Brian Domitrovic author of econoclasts who claims to be “the only professional historian ever to have written on the topic (Enactment of Reagan’s Supply-Side tax cuts) writes “by the summer of 1981, the supply-side revolution was no sure thing.”

His article in Forbes states:

“In his first months in office, in early 1981, Reagan actually dithered on moving on his tax cut. He conceded to watering down Kemp-Roth, and he actually had to be convinced by Democrats that the top rate of the income tax had to be taken down all at once, instead of in phases.

Smelling blood, in spring of that year Democrats started to offer alternatives to Reagan’s tax cut, in the form of smaller, more “reasonable” tax cuts. Crucially, these did not index the tax code against inflation, as the Reagan bill would soon propose and has been a beloved staple in the tax code since indexing came into effect in 1985.

In stepped – Newt Gingrich. Gingrich, a second-term Representative, led an “Economic Recovery Working Group” in the House whose purpose was to show “what each member can do to help the Reagan tax cut” against its Democratic alternatives.

The group gave daily briefings and issued strategy memos on how to get the job done in the House. “Emphasize that the Reagan program is a real tax cut; and that the O’Neill/Rostenkowski program will mean a real tax increase for most Americans by 1984” was the gist of one memo. This particular point is the one Reagan would seize on in the famous chart (designed by Entin) that he presented to the American people in a televised address in late July, which closed the deal in Congress.

Had these actions not been taken:

had people like Newt Gingrich not acted in 1981, we would have had the alternative tax cut that would have been unrecognizable from any of Jimmy Carter’s tax shavings  of the 1970s.

We have heard much in the last week or two about how Gingrich was a critic of Reagan, how he really had nothing to do with Supply Side policies, and how his claims to part of the Reagan revolution were false. I even mistakenly wrote that Gingrich learned from Reagan–that he was a back-bencher, a student.

Now it is apparent that Gingrich was not just a student, he was not a back-bencher. Gingrich was more like a colonel in Reagan’s Revolution. He fought for the Reagan revolution and the LIES that we have been told about his role, lead me to say:

Florida: You have been lied to. Now it will be up to future states and contests to correct for the misinformation you were given. I ask people in the states to follow to consider carefully when you hear the establishment claiming this or that about Gingrich– just remember they tried to rewrite history and leave out the invaluable contributions of one Newt Gingrich.

(NOT REALLY. But..well they should agree. This would create excitement for both men. Those who want Gingrich out would not have to vote for Romney. They could simply vote for Santorum. (and vice-versa)

The states included in this drop-out bet will be:

Nevada
Maine
Colorado
Minnesota
Missouri
Arizona
Michigan
Washington

At the end, whomever has the fewest delegates from these states would drop out.

This would be right before Super Tuesday.

UPDATE: I apologize. I thought posters here at RedState would recognize Governor Perry’s record and would recognize my sarcasm regarding Romney’s lack of conservative record (and in fact his liberal Record) Each of the following are NOT ROMNEY’s but in fact the record for Governor Perry. Romney did create a government run health system, did increase regulations, did NOT create jobs (47th of 50 states) like Gov. Perry.

TO BE CLEAR: I have marked out Romney to make clear that this was Perry’s Record)

As we now know, Romney Perry voted for a Democrat for President about 20 years ago. But look at his record since then:

He refused the temption to institute a government run health system.
He governed as a conservative as governor.
He not only balanced his budget but when revenues fell he refused to raid the rainy-day fund.
He pushed to pass legislation to limit frivolous lawsuits and instituted “loser pays”
He pushed to limit needless regulations.
He spent $400 million of his own state’s money to fight illegal immigration.
His state was clearly the largest job creator adding millions of jobs while the rest of the country lost jobs.
Reduced spending per capita during his time.
Instituted 67 tax cuts
Did not impose tax on guns.
Did not support Kennedy gun control laws.
Nominated only the most conservative candidates he could find and fought for them.
Defunded Planned Parenthood and made sure they were not given a special line in any legislation.
When he faced a tough re-election battle, he did not run.

