free-riders undermine the entire health system by placing the onus of responsibility on taxpayers.

The Romney plan attempts to bring everyone into the system. The individual mandate requires those who earn enough to afford insurance to purchase coverage, and subsidies will be made available to those individuals who cannot afford insurance on their own. We agree strongly with this principle, but the details are crucial when it comes to the structure of this plan. ...

While in theory the plan should be affordable if the whole state contributes to the cost, the reality is that Massachusetts has an exhaustive list of health coverage regulations prohibiting insurers from offering more basic, pared-down policies with higher deductibles. (This is yet another reminder that America must establish a cross-state insurance market that gives individuals the freedom to shop for insurance plans in states other than their own.)

In our estimation, Massachusetts residents earning little more than $30,000 a year are in jeopardy of being priced out of the system. In the event that this occurs, Governor Romney will be in grave danger of repeating the mistakes of his predecessor, Mike Dukakis, whose 1988 health plan was hailed as a save-all but eventually collapsed when poorly-devised payment structures created a malaise of unfulfilled promises. We propose that a more realistic approach might be to limit the mandate to those individuals earning upwards of $54,000 per year. ...

I hope that Massachusetts’ initiative to provide affordable, quality health insurance for all continues to ignite even more debate around the subject of how to best address our nation’s uninsured crisis and the critical problems within the health system at large.

To Romney, Calling Obama a Socialist is the Same Thing as Calling Him a Momma's Boy

From an interview on FOX as transcribed here by The Washington Post:

O’Reilly: Is he a socialist?

Romney: You know, I prefer to use the term that he’s just over his head. ... I consider him a big-government liberal Democrat. I think as you look at his policies, you conclude that he thinks Europe got it right and we got it wrong. I think Europe got it wrong. I think Europe is not working in Europe. And I’ll battle him on that day in and day out. But I’m probably not going to be calling him names so much as calling him a failure.

Props to Erick Erickson: Republicans Are Insane

It's not a long post, but a good one:

The Republican Party has gone insane.

For the better part of the last three years the Republican Party has exercised itself into a frenzy over the need to repeal Obamacare. For the two years leading up to November of 2010, mostly middle aged working white people took to the streets in sizes rivaling a NASCAR race to protest the socialization of the American health care system.

The individual mandate and TARP draw the ire of scores of primary voters.

And our two front runners for President? They both support an individual mandate and they both supported TARP.

Not only that, just last year Mitt Romney was saying he’d keep parts of Obamacare. Like supporting amnesty, he has changed his position just in time for an election cycle.

Are we really going to do this?

I just want everyone to make sure they understand this and remind them that Perry, Bachmann, Huntsman, and yes, even Rick Santorum are still in the race.


A movement that doesn't understand what's happened to itself and can't come up with a candidate deserves everything it's going to get . . . in spades.

Net Worth of Poorest Republican Candidate for President is 10 X More Than 75 Percent of America

Here's the minimum net worth of the Republican candidates for president:

Sen. Rick Santorum: $880,000

Gov. Rick Perry: $1.1 million

Rep. Michele Bachmann: $1.8 million (Congressional disclosure is average of minimum and maximum)

Rep. Ron Paul: $3.6 million (Congressional disclosure)

Newt: $6.7 million

Gov. Jon Huntsman: $16 million

Gov. Mitt Romney: $190 million

Discussed here (link).

75 percent of the American people have a net worth in 2007 of $80,000 or less.

Interest on Federal Debt Topped $454 Billion in Fiscal 2011

So says the US Department of the Treasury here.

With fiscal 2011 receipts running at $2.3 trillion according to Treasury here, interest payments now represent 20 percent of federal revenues. Since we're spending $1.5 trillion more than we presently took in, you could say that almost a third of this deficit spending is interest payments.

Total US government debt is running at approximately $15 trillion, so an interest payment of $450 billion per fiscal year implies an interest rate of about 3 percent.

Double that interest rate to 6 percent and interest payments balloon to $900 billion and 40 percent of current revenues.

