The Government is NOT a Charity.

Huckabee seems likable and his personal approach to politics is a strength that other candidates should implement in their own campaigns. His stance on social issues seem also good. However, Huckabee’s record on spending, taxes, and big government is the wrong direction for this country.

Here are some evidences of Huckabee’s spending sprees:

During an interview with Lou Dobb’s on CNN, Ed Rollins, Huckabee’s new endorsement, confessed that Huckabee likes to spend taxpayer’s money. When trying to defend Huckabee’s proclivity to spend money and raise taxes, Collins said that if Reagan were running today even Reagon wouldn’t pass the “puritan’s” litmus test from organizations like the National Review. Collins stated, “There are a lot of things a governor has to do if you are going to be a good governor and make the state function better.” I don’t by it.

Mitt was a phenomenal governor. He reduced taxes, got Massachusetts out of a $3 billion dollar deficit and still managed to (1) get some of the top scores in the nation in regards to the education of his youth, (2) get every resident of his state affordable healthcare, (3) fight for traditional marriage, and (4) enforce immigration law. I guess such should not come as a surprise given the 25 years he spent in the private section revamping failing organizations and saving a scandal ridden Olympics.

In this next video Huckabee and Chuck Norris on Bill O’Reilly’s show. When questioning Huckabee whether he will impose his religious views on the nation he replied, “When we tried to improve education … when we improved health care … when we built better roads … frankly I think is consistent with a person of faith.”

And of course, the Club for Growth put this ad out a few weeks ago that highlights Huckabee’s more Democratic-like fiscal, economic, and tax policies.

Frederic Bastiat once said:

“But sincere or insincere, the intentions of persons are not here under question. In fact, I have already said that legal plunder is based partially on philanthropy, even though it is a false philanthropy.

With this explanation, let us examine the value — the origin and the tendency — of this popular aspiration which claims to accomplish the general welfare by general plunder. . . .

We must remember that law is force, and that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of force.

When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation. They oblige him only to abstain from harming others. They violate neither his personality, his liberty, nor his property. They safeguard all of these. They are defensive; they defend equally the rights of all. . . .

When a politician views society from the seclusion of his office, he is struck by the spectacle of the inequality that he sees. He deplores the deprivations which are the lot of so many of our brothers, deprivations which appear to be even sadder when contrasted with luxury and wealth. . . .

Perhaps he should consider this proposition: Since all persons seek well-being and perfection, would not a condition of justice be sufficient to cause the greatest efforts toward progress, and the greatest possible equality that is compatible with individual responsibility? Would not this be in accord with the concept of individual responsibility which God has willed in order that mankind may have the choice between vice and virtue, and the resulting punishment and reward?

But the politician never gives this a thought. His mind turns to organizations, combinations, and arrangements — legal or apparently legal. He attempts to remedy the evil by increasing and perpetuating the very thing that caused the evil in the first place: legal plunder. . . .

You say: “There are persons who have no money,” … Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in. If every person draws from the treasury the amount that he has put in it, it is true that the law then plunders nobody. But this procedure does nothing for the persons who have no money. It does not promote equality of income. The law can be an instrument of equalization only as it takes from some persons and gives to other persons. When the law does this, it is an instrument of plunder.”

Mr. Huckabee, the government is not a charity. It rules only by force. Force is the antithesis of charity. Religion is about charity, not force. It is not charity to force people to pay for things, that is false philanthropy. Perhaps I’m wrong but false philanthropy seems some what inconsistant with religious teachings.

Vote for Mitt. A candidate for less force.

The Iowa Caucus is approaching fast and Mitt needs your help. Please visit www.mittromney.com and contribute to his campaign.

Economic Prosperity is Essential to Fighting the War on Terrorism

Our military power is critical in defending our Nation and defeating the terrorists. It takes money to run the military. That money is generated by a strong economy. Taxes, overspending, inefficient and duplicative government operations, and unnecessary regulations depress the economy. Thus, without lower taxes, a cut in spending, and a reformation of failing government programs, we limit the money we have to fund our military. Without a strong military we cannot defeat our enemies.

It is therefore essential that we elect someone who will implement those measures aimed to stimulate the economy. Huckabee’s record as governor of Arkansas indicates that he will raise taxes, overspend, and over regulate our economy if he becomes the President.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, made a living in the private sector and as governor of Massachusetts at reviving failing organizations and reducing inefficient operations. As Governor he faced a $3 billion deficit when he took office in 2003. He was determined to stop the madness. He lowered taxes, cut spending and reorganized the state. By 2006, the state no longer had a deficit, in fact, it had a $700 million surplus.