Hmmmmm. Wait. Maybe I’m confused…Was it someone else who did this??? Is this Romney’s record? (UPDATE: Romney did support Kennedy’s gun laws, did impose higher taxes on guns,and did impose government control over health care, etc.)

Oh well. It does not matter. As long as a “Republican” wins everything will be great…

Yes. According to the National Association of Manufacturers:

> 70 percent of manufacturers pay income taxes at individual rates. Therefore, any tax increase on individuals is a tax increase on manufacturers.

This means every time Obama talks about raising individual rates he would be increasing taxes on manufacturers and killing jobs.

In addition, since so many manufacturers are paying at the individual rate, inheritance taxes can force families to break apart, sell, or close their family’s manufacturing business. Therefore, the National Association of Manufacturers wants to:

Institute permanent lower tax rates on estates to protect family manufacturing businesses

Republicans needs to consider what this means:

Romney refuses to lower individual rates, so he is keeping rates on manufacturers high- companies we need to create jobs. He also only reduces the corporate rate to match Europe’s rate of 25%.

Santorum eliminates the corporate tax on manufacturing–but only 30% of manufacturers, the corporate ones, would immediately benefit. (And many of these are very good at avoiding taxes. Right GE?) Although over time, reducing the high corporate rate might encourage corporations to stop avoiding the US for their manufacturing facilities. Santorum taxes individuals at 28% which better than the current 35%.

Gingrich’s plan to give every individual the option to pay a 15% flat tax helps the 70% of manufacturers who pay at the individual rate and gives them a big boost. He also reduces the corporate rate to 12.5% which should encourage corporations to locate here (obviously not as much as Romney’s 0% on Corporations but Santorum would tax manufacturers who pay the individual rate 28% as opposed to Gingrich’s 15%)

Also, unlike other parts of the world, the US taxes corporate earnings from overseas. As the National Association of Manufacturers states it:

The United States is unique among major industrial nations in taxing a company’s global income.

To their credit, each Republican candidate supports changing tax law so US manufacturers are no longer at such a large disadvantage.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, fails to recognize the following facts:

95 percent of consumers live outside the U.S., making it critical for manufacturers to have access to global markets through free trade agreements.

Currently, there are dozens of free trade agreements being negotiated around the world, but the U.S. is a party to just one.

The Obama Administration’s failure to act is devastating:

Over the past three years, the United States has amassed a $70 billion manufactured goods trade surplus with countries with which we have free trade agreements. During that same time, the U.S. ran a $1.3 trillion deficit in manufactured goods with countries that do not have trade agreements with us.

The sum-up the situation very clearly:

Through inaction on free trade agreements, we are ceding market share to our competitors.

Manufacturers are also solidly against ObamaCare (and why would RomneyCare at the state level be any better?) They are very direct:

Repeal the 2010 health care law.

In addition to the points made in this post, the National Association of Manufacturers describes how:

The National Labor Relations Board is killing manufacturers.

Government regulators are NOT required to administer regulations using the lowest cost impact.

How lawsuits are used as defacto regulation and how lawsuits add 2% more to the cost of manufacturing in the US compared to the rest of the world. This may not sound like much, but keep in mind that it is estimated that Wal-Mart destroyed their competitors with only a 1% cost advantage.

So while Obama and Romney want to keep individual tax rates the same. If we want to help the 70% of US manufacturers who pay at the individual rate grow create jobs, Obama and Romney are the wrong answer. Maybe this lack of understanding is why Obama hung out with Radicals and why Romney voted for a Democrat Presidential candidate in 1992.

President Obama last night supported prohibiting inside trading by members of Congress (Congress is currently exempt from insider trading laws) Gee, if only someone had proposed making Congress live under the same laws as they expect us to live under. Oh wait, someone did:

REPUBLICAN CONTRACT WITH AMERICA

FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;
SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

If Congress had held to the concept of #1, they would not have been allowed to inside trade.