Mark Steyn recently had some unhappy, pornographic thoughts about that, here:

R.I.P.

[W]ere interest rates to return to their 1990-2010 average (5.7%), debt service alone would consume about 40% of federal revenues by mid-decade. That's not paying down the debt, but just staying current on the interest payments.

And yet, when it comes to spending and stimulus and entitlements and agencies and regulations and bureaucrats, "more more more/how do you like it?" remains the way to bet. Will a Republican president make a difference to this grim trajectory? I would doubt it. Unless the public conversation shifts significantly, neither President Romney nor President Insert-Name-Of-This-Week's-UnRomney-Here will have a mandate for the measures necessary to save the republic.








(source)

Bill Bennett Should Just Shut Up About Herman Cain

What does he want Herman Cain to do? Some kind of magic dance to make the accusations stop? 

"Four women are not an insignificant number. One or two anonymous charges, perhaps. Three anonymous charges (where, as I understand the story, Cain knows of at least two of the women) plus one woman who went very public and opened herself up to all manner of investigation are a lot. It is no longer insignificant. Neither is it insignificant that the Cain campaign discounted the charges in the initial stories, saying they were based on anonymous sources, only to make a mockery by blaming other campaigns with less substantiation than the original stories."

It's all here, but I look in vain for a defense of the rules of evidence, fair play and the like, all of which one would expect one's allies to marshall at a time like this in defense of one of their own.

But Bill Bennett is not a reliable ally.

Democrats on the one hand know Herman is the real threat to Obama, not Romney. Moderate Republicans, on the other, know Herman is the real threat to Romney.

Their joint mission is to destroy the source of Herman's success, which is his likeability. Relentless below the belt stuff will be tried until something sticks. Herman isn't even that important. It's the Tea Party he represents. Dispirit that and you automatically depress the turnout. Meanwhile Democrats can count on the individualist vein in Republicanism to cause Republicans to hang Herman out to dry as a matter of principle, the last refuge of the scoundrel.

"A man big enough to run for president should be big enough to have a full and candid press conference on all of this."

One important difference between Republicans and Democrats is that when a Democrat gets attacked, Democrats circle the wagons around their wounded, but when a Republican takes a hit, Republicans either run and hide like sissies, or join in the attack.

The electorate respects party unity, not because it's often right but because it's logical and predictable. Republicans aren't unified and haven't been since Reagan, which is why no one trusts them. They're insane, and occasionally fly off the handle and hurt somebody in the process.

And right now it's Herman Cain Republicans want to hurt.

Red State's Erick Erickson Says Romney Will Be The Republican Nominee

Because Perry blew it on immigration and Newt and Cain blew it with women.

There are many money lines in the post, here.

Oh, and Romney will lose to Obama, and conservatism dies.

And that means now we should rethink . . . John Huntsman (!).

Doesn't that mean conservatism is already dead?

The real conservative in the race is Cain, who likes $400 wine and a national sales tax. Therefore the argument is social, that is, with the women, who gave us their opposites: Prohibition and The Income Tax. Real conservatives like Phyliss Schlafly support Cain's ideas to unleash American business.

What we need is more women like Phyliss Schlafly, and fewer like Ann Coulter.  

Cain's 999 Plan Would Produce Faster Economic Growth Than Perry or Romney

So says Louis Woodhill for Forbes, here:

Comparing the Republican candidates’ tax plans as written, Cain’s “9-9-9” proposal is the best, because its 9% (effective) corporate income tax rate would produce faster economic growth than Perry’s 20% rate or Romney’s 25% levy.  Cain’s plan has a number of problems, but these could be fixed if he were to give up on the notion that it should be “revenue neutral”.

Given that Cain has the best plan for economic growth, it is not surprising that the latest polls show him leading the Republican pack.

This having been said, Cain’s 9-9-9 plan is not as good as the FairTax, which Cain himself says is his ultimate goal.  The FairTax , which taxes only consumption spending, would yield the fastest economic growth of any tax system.  The FairTax plan has also had the benefit of years of analysis and refinement to minimize the distributional inequities that would attend any kind of fundamental tax reform.