Mitt Romney believes the strength of America comes from the people. Mitt’s economic policy will not only allow each American to keep more of their hard earned money, but, most importantly, it will enable us to maintain the strongest military in the world.

Click here to view a related entry.

The Iowa Caucus is approaching fast and Mitt needs your help. Please visit www.mittromney.com and contribute to his campaign.

Mitt Save Us!!!

I was emailed this article from the Wall Street Journal and immediately thought about how Mitt is the only candidate emphasizing our need to remain competitive in the global market. Mitt has the business experience, the intelligence, the team, and will power to preserve our nations global position and influence in the world.

We’re Number One, Alas: July 13, 2007; Wall Street Journal Opinion; Page A12

Some good news on the tax cutting front: Last week lawmakers approved an 8.9 percentage point reduction in the corporate income tax rate. Too bad the tax cutters are Germans, not Americans.

There’s a trend here. At least 25 developed nations have
adopted Reaganite corporate income tax rate cuts since 2001. The U.S. is conspicuously not one of them. Vietnam has recently announced it is cutting its corporate rate to 25% from 28%. Singapore has approved a corporate tax cut to 18% from 20% to compete with low-tax Hong Kong’s rate of 17.5%, and Northern Ireland is making a bid to slash its corporate tax rate to 12.5% to keep pace with the same low rate in the prosperous Republic of Ireland. Even in France, of all places, new President Nicolas Sarkozy has proposed reducing the corporate tax rate to 25% from 34.4%.

What do politicians in these countries understand that the U.S. Congress doesn’t? Perhaps they’ve read “International Competitiveness for Dummies.” In each of the countries that have cut corporate tax rates this year, the motivation has been the same — to boost the nation’s attractiveness as a location for international investment. Germany’s overall rate will fall to 29.8% by 2008 from 38.7%. Remarkably, at the start of this decade Germany’s corporate tax rate was 52%.

All of which means that the U.S. now has the unflattering distinction of having the developed world’s highest corporate tax rate of 39.3% (35% federal plus a state average of 4.3%), according to the Tax Foundation. While Ronald Reagan led the “wave of corporate income tax rate reduction” in the 1980s, the Tax Foundation says, “the U.S. is lagging behind this time.”
Foreign leaders are also learning another lesson: Lower corporate tax rates with fewer loopholes can lead to more, not less, tax revenue from business. The nearby chart shows the Laffer Curve effect from business taxation. Tax receipts tend to fall below their optimum potential when corporate tax rates are so high that they lead to the creation of loopholes and the incentive to move income to countries with a lower tax rate. Ireland is the classic case of a nation on the “correct side” of this curve. It has a 12.5% corporate rate, nearly the lowest in the world, and yet collects 3.6% of GDP in corporate revenues, well above the international average.

The U.S., by contrast, with its near 40% rate has been averaging less than 2.5% of GDP in corporate receipts. Kevin Hassett, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute who has studied the impact of corporate taxes, says the U.S. “appears to be a nation on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve: We could collect more revenues with a lower corporate tax rate.”

If only the tax writers in Washington would heed this advice. Congress is moving in the reverse direction, threatening to raise the tax rate on corporate dividends, which is another tax on business income. There’s also movement in the Senate to raise taxes on the foreign-source income of U.S. companies. The effect would be to raise the marginal tax rate for companies that base their corporate headquarters abroad.

But one reason those countries chose to move to the Cayman Islands and elsewhere is because of the high U.S. corporate tax rate. The Laffer Curve analysis indicates that these corporate tax increases are likely to raise little if any additional revenue, because companies will have a new incentive to move even more of their operations out of the reach of the IRS.

For all the talk of “tax equity,” this is also a recipe for further inequality by driving more capital offshore. Research from Mr. Hassett and others has shown that high corporate tax rates reduce the rate of increase in manufacturing wages (See our editorial, “The Wages of Growth,” Dec. 26, 2006.). For that matter, most economists understand that corporations don’t ultimately pay any taxes. They merely serve as a collection agent, passing along the cost of those taxes in some combination of lower returns for shareholders, higher prices for customers, or lower compensation for employees. In other words, America’s high corporate tax rates are an indirect, but still damaging, tax on average American workers.

One immediate policy remedy would be to cut the 35% U.S. federal corporate tax rate to the industrial nation average of 29%. That’s probably too sensible for a Congress gripped by a desire to soak the rich and punish business, but a Democrat who picked up the idea could turn the tax tables on Republicans in 2008. Meantime, as the U.S. fails to act, the rest of the world is looking more attractive all the time.