I am amazed at how much the Contract with America still applies to America 17 years later. Even today when we talk about “budget cuts”, these are usually not really cuts. Congress plays a dirty game. The way it works is simple. Suppose Congress has published plans to increase every budget by 5% (whether needed or not) and for program X, this means $500 billion more over the next 10 years. Now suppose some budget minded conservative believes we only need to spend $300 billion more–this is called a cut.

This practice allows people who favor big government to demonize people who want to limit the growth of government by being able to say that just not increasing spending as much is a cut. Zero Based budgeting eliminates this practice. #8 on the Contract with America.

I like the original Contract with America and I do not find it “embarrassing” at all.

None. Well, actually 7.7 million FEWER people needed food stamps when Gingrich and Republicans took over house in 1994 and the time he left in 1998. When Bill Clinton entered office 20 million people were on food stamps. By 1994, that number had risen to 27.5 million. By 1998, after 4 years of Republican control of house only 19.8 million needed food stamps–a decrease of 7.7 million people.

Before the 2008 financial crisis, 26 million people needed food stamps. Today, 44.7 million people are on food stamps. That is an increase of 18.4 million people.

So has Obama made it better? When Obama entered office in 2008, 28.2 million people were on food stamps. So the number of people on Food stamps has increased by 16.5 million. To be fair, we have to give his economic policies a chance to work, so let’s just look at the number on food stamps since 2010. In 2010, 40 million people were on food stamps. By end of 2011, 44.7 million–another 4.7 million just between these years. But if the economy was getting better FEWER people should need food stamps.

Mr. Gingrich can not only say that Obama is the Food Stamp President, but that when Republicans gained control of the house food stamp use was still increasing. But after 4 years of Republican control in the house, 7.7 million fewer people needed food stamps.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm

Something is happening at Fox News. More often these days I hear the language of the Left entering their news programs. Conservative points of view are becoming more rare on Fox and/or are treated with scorn. I have not made a log of these events to document these claims, but as someone who is sensitive not only what is said but how it is said, I know Fox News is changing.

CNN used to be the conservative’s choice until Ted Turner pushed it leftward. Now it appears that FOX is going the way of CNN. But why??

It may not be admitted but I believe the left’s boycott of Fox is having an effect. Big corporations cannot afford to lose any customers. The Left boycotts and refuses to buy from people who support conservative thought. The Right is believes in free speech and individualism–we do not boycott. So, any business that does not want to lose customers, ceases to advertise on conservative media. This is costing FOX billions in ad revenue because they do not get the large corporations to advertise with them.

Large corporations are the most sensitive to boycotts. Why?? Large companies have a large percentage of the market. Nearly everyone is a potential customer. If 10% of the population decides they will not buy from you, they lose a tremendous amount of sales. A small company, on the other hand, with a small percentage of the market, say 2% is not affected as harshly. It is a simple mathematical relationship. If 10% of the population will not buy from a small company, they might lose 0.02% market share, but this loss can be made up from attracting the almost 90% of the population who are still willing to buy from you. Small companies can easily make up for the 0.02% drop in sales that are lost to boycott because advertising on conservative media is very effective for these small companies. Advertising rates are low since they are not in competition with the big corporations for Ad spots and they reach a very active demographic with money to spend (conservative work and spend money)

Have you not noticed, that most of Fox’s advertisers are smaller companies? If Fox could attract bigger corporations, they would be able to charge much higher rates and make more money. It is my belief that Fox News is hoping to become acceptable enough to the Left in this country to gain big corporate accounts.

I believe this is folly. People watch Fox News because they cover news while respecting conservative views. As they move leftward, Americans will start looking for another home. Already, I get more of my news online than I get from Fox News. My hope is that conservatives on this site will document the use of Leftist language on Fox and that we can convince Fox that any Leftward move, would result in low ratings and reduced profits, but we must be prepared to look elsewhere for our news.

As I write this, I see Fox pushing the story of Gingrich being so hated that people are trying to recruit another moderate to run against him: Mitch Daniels.

The Romney campaign has not yet committed to Monday’s NBC debate.