Mr. Cain should start emphasizing that economic growth is much more important than revenue neutrality, and he should promise to refine his plan so that no income group ends up having to pay much more than they would under the current system.  If he does so, he, like fundamental tax reform, will be unstoppable.

I'm With Hitch: Secret Scripts and 3D Glasses are Kooky and I Don't Want a President Who Believes In Them

If Rick Perry had any brains, he'd have said as much:

[W]e are fully entitled to ask Mitt Romney about the forces that influenced his political formation and—since he comes from a dynasty of his church, and spent much of his boyhood and manhood first as a missionary and then as a senior lay official—it is safe to assume that the influence is not small. Unless he is to succeed in his dreary plan to borrow from the playbook of his pain-in-the-ass predecessor Michael Dukakis, and make this an election about "competence not ideology," he should be asked to defend and explain himself, and his voluntary membership in one of the most egregious groups operating on American soil.

Read the whole thing here from Christopher Hitchens.

Newt Gingrich Admits Romney Got Idea of Individual Mandate for Massachusetts from Newt and The Heritage Foundation Conservative Think Tank

Story here at The New Republic.

It's episodes like this which just prove how few genuine conservatives exist in today's Republican Party.

But go ahead, sign up with Heritage anyway, you mind-numbed robots of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

That's just one of the big reasons Rush has worked so hard to co-opt the Tea Party and prevent a third party challenge from developing.

Rush is thick as thieves with the enemy. 

Herman Cain Clearly Considers Mormonism To Be Just Another Christian Denomination

In his own words in 2007, here:

The Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Mormons and a few other faiths have three things in common – they believe in Jesus Christ, that He is the Son of God and that He died and was resurrected for our sins.

So what's the problem?

The political pundits continue to try and make Mitt Romney's religious beliefs a big issue as he runs for the Republican presidential nomination. Different denominations of Christianity are just that – different denominations – which means different worship practices of the same fundamental Christian beliefs.

America: where what once was fringe becomes mainstream.

Richard Viguerie Rips Romney and Cain New Ones For Supporting TARP

Here:

Defending TARP should burst Herman Cain’s populist bubble, but Romney in particular, defended the 2008 bank bailout in one of the most disingenuous statements of the evening, if not the entire debate cycle.

According to Governor Romney, the $700 billion Wall Street rescue package "was designed to keep not just a collapse of individual banking institutions, but to keep the entire currency of the country worth something."

Noting could be further from the truth and Romney knows it.

Rep. Bachmann and Gov. Romney Support Obama's Murder of American Citizen

As reported here.

Rep. Ron Paul thinks it might be an impeachable offense.

Firing squad is more like it.

High Tariffs Allowed Domestic Producers To Get Really Rich Off Captive Consumers

So says John Steele Gordon, who provides a short history of taxation for The Wall Street Journal, here:

After the Civil War, nearly all the wartime taxes—including the nation's first income tax—were repealed and the federal government relied mostly on the tariff for revenues. It provided the government with more than ample peacetime income. In 1882, the government had revenues of $403 million, but expenses were only $257 million, a staggering budget surplus of nearly 36%. The reason the tariff was so high was, ostensibly, to protect America's burgeoning industries from foreign competition.

Of course, the owners of those burgeoning industries—i.e., the rich—were greatly helped by the protection, which enabled them to charge higher prices and make greater profits than if they had had to face unbridled foreign competition.

But the tariff is a consumption tax, which is simply added to the price of the goods sold. And consumption taxes are inherently regressive.

Which ought to get more attention on the right when one considers that liberals like Paul Krugman, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama and so-called conservatives like Herman Cain, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney all seem to like consumption taxes in one form or another.

The move would raise more revenues off the rank and file, and preserve the fortunes of the rich, which is why so many politicians support them. The better to eat you with, my dear.

Matt Latimer Doubts Obama is a Closet Muslim . . .