Click here for the actual article.

Here are some links of a few of Mitt’s speeches about remaining competitive in the global market.

South Carolina Speech
CPAC

If anyone has the youtube clip of Mitt talking about Ireland and corporate tax rates, please let me know.

To contribute to Mitt’s Campaign or to learn more about his stance on important issues, please visit www.mittromney.com.

Universal Health Care Should Not Be a Government Takeover

According to Deborah White at www.about.com, Barack Obama recently stated, “I am absolutely determined that, by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country. There’s no reason why we can’t accomplish that.” You can read Obama’s entire speech by clicking here.

His rival John Edwards has also recently advocated for universal health care. Click here to read a posting titled “Edwards, No Match for Romney. Edwards has stated, “it is more important to invest in universal health care … than to reduce the budget deficit.” Edwards’ government takeover plan would be funded by taxing individuals who make over $200,000 a year.

According to Robert Portman, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, taxing individuals who make over $200,000 would only generate about $30 billion in revenues a year. Edwards’ estimates, however, that it would cost between $90 and $120 billion a year for the government to provide universal health care. Where is the rest of the $60 to $90 billion going to come from? Probably you and me. Click here here to view Portman’s interview on Charlie Rose regarding President Bush’s 2008 Budget and John Edwards’ government takeover plan.

According to Foxnews, “[i]n 1993, as first lady, Clinton led her husband’s calamitous attempt to overhaul the nation’s health care system.” Her government takeover plan ultimately failed.

You see the Democrats’ approach, the government takeover approach, still doesn’t solve the health care problem. Yes, everyone gets covered but it doesn’t reduce the costs of health care. Instead, it shifts the costs from one place (high insurance premiums) to another place (high taxes). We end up still paying a ton of money for health care.

And we all know that when there’s a government takeover, the costs go through the roof. Mitt said it best when, quoting someone else, he stated: “If you think health care is expensive now, wait till it’s free.”

Americans don’t need a government takeover, we need to change the market and reduce costs and at the same time give 46 million uninsured people a chance to take personal responsibility and obtain health insurance.

Click on these three YouTube Video’s to watch Mitt express his views on universal health care:

youtube video 1
youtube video 2
youtube video 3

Do you think the government should take over health insurance?

To contribute to Mitt’s campaign or to learn about his stance on important issues, please visit www.mittromney.com.

Mitt Romney on Nightline

Thanks to our friends at www.mittreport.com who first led us to this YouTube posting that features Gov. Mitt Romney on Nightline. Enjoy!

Mitt Romney on Nightline.

To contribute to Mitt’s campaign or to learn his stance on important issues, please visit www.mittromney.com.

Health Care, A Democratic Issue or A Republican Issue or An American Issue?

According to CNN, Barack Obama stated, “The time has come for universal health care in America, … I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country …”

Although Obama and Romney want to make health care accessible for all American’s. According to https://www.mittromney.com Mitt states that “[t]he health of our nation can be improved by extending health insurance to all Americans, not through a government program or new taxes, but through market reforms. … We can’t have as a nation 40 million people — or, in my state, half a million — saying, ‘I don’t have insurance, and if I get sick, I want someone else to pay. … It’s a conservative idea … individuals have responsibility for their own health care. I think it appeals to people on both sides of the aisle: insurance for everyone without a tax increase.”

So what do you think? Is health care a Democratic issue or a Republican issue or an American issue?

To contribute to Mitt’s campaign or to find more news on current events and information on Mitt Romney’s stance on important issues, please visit his official website at www.mittromney.com.

Spending, A National Crisis & Mitt, A Problem-Solver

Idahoans and all Americans have a call to action. We are facing a record $8.6 trillion debt (which is equivalent to $28,855.41 a person). We must get control of our entitlement programs and irresponsible spending. We need a president who is experienced at turning around failing organizations and governments. Mitt Romney is such a man.

How will Mitt save America from the economic crisis we are in? First, he will not raise taxes. According to www.newsbull.com on January 3, 2006, Mitt Romney signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. In so doing he promised the American people that he would “(1) oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and (2) oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.”

Second, he will not barrow more money.

So if Mitt won’t raise taxes or barrow more money, how on earth can he eliminate the debt.

Americans can look to what Mitt did in the past to see what he will do in the future. For example, as Governor of Massachusetts he eliminated a 3 billion deficit. According to wikipedia in 2003 Mitt worked with the state legislature to cut spending, eliminate waste and duplication, and restructure the state government.

