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.

Mitt Romney, Always a Conservative

I thought this article by Jeff Fuller at iowansforromney.blogspot.com was absolutely superb. It is titled “Romney Never a Liberal … No, not even close.” The article features Romney’s 1994 campaign flyer. Compare for yourself how he lined up against Kennedy.

Click here for the front side and here for the back side of the flyer.

As Romney’s 1994 campaign flyer illustrates, he has never been a “liberal” or a “flip flopper.” No, the record shows that he’s been a strong conservative on many issues for many years. Click here for Romney’s response to his critics.

Here are some other links that show Romney’s conservative record:

1. Letter from those who worked with Mitt personally – click here.
2. Romney’s response to the Massachusetts’ Supreme Court’s decision to prohibit bans on gay-marriage – click here.

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

A Soldier’s View of American Politicians Debate Over the War in Iraq

Sorry this is so late but I thought you might appreciate the view of some of our soldiers with regards to how they feel about our political debate back here at home. Click on this youtube video to watch it. This is a NBC clip that was taken several several months ago.

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

Google Trends – Mitt is out performing his competition on the web!

Click on the search results from Google Trends here for a link showing Mitt in the lead on the web. Mitt is the blue line, McCain is the red line, and Giuliani is the orange line. Notice the tremendous surge in the number of people searching on the web for Mitt Romney in the past few months.

My borther-in-law hit the nail on the head when he said:

“Consider these stats in light of the headlines McCain and Giuliani have enjoyed in the national press over the last few years. They have both been riding the wave of popularity (with the Senate and 9/11 issues), and now, a relatively unknown candidate is blasting past them both despite their free ride on the popular express!!!”

Thanks Peter.

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

“It’s a time for action … I believe in the people of America.”

“It’s a time for action … I believe in the people of America … A free American people are the source of this country’s great strength.” Those are a few quotes from Mitt’s first TV advertisement which people in Florida, Iowa, South Carolina, Michigan, and New Hampshire heard. Check it out:

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

Part 2 – Romney is the ONLY candidate that will fight to protect the FAMILY.

As a follow up to posting entitled “Mitt Romney is the ONLY Top-Tier Candidate that Will Fight to Protect the Family” and to the posting entitled “Look at the Record”, I’m entering this post to illustrate what others, who have personally worked with Mitt Romney, are saying about his sincerity and commitment to defending the family.

The following is a letter sent by various community and religious leaders in Massachusetts:

An Open Letter Regarding Governor Mitt Romney

January 11, 2007

Dear conservative friends:

We hail from a broad spectrum of organizations dedicated to fighting for the pro-family agenda in Massachusetts. As you know, Mitt Romney became the governor of our state in 2003. Since that time, we have worked closely with him and his excellent staff on that agenda.

Some press accounts and bloggers have described Governor Romney in terms we neither have observed nor can we accept. To the contrary, we, who have been fighting here for the values you also hold, are indebted to him and his responsive staff in demonstrating solid social conservative credentials by undertaking the following actions here in Massachusetts:

• Staunchly defended traditional marriage. Governor Romney immediately and strongly condemned the 2003 court decision that legalized “same-sex marriage” in our state. More importantly, he followed up on that denunciation with action – action that saved our nation from a constitutional crisis over the definition of marriage. He and his staff identified and enforced a little-known 1913 law that allowed them to order local clerks not to issue marriage licenses to out-of-state couples. Absent this action, homosexual couples would surely have flooded into Massachusetts from other states to get “married” and then demanded that their home states recognize the “marriages,” putting the nation only one court decision away from nationalizing “same-sex marriage.”

• Worked hard to overturn “same-sex marriage” in the Commonwealth with considerable progress to date. In 2004 he lobbied hard, before a very hostile legislature, for a constitutional amendment protecting marriage – an amendment later changed by the legislature to include civil unions, which the Governor and many marriage amendment supporters opposed. Working with the Governor, we were successful in defeating this amendment.

• Provided active support for a successful citizen petition drive in 2005 to advance a clean constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

• Rallied thousands of citizens to focus public and media attention on the failure of legislators, through repeated delays, to perform their constitutional obligation and vote on the marriage amendment.