This week, Romney strategist Stuart Stevens told the Washington Examiner that the campaign was becoming wary of debates. The Tampa debate would be the 18th major debate of the primary season, though just the second among the four remaining candidates — Romney, Gingrich, Texas Rep. Ron Paul and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.
“There are too many of these,” Stevens was quoted as saying. “We have to bring some order to it. We haven’t accepted Florida. … It’s kind of like a cruise that’s gone on too long.”

What is going on? This would be political suicide. Romney would lose Florida and then be a laughing stock. I posted on Redstate my belief that once Romney’s electability was questioned that he would be done as a candidate. But you would think he try to find traction among Northern voters, so why scuttle your campaign before trying?

Could Romney know he is doomed and be thinking of running as a Third-Party Candidate? I doubt this, but what is his campaign thinking? Sure Newt has been dominating the debates, but to skip a debate? It looks cowardly. Of course, Romney was the only candidate unwilling to debate Newt one-on-one.

I have to say, it would be a much more interesting race if Romney were to drop out. Gingrich versus Santorum. But, alas, I assume Romney will show up anyway. If he doesn’t debate. I’m sure he will say “I have to work to release my taxes by Friday Night excuse”.

I am tired. Very Tired. Over the years I have watched my party nominate Bob Dole and John McCain. This year they seem to want to nominate Romney.

Romney opposed Reagan.
Opposed Forbe’s Flat tax and proposes virtually nothing on taxes.
Supports Washington directing health care.

The Republican party has left me. I want to know why I should stay in this party?

Why would a man who just got two big newspaper endorsements including the largest paper in SC decide to drop his presidential bid? Well, I give credit to these moderates— they stick together. This is a clear sign that Romney is in trouble in SC. Huntsman’s support is coming from Romney and the man who worked for Obama has again shown his true colors.

I hate to say this but it is time for conservatives to show the same loyalty to one another. I don’t care how it gets done–draw straws but someone or two someones on the conservative side should at least suspend their campaigns in SC. My thinking is once Romney starts losing he will drop like a stone. Then the conservative candidates can duke it out amongst themselves. WHY???

Republicans don’t like Romney except for the fact they think he can win. Once that is gone–the race is over for him. Why would Republicans like a man who opposed Reagan? Supported Paul Tsongas (a Democrat against HW Bush)? Instituted government health care? Spent $50,000 of his own money to oppose Forbe’s flat tax? Burdened companies with tremendous debt that led many of them to bankruptcy? Required gun owners to pay $100 to buy a gun? Allowed the legislature to include Planned Parenthood but no adoption groups in his health bill?

Romney has been talking like a conservative, but I do not buy it. Let one candidate take Romney down and the floodgates will open and then we can have a conservative on conservative contest. Not a RINO who wants to create government run health care–just at the state level. Romney proposes to fund state provided health insurance through Federal Government. This will give us government run health care carried out by the states at the behest of Washington.

This is an example of what will be run against Romney in general.

Some may wish to defend Romney. It will be a difficult task. Surveys show Republicans have become the representatives of the working class (Isn’t that funny considering what Democrats talk about)

But how will Romney play to the Republican working class worker?

We need someone for President who believes in capitalism. Who will not seek to criticize or regulate the free market. Individuals should be allowed to make decisions that are in their own best interest. If a company’s stock is undervalued because they are not leveraged enough to earn high returns for their stock holders, then it only makes sense that a venture capital firm come in and get them to increase their debt load even if they are not expanding. This will increase stock holder value and the venture capital company will also make money.

That the risk of the company going bankrupt is increased is no big deal. Sure, some companies will go bankrupt because they cannot weather some future storm, but storms are unpredictable. Investors can simply diversify their portfolios to other highly leveraged firms. After all, what are the odds that all these companies would face a decline in sales at the same time?

Besides, if a company does go bankrupt, the bank can simply sell it off to their competitors who will be glad “out of the kindness of their heart” to help a competitor in time of need. Sure, some jobs will be lost when this happens, but this will also save money and customers will benefit too! With fewer companies from whom to choose, their buying decision will be so much easier.