More specifically, an “unexpected windfall in capital gains taxes reduced the deficit by $1.3 billion, and Romney raised an extra $500 million in revenue by increasing hundreds of fees (such as driver’s license and marriage license fees) and by closing tax “loopholes.” The state also cut spending by $1.6 billion, including $700 million in reductions in state aid to cities and towns. In response, cities and towns became more reliant on local revenue to pay for municipal services and schools.”

As a result, “Massachusetts finished 2004 with a $700 million surplus and 2005 with a $500 million surplus”, all without raising taxes or barrowing more money.

“In 2006, the Massachusetts legislature approved a budget that required spending $450 million from the rainy day fund. Even though the state had collected a record-breaking amount of tax revenue in the fiscal year . . . Romney vetoed the transfer of funds . . . . ‘One of the primary responsibilities of government is keeping the books balanced,’ said Romney ‘The problem here is not revenues; the problem is overspending. The level of spending which we’re looking at would put us on the same road to financial crisis and ruin that our commonwealth has been down before.’”

America needs a president who is tough on spending and smart on solutions. We need a president who can pull smart people together and fix problems. America need Mitt Romney. (Thanks to our friends at www.electromneyin2008.com, click here for a related story on David Frum’s Diary about Mitt’s success.)

For more news on current events and information on Mitt Romney’s stance on important issues, please visit his official website at www.mittromney.com.

Edwards, No Match for Romney

Last week former democratic senator of North Carolina, John Edwards, announced his 2008 presidential campaign. Edwards stated, “it is more important to invest in universal health care and lifting people out of poverty than to reduce the budget deficit.” Mitt Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, DID both. And he did it utilizing the Republican ideals of free market and of limited government intervention.

What are your thoughts? Do you think Edwards holds a candle to Romney on the issues of health care and balancing the budget?

Mitt’s Interview With Hugh Hewitt

During an interview with Hugh Hewitt, Mitt, like usual, did a fabulous job articulating his stance on a variety of issues and complementing President Ford’s ability to bring honor to the white house.

In regards to President Ford’s fiscal conservativeness, Mitt stated, “I think people recognized just how unusual it was. He vetoed many, many, many bills that he thought were wrong for America, and spending too much money.” From Mitt’s comment it seems that President Ford held sacred the money people make.

During the interview Mitt also displayed a tremendous sense of loyalty to our country. When asked about whether he is going to run for president he stated, “Could I really make a difference to help America at this time? It’s not a matter of what kind of a sacrifice it would be for me and my family, because frankly, anybody who puts on a uniform is making a much bigger sacrifice than any politician I know.” What an honest, good, and wise man.

Mitt also responded to the Iraq Study Group’s findings and our future in Iraq. He explained that a “withdraw[al] without a victory, and without success, I think, was a mistake. . . . [and that] negotiating with the Syrians and the Iranians was misdirected.”

He went on to declare that there’s “no question, however, that we have lost credibility, meaning our nation’s leaders have lost credibility in the lack of clarity in the management of the war in Iraq. Following the collapse of Saddam Hussein, we didn’t have enough troops, we didn’t have sufficient planning in place, obviously, we were derelict in the oversight of the Abu Ghraib prison. There are features that have lessened the citizenry’s respect and confidence in our leadership, and that’s difficult. We’re going to have to overcome that, because that’s critical as we face the kind of threats America now encounters.”

Thanks for this update from our friends at electromneyin2008.

Government Reform Ensures Nation’s Security

Mitt Romney’s most outstanding quality is his unbelievable success at turning around failing organizations and governments. However, Mitt’s perceived weakness is his lack of military experience. On the other hand, his primary opponent’s, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, perceived strength seem to be their background with the military and war on Terror. I believe, however, that Mitt’s ability to pull smart people together to solve tough social problems and resurrect troubled organizations and governments is unmatchable and absolutely necessary to our national security.

If we continue to spend billions of dollars on the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, on our borders and else where, we need money. To get money we need to reform and reduce government spending. Programs like Social Security and Medicaid need to be overhauled. Moreover, one of the goals of the terrorist is to drain us financially. If they succeed, our economy will tank and our ability to fight the war on Terror will be minimized. Thus, by streamlining government programs and cutting waist, we can keep our economy strong and ensure that we have the resources necessary to fight the war on Terror.

Overall, I believe that reforming failing organizations and our government is essential to preserving a strong economy which will in turn give us the financial ability to fight the war on Terror. Giuliani and McCain simply do not have the skills or experience to reform our failing government. Clearly, Mitt’s the man for that job.