• Filed suit before the Supreme Judicial Court. The Governor’s suit asked the court to clarify the legislators’ duty to vote and failing that, to place the amendment on the 2008 ballot. That lawsuit, perhaps more than any other single action, was by all accounts instrumental in bringing pressure on the legislators to vote. The vote ultimately was taken on January 2, 2007 and won legislative support – clearing a major hurdle in the three year effort to restore traditional marriage in the Commonwealth.

• Fought for abstinence education. In 2006, under Governor Romney’s leadership, Massachusetts’ public schools began to offer a classroom program on abstinence from the faith-based Boston group Healthy Futures to middle school students. Promoting the program, Governor Romney stated, “I’ve never had anyone complain to me that their kids are not learning enough about sex in school. However, a number of people have asked me why it is that we do not speak more about abstinence as a safe and preventative health practice.”

• Affirmed the culture of life. Governor Romney has vetoed bills to provide access to the so called “morning-after pill,” which is an abortifacient, as well as a bill providing for expansive, embryo-destroying stem cell research. He vetoed the latter bill in 2005 because he could not “in good conscience allow this bill to become law.”

• Stood for religious freedom. Last year, Governor Romney was stalwart in defense of the right of Catholic Charities of Boston to refuse to allow homosexual couples to adopt children in its care. Catholic Charities was loudly accused of “discrimination,” but Governor Romney correctly pointed out that it is unjust to force a religious agency to violate the tenets of its faith in order to placate a special-interest group.

• Filed “An Act Protecting Religious Freedom” in the Massachusetts legislature to save Catholic Charities of Boston and other religious groups from being forced to violate their moral principles or stop doing important charitable work.

All of this may explain why John J. Miller, the national political reporter of National Review, has written that “a good case can be made that Romney has fought harder for social conservatives than any other governor in America, and it is difficult to imagine his doing so in a more daunting political environment.”

We are aware of the 1994 comments of Senate candidate Romney, which have been the subject of much recent discussion. While they are, taken by themselves, obviously worrisome to social conservatives including ourselves, they do not dovetail with the actions of Governor Romney from 2003 until now – and those actions have positively and demonstrably impacted the social climate of Massachusetts.

Since well before 2003, we have been laboring in the trenches of Massachusetts, fighting for the family values you and we share. It is difficult work indeed – not for the faint of heart. In this challenging environment, Governor Romney has proven that he shares our values, as well as our determination to protect them.

For four years, Governor Romney has been right there beside us, providing leadership on key issues – whether it was politically expedient to do so or not. He has stood on principle, and we have benefited greatly from having him with us.

It is clear that Governor Romney has learned much since 1994 – to the benefit of our movement and our Commonwealth. In fact, the entire nation has benefited from his socially conservative, pro-family actions in office. As we explained earlier, his leadership on the marriage issue helped prevent our nation from being plunged into even worse legal turmoil following the court decision that forced “gay marriage” upon our Commonwealth.

For that our country ought to be thankful. We certainly are.

Sincerely,

Rita Covelle
President, Morality in Media Massachusetts

Richard Guerriero
Immediate Past State Deputy, Massachusetts State Council, Knights of Columbus

Mary Ann Glendon
Learned Hand Professor of Law, Harvard Law School

Kristian Mineau
President, Massachusetts Family Institute

Dr. Roberto Miranda
President, COPAHNI Fellowship of Hispanic Pastors of New England

James Morgan
President, Institute for Family Development

Joseph Reilly
President, Massachusetts Citizens for Life

Thomas A. Shields
Chairman, Coalition for Family and Marriage

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

Look at the Record

Thanks to a fellow Mitt supporter, Charles Mitchell, at www.evangelicalsformitt.org for the following:

“McCain has been all over the board on issues. Yes, it is true that Romney’s political policy on abortion has changed. However, as Grover Norquistthe, head of Americans for Tax Reform, writes, ‘Romney has a one-way, one-time migration on abortion to explain. … Senator McCain, meanwhile, was a Reaganite on taxes and then drifted for six years and now wants to come back. Same on guns. Same on judges. He was a two-way migration on several issues, and a lot of conservatives will have a hard time with that.’