Rush Limbaugh, Hanity, et. al. have shown me the error of my ways. We cannot criticize someone for their business practices. To do so is obviously anti-capitalist. So Gingrich and Perry have criticized Romney for his business practices–anti-capitalist! Romney and Santorum have criticizes Republicans for not opposing certain business practices-anti-capitalist!

So what we need is a real capitalist. Someone who will let people do whatever they want. We need baseball commissioner Bud Selig. He has the track record to prove it:

When baseball players were using doping up with steroids to increase performance. Did he try to stop it? No! And it was great for the game. Look at all the home run records that were broken. As Forbes magazine pointed out he was:

known as “the Steroid Commissioner” for the blind eye he turned toward the artificial bulking up of the players throughout the 1990s and early 2000s”

But if that is not recommendation enough, he may be as good as Mitt Romney on the right to be highly leveraged!:

(Bud Selig) now faces the possibility of becoming known as “the Debt Commissioner” for the ballooning of franchise IOUs under his tenure and for letting teams sidestep league rules on debt limits.

See? A pure free market capitalist in the mold of Mitt Romney but better!. He allowed teams to sidestep those pesky league rules on debt limits. This allowed the previous owners to get maximum value for their teams. Never mind they may not have actually known enough about baseball to properly run a baseball team. They bid the highest amount with the help of bankers. Sure, some banks lost money when the Texas Rangers went bankrupt, or was it the Mets or the Dodgers. Well anyway, its not big deal if banks lose money, its not like taxpayers bail them out.

These decisions show that Bud Selig is the best-suited to run for President. Now, some may argue that some people lost their jobs when these over-leveraged companies went bankrupt. But is it the venture capitalist fault that those workers chose not to diversify their work effort just as investors diversify their portfolios?

This post is obviously an attempt at satire, but I am trying to make a serious point. Many companies have strict rules regarding maximum debt loads people opening their franchises are allowed to have. This does not make them anti-capitalist. While I am sure some companies do not have debt load restrictions and there is nothing legally or morally wrong with those decisions; we may question whether they are behaving wisely and whether it might be better if they had some rules regarding debt loads (and other bad-business behaviors).

So when I question whether Mitt Romney’s business behavior is something to be proud of, I am not anti-capitalist. I am simply pro good business practices. Sound business practices serve not only to increase profits, but also serve stock holders, debt holders, and employees in the long run; and they should be encouraged. People who seek to make profits by short-term thinking or manipulation should be rebuked. Companies in the long run only make profits when they serve the most important group: the consumer. People who manipulate the market hinder the ability of companies to perform this very valuable function. This is why capitalist countries with strong moral beliefs out-perform both their socialist and amoral capitalist counterparts.

I am debating what to do if my Republican party becomes the progressive liberal party that it was under Ford and Nixon. I am a Reagan Republican. Nixon imposed price and WAGE controls to control inflation caused by his elimination of sound money. He did nothing to fight growth of government. He used the regulatory power of the FCC to keep opponents off the air. He used the IRS to punish opponents. He created more government agencies to regulate more of our lives at the federal level. He did not lower taxes and raised them.

Now the Republican party has again become home to a good number of people who want to return to the Nixon model of government.

Conservatives are the ones who have moved the nation in the right direction over the years. Reagan was right to believe that “Government is not the soluton to our problems, government is the problem”

Reagan ran on three objectives:

1) Strengthen our military
2) Cut taxes to spur incentive for entrepreneurs
3) Shrink the size of government.

Conservatives pushed the contract with America:

1.require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress;
2.select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
3.cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
4.limit the terms of all committee chairs;
5.ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
6.require committee meetings to be open to the public;
7.require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
8.guarantee an honest accounting of the Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

These ideas have strenght and principle behind them. They still have value.

Conservatives like Steve Forbes showed us that our tax code is a corrupting influence on government. That politicians manipulated the tax code to help certain groups, corporations, or rich individuals while hurting those who could not manipulate the system.