. . . and just about everything Joe McGinniss says about Sarah Palin in a new book, here.

When Matt starts doubting Obama is a secular humanist, then we're all in trouble.

Just for fun, here's a screen shot of the Fox News poll of 911 registered voters from late August showing 71 percent of Republicans don't want Sarah to run for president:

Up Until February 2010, Sarah Palin Was A TARP Republican

Many have pointed out Gov. Sarah Palin's hypocrisy on the bailouts, especially after her book Going Rogue appeared in late 2009, which codified her support of the extraordinary measures of 2008. I documented her statements supporting the bailouts, here and here.

With a speech in February 2010, however, she made news not just because she chose to give the speech in a Tea Party venue instead of at CPAC, but because she basically flip-flopped on the issue of the bailouts just months after her book had appeared.

Someone had straightened her out in the interim.

I'm actually not surprised by this shape shifting behavior, but it disqualifies her in my mind as much as the same sort of flip-flopping disqualifies a Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty, or even a Rick Perry. Turning currents seem to sweep people one way and then another regardless of gender these days.

The trouble, however, is that Bush was for TARP, Paul Ryan was for TARP, Nancy Pelosi was for TARP, John Boehner was for TARP, Sen. Reid was for TARP, Sen. McConnell was for TARP, Sen. Obama was for TARP, Sen. McCain was for TARP, and so was Sarah.

They're all responsible for interfering deeply and dangerously with the free exercise of the markets at a critical time when we most needed our leaders to trust in the ability of capitalism to prove its superiority to socialism, to fascism and to communism. And they all blinked.

It was a horrible failure of nerve. Many acted out of fear. And many acted out of fear of the money they would lose.

The latest speech in Iowa yesterday is a diatribe against the bailouts, against crony capitalism, and against the entrenched interests in Washington, DC. You can read the full transcript here and make of it what you will.

It doesn't mention the banks or TARP per se, just "big finance" and Wall Street. That the public/private nexus of banking is at the heart of the mortgage debacle is nowhere in evidence, which inspires zero confidence that Sarah Palin knows anything about the correct way forward. 

As a solution to our many problems the speech expresses a naivete about human nature which would be breathtaking if it came from an actual statesman, say, a Margaret Thatcher. In point of fact, Sarah Palin is as sanguine about the prospects of cleaning house as Barack Obama is about perfecting our union. Just get a new team in there and make them accountable, that'll fix it.

As if there are human beings in our world who are not corruptible. 

If we really wanted a resurrection of the spirit of the founding era, it would begin with a deep suspicion of human nature and a construction of policies and institutions meant to check it as a matter of first importance. Republican enthusiasm to overturn Glass Steagall was an expression of the opposite. As a Christian Sarah Palin should know better.

As it is, the notion that good and evil dwell mixed up together in each of us might as well be an item of organic chemistry, Latin grammar or Greek philosophy. It is incomprehensible to the current generation who seem to retain boundless faith in the essential goodness of human nature, or at least of the human nature of their particular tribe.

Whether Republican or Democrat, however, this makes them all creatures of the left, including Sarah Palin.

To which I say, No, thanks.

The response from the right would be that human nature is essentially evil (David Mamet), and thus requires either theocracy or monarchy, or from the center that human nature is mixed and requires a mixed polity such as the founders bequeathed to us in the form of the constitution. The latter is classical liberalism, a kind of half-way house, and true moderation! Think gray-heads marching in the streets, but without the litter.

This is the Tea Party, a form of reactionary conservatism trying to recover a classical liberalism which looks ever smaller in the rear view mirror with every passing day. The brave new world lies dead ahead if they do not succeed.

And I do mean dead.

The Forehead Wishes He Had Gov. Rick Perry's Hair

But that's about it. Oh, except for the ambition.

Story here.

He doesn't mention that as nitwits go, this one made the bright choice to become an organizer for the divinity school dropout, Al Gore, before he became a Republican.

Like Romney, Huntsman Won't Sign Anti-Abortion Pledge

As reported on Rush's show today.