Mitt, on the other hand, “has undertaken a wealth of pro-life actions in public life, including supporting abstinence education and vetoing bills to expand access to abortifacient pills and to publicly funded stem cell research.”

It seems clear that, when looking at the record, Mitt has been an advocate for life.

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

Mitt Romney is the Only Top-Tier Candidate That Will Fight to Protect the Family

On November 18, 2003, four of the seven justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Court made it unconstitutional to prohibit gay marriage. Since that day, Mitt Romney has consistently fought to preserve the institution of marriage.

In an article to the Wall Street Journal entitle One Man, One Woman: A citizen’s guide to protecting marriage, Mitt wrote:

No matter how you feel about gay marriage, we should be able to agree that the citizens and their elected representatives must not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to society as the definition of marriage. There are lessons from my state’s experience that may help other states preserve the rightful participation of their legislatures and citizens, and avoid the confusion now facing Massachusetts.

In a decision handed down in November, a divided Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts detected a previously unrecognized right in our 200-year-old state constitution that permits same-sex couples to wed. I believe that 4-3 decision was wrongly decided and is deeply mistaken. Contrary to the court’s opinion, marriage is not “an evolving paradigm.” It is deeply rooted in the history, culture and tradition of civil society. It predates our Constitution and our nation by millennia. The institution of marriage was not created by government and it should not be redefined by government.

Marriage is a fundamental and universal social institution. It encompasses many obligations and benefits affecting husband and wife, father and mother, son and daughter. It is the foundation of a harmonious family life. It is the basic building block of society: The development, productivity and happiness of new generations are bound inextricably to the family unit. As a result, marriage bears a real relation to the well-being, health and enduring strength of society.

Because of marriage’s pivotal role, nations and states have chosen to provide unique benefits and incentives to those who choose to be married. These benefits are not given to single citizens, groups of friends, or couples of the same sex. That benefits are given to married couples and not to singles or gay couples has nothing to do with discrimination; it has everything to do with building a stable new generation and nation.

It is important that the defense of marriage not become an attack on gays, on singles or on nontraditional couples. We must recognize the right of every citizen to live in the manner of his or her own choosing. In fact, it makes sense to ensure that essential civil rights, protection from violence and appropriate societal benefits are afforded to all citizens, be they single or combined in nontraditional relationships.
So, what to do?

• Act now to protect marriage in your state. Thirty-seven states–38 with recent actions by Ohio–have a Defense of Marriage Act. Twelve states, including Massachusetts, do not. I urge my fellow governors and all state legislators to review and, if necessary, strengthen the laws concerning marriage. Look to carefully delineate in the acts themselves the underlying, compelling state purposes. Explore, as well, amendments to the state constitution. In Massachusetts, gay rights advocates in years past successfully thwarted attempts to call a vote on a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. This cannot happen again. It is imperative that we proceed with the legitimate process of amending our state constitution.

• Beware of activist judges. The Legislature is our lawmaking body, and it is the Legislature’s job to pass laws. As governor, it is my job to carry out the laws. The Supreme Judicial Court decides cases where there is a dispute as to the meaning of the laws or the constitution. This is not simply a separation of the branches of government, it is also a balance of powers: One branch is not to do the work of the other. It is not the job of judges to make laws, the job of legislators to command the National Guard, or my job to resolve litigation between citizens. If the powers were not separated this way, an official could make the laws, enforce them, and stop court challenges to them. No one branch or person should have that kind of power. It is inconsistent with a constitutional democracy that guarantees to the people the ultimate power to control their government.

With the Dred Scott case, decided four years before he took office, President Lincoln faced a judicial decision that he believed was terribly wrong and badly misinterpreted the U.S. Constitution. Here is what Lincoln said: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” By its decision, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts circumvented the Legislature and the executive, and assumed to itself the power of legislating. That’s wrong.