So why should I join in supporting Romney? when he: Opposed Reagan openly as recently as 1992, opposed the Contract with America, and spent $50,000 of his own money to oppose flat tax even though he was not even running for office!

Add to this, Romney’s creation of a government health program that has started to create the same type of problems in Massachucetts as seen in european health systems.

I grew up under Reagan. I know what Reagan stood for. I was proud of Reagan. Reagan was right to fight to change the Republican party within, I hope this can happen again. But already I have been forced to make my campaign donations directly to conservative candidates. I no longer trust the GOP to spend the money wisely.

I am a Reagan Republican and I refuse to go back to the Ford/Nixon progressive view.

No actually he didn’t. This is a quote from the great defender and advocate of free markets Henry Hazlitt. So when Gingrich says that Romney should be held to account for his behavior, I believe this is strongly a pro free-market attack. Conservatives believe laws (limited and consistent) are important to the proper functioning of free markets. As Hazlitt points out:

“Therefore our laws must do everything possible to close these avenues to success and to create conditions under which people can succeed only by superior zeal and ability in serving their fellows. (This is precisely what we seek from capitalism) It provides them with a system of rewards in proportion to their output—in other words, in proportion to their success in satisfying the consumer. Under this system they must compete for the consumer’s favor.”

Also as conservatives, we know:

“laws won’t be enough, however good. If the people were so corrupt that they were constantly trying to evade the law, and if the police and judges and government were so corrupt that they made no impartial effort to the law, then even an ideal set of laws would be futile…. No, the majority of individuals must be moral. The society must live by a moral code. The individual enterpriser or trader or workman must not only fear the police, or private retaliation; he must himself believe in honest dealing, in fairness, in justice, in truthfulness, in honor…. Perhaps the greatest vice of the communist system, worse even than its failure to produce goods, was that it destroyed all sense of justice and truth, and made its only ‘morality’ consist in absolute obedience to the commands of the dictator…. But individual freedom is impossible without individual responsibility.”

“In other words, despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot.”

Gingrich in his attack on Romney’s Bain Capital is asking a very simple question: “Did Romney engage in “honest dealing, in fairness, in justice, in truthfulness, in honor” in his business dealings?

Was Romney acting in the best interest of consumers? Or was he simply making profits by “superior chicanery, by more clever deceit, by greater unscrupulousness, by superior ruthlessness.”?

These are fair questions to ask even if we are uncomfortable with the method of attack.

Hazlitt quotes from:
Hazlitt, Henry (2010-03-31). Time Will Run Back (LvMI) (Kindle Locations 3823-3828). Ludwig von Mises Institute. Kindle Edition.

In last night’s debate, the presidential candidates got the typical cheerleading from Obama’s Media where they seemingly were jumping for joy at 200k jobs! As any good economists knows there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Maybe this is the beginning of a positive trend, but here is the statistic that really matters: In December 2007, 121 million Americans had full time jobs (those working more than 35 hours per week). This December, a little more than 113 million Americans had full time jobs. 

Since 2007, there are 7.8 Million fewer full time jobs. (4.7 Million men)

How does this compare to prior recessions?

• Recession Start                     Full Time Jobs 4 Years Later
• 1969                                              5.6 Million MORE JOBS than recession start
• 1973                                             5.3 Million MORE JOBS than recession start
• 1980                                             1.5 Million MORE JOBS than recession start
• 1981                                              4.5 Million MORE JOBS than recession start
• 1990                                              1.1 Million MORE JOBS than recession start
• 2001                                             1.1 Million MORE JOBS than recession start
• Obama(2007)                          7.8 Million FEWER JOBS than recession start 

 So Basically, if Obama just matched the worst full time jobs growth there would be 8.9 Million more Americans working full time today.   

To be fair, we are off the lows of full time jobs by 2.7 million jobs. Although this means that only 36% of the full time jobs lost have been recovered after 4 years!   

But are these good jobs? In 2007, only 644 thousand full time workers worked for minimum wage or less. In 2010, 1.4 million worked full-time for minimum wage or less. Therefore:

Nearly 1 million of Obama’s 2.7 million new full time jobs pay minimum wage!

While the percent of hourly workers earning minimum wage has nearly TRIPLED (from 2.3 to 6%) since 2007.

In addition to the increase in minimum wage full time jobs, part-time workers are also taking the hit:

• Year                       People Working for Minimum Wage or less 
•  2007                                              1.6 million         
• 2008                                                2.1 million*   
• 2009                                                3.3 million**  
• 2010                                                4.1 million     

YEA! Way to go Obama! 

 Employment figures were obtained from the BLS online.

Minimum wage data was collected also from the BLS online at:

 http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2010tbls.htm#t10_2010.xls.f.2

 *after 70 cent increase in minimum 

**after another 70 cent increase

Perry needs to change the debate away from the debates.

The following is an idea for an Ad to do this:

{Commerical opens with man talking to screen:}

MAN: “I couldn’t find work until I moved to Texas” 

NEWSPERSON OFF-SCREEN (Interupting): What about the debates? 

MAN RESPONDS: Don’t you know what matters? THIS matters (POINTS TO HIS PAYCHECK) 

{Cut to doctor}

DOCTOR: “Last state’s frivolous lawsuits mean I spent more time on paperwork and unneeded tests than patients” 

NEWSPERSON OFF-SCREEN (Interupting): What about the debates?

DOCTOR RESPONDS: Don’t you know what matters? She matters (pointing to patient) 

{Cut to construction worker}

NEWSPERSON OFF-SCREEN (Interupting): What about the debates? 

WORKER RESPONDS:  Don’t You Know what matters? 1200 new jobs will be in there. Work that used to be done in Asia somewhere. Now done here in the U.S.A. See that?  THAT matters. (pointing to new large factory)

Cut to announcer: “Texas created 1 million jobs while the rest of the country lost 2 million jobs. “

{Cut to logo} PERRY….What Matters.

 ©

Here is my problem with Romney. He plans to make us more dependent on government. He claims to be a state’s rights kinda guy. REALLY? He plans to allow the Washington to redistribute money to the states to provide health insurance. Will there be no strings with this money? Washington will have no say? What nonsense. Washington will now decide what will or will not be covered under health insurance and people will lose the ability to choose. This is unacceptable. So I say enough is enough.

Romney claims he will be conservative but we know that is a LIE. We hope it is not, but we must face the truth. Romney opposed Reagan. He opposed the flat tax. He instituted government control of what you could buy or could not for health insurance. He spent 50k of his own money to stop a flat income tax.

Let me be clear: Rubio ran against a “moderate” Republican and democrat. A three man race and won. If I have that choice in this Presidential election, I will vote for the viable conservative option—EVEN if it means that Obama might get re-elected. At this point, if we must go to socialism, I do not want it with an (R) next to it.

Let the moderates figure out where they stand: Do you stand for limited government or allowing the government to control everything?

I’m sure the moderates will say “but we just a little more government in X area” NO! Enough is enough.

Moderates will have to decide whether to stand for socialism or limited governmnent. No more middle ground. No more moving the line just a few more feet in the direction of statism.

I will no longer vote for moderates (if there is any feasible choice) to help them win unless they are moving the country away from government controling our lives. To be clear to our moderate friends: “no additional government intervention in our lives or complete government control” Time to choose. I will let the forces of socialism win quickly rather than slowly with an (R) by their name.

If you did not see Santorum’s speech after Iowa, it is very inspiring. Wow! He brought in optimism that he has not shown in the debates. He showed pride in America, our heritage, his heritage, and the fight against facism (and Obama’s socialism (my word not his))

He talked about values that form the foundation of conservative principles. I was moved and excited. His appeal to working class Americans (Reagan democrats) was terrific. He made the case that government IS the problem with regulations and taxes and why we do not have jobs. He argued the morality of allowing people to make their own decisions to control their lives and how tax policy is from our conservative values not greed or practicality. His speech personalized these values and avoided slogans or one-liners.