• Act at the federal level. In 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. While the law protects states from being forced to recognize gay marriage, activist state courts could reach a different conclusion, just as ours did. It would be disruptive and confusing to have a patchwork of inconsistent marriage laws between states. Amending the Constitution may be the best and most reliable way to prevent such confusion and preserve the institution of marriage. Sometimes we forget that the ultimate power in our democracy is not in the Supreme Court but rather in the voice of the people. And the people have the exclusive right to protect their nation and constitution from judicial overreaching.

People of differing views must remember that real lives and real people are deeply affected by this issue: traditional couples, gay couples and children. We should conduct our discourse with decency and respect for those with different opinions. The definition of marriage is not a matter of semantics; it will have lasting impact on society however it is ultimately resolved. This issue was seized by a one-vote majority of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. We must now act to preserve the voice of the people and the representatives they elect.

Furthermore, on June 22, 2004, Mitt testified before the US Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the sanctity of marriage. He wrote, “With the inauguration of same-sex marriages, a plethora of legal and regulatory issues are now arising.” For example, “[t]hese issues will not be confined to Massachusetts alone. Our state’s borders are porous. Citizens of our state will travel and may face sickness and injury in other states. In those cases, their spousal relationship may not be recognized, and it would be likely that litigation would result. Massachusetts residents will move to other states, and thus issues related to property rights, employer benefits, inheritance, and many others will arise.”

“It is not possible for the issue to remain solely a Massachusetts issue; it must now be confronted on a national basis. We need an amendment that restores and protects our societal definition of marriage, blocks judges from changing that definition and then, consistent with the principles of federalism, leaves other policy issues regarding marriage to state legislatures. The real threat to the states is not the constitutional amendment process, in which the states participate, but activist judges who disregard the law and redefine marriage in order to impose their will on the states, and on the whole nation.” Click here to read the entire speech.

On June 2, 2006, Mitt wrote to every US Senator requesting that each of them vote to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment. He wrote, “Attaching the word marriage to the association of same-sex individuals mistakenly presumes that marriage is principally a matter of adult benefits and adult rights. In fact, marriage is principally about the nurturing and development of children. And the successful development of children is critical to the preservation and success of our nation.” Click here to read the entire letter.

Mitt has also urged his own state legislatures to allow the people to vote on a marriage amendment. In fact, he got 170,000 residents of Massachusetts to sign a referendum that would put the marriage amendment on the ballot. The ballot initiative would’ve allowed the state’s citizens to vote on the definition of marriage. The legislature refused to address the issue and thus violate the Massachusetts Constitution. Here is Mitt’s reaction:

On November 19, 2006, Mitt addressed a rally at the Massachusetts State House and called on the legislature to vote on a marriage amendment. Here is his speech:

Overall, I agree with Maggie Gallagher who hailed Mitt Romney as “a brave man.” America needs a President who is willing to protect and defend the traditional family. America needs Mitt Romney.

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

Governor Mitt Romney Officially Announced His Run For President in 2008

It’s time for a new leader. It’s time for a new American dream. It’s time to elect Mitt Romney as the next President of the United States.

Today Mitt formally announced his run for the presidency. Click here to visit his official website and contribute to his campaign.

Romney’s Stance on Abortion

It is true that Mitt Romney has changed his position on abortion. I believe, however, that his conversion was genuine.

Mitt explains that several years ago, as Govenor of Massachusetts, he was faced with a tough decision regarding stem cell research. That experience caused him to reexamine where he stood on the issue of abortion. In this video Mitt explains the events that influenced his conversion.

Click here to watch a youtube video clip.

Since that experience, Mitt has been unwavering in his support for the pro-life movement. For example, on January 1, 2007 (the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade), Mitt released a statement saying, “We must create a culture of life where the weakest and most innocent among us are protected. … While there are well-meaning people on both sides of this debate, no one can deny that when hundreds of thousands of abortions are performed every year, it should be a major concern for a nation as great as ours. If we commit ourselves to promoting a culture of life, I believe that one day our nation’s laws may reflect what is in our hearts.”

According to his official website www.mittromney.com website, Mitt has stated, “I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.” (Boston Globe, Mitt Romney Editorial, July 26, 2005)

Click below for more information on Mitt’s pro-life stance.

- The 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, March for Life.
- Life is Sacred

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