Gone was the scowl that many saw in debates. Instead I saw toughness, love, faith and resolve. I saw a man of faith. A man who takes faith and the values that built America as sacred.

It was an amazing speech. It was just one speech and one performance so I will reserve judgement about what will happen, but and I can’t believe I’m going to write this:

We may end up thanking Iowa.

P.S. I love Perry. I lived in Texas. Went to school in Texas (Texas A&M) and know he did a wonderful job. I also lived in Pennsylvania (after Texas) and know Santorum was a conservative against incredible pressure. Yes, he lost his final race in an off year with low turnout in a year when Republicans were dispirited. I believe only knock against Perry is his debate performances. For him to continue, I hope Perry will agree to debate Gingirch.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Conservatives support a flat tax because we know it will create more businesses, more jobs, and better opportunities. Romney of course says he supports the idea of a flat tax but:

In January 1996, as reported by the Boston Globe at the time, Romney spent $50,000 of his own money to run a full-page newspaper ad attacking the flat-tax proposed by Steve Forbes, who was then seeking the Republican presidential nomination. The ad ran in papers in New Hampshire, Iowa and Massachusetts. Among other things, Romney’s ad said: “The Forbes tax isn’t a flat tax at all–it’s a tax cut for fat cats!”

Maybe this is why Romney’s tax plan is so anti-growth. He wants to give a capital gains tax break only to those who earn less than $100,000. Yes, so if you earn below $100K, you will now be more likely to invest. Only problem is that people who invest and create jobs earn far more than $100K.

Here is Romney’s “Bold” ideas on taxes from his website:

Maintain current tax rates on personal income
Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains

Romney does support eliminating death tax and He does at least recognize the importance of reducing corporate tax rates (from 35% to 25%). This would still leave the US higher corporate tax rate than most european countries

Romney’s tax policies are estimated to reduce taxes for a family of four earning $75,000 by $167, and yet he does nothing to stimulate capital investment among people who actually have money to invest and he only reduces corporate tax rates to a european level. Will this really get our economy moving again?

Romney left office with approval in thirties (48th out of 50 governors) and decided not to run for reelection. And the only things he got done as governor were liberal. Is he really the most electable Republican?

 Many people today do not buy health insurance for one simple reason—they know that if they get sick that someone else will pay for their hospital bills.  This is called the free-rider problem. People can get the benefit (hospital care) without paying the cost (insurance)

One way to address this problem is mandating that everyone buy health insurance. I admit at one time I thought this was reasonable and stated so in a post here on Redstate. Well, it didn’t take 15 minutes for RedState posters to show me the error of my thinking: 1) There was the constitutional argument (not an enumerated power), 2) The auto insurance liability argument (requirement is to hold you accountable for damages you might cause to others) and Auto driving is a privilege argument (You do not have to drive if you cannot afford to cover damages you might cause to others) 3) The government defining health insurance  argument (Mandating health insurance gives the government tremendous power to define what health insurance is and what will be covered and what will NOT be covered. i.e. Death Panels).

So how can we avoid the free rider problem without an individual mandate that takes away vital freedoms and violates the constitution?

The answer is simple. Do not require anyone to purchase health insurance. However, if they choose to get government assistance when they get sick, deduct their payments from Social Security either by delaying retirement or through reduced payments (to some minimal level) 

You might be thinking: Some people want to buy health insurance but cannot afford it because they are poor or temporarily out of work. For those who are temporarily out work, why not allow them to use some of their Social Security retirement money now so they can avoid potentially devastating financial losses? For those who are truly poor, they are already covered by Medicaid. 

Under this proposal, no one would be required to purchase insurance. But if they get sick, they should expect a reduction in their retirement if they expect others to pay for their bills. This plan does not require defining what is covered or not. If a person takes government aid, they know they will have to work longer or get less at retirement. Knowing this, people who can afford insurance will be more inclined to purchase because they will know we will not pick up their bills for them.