Wednesday, February 07, 2007
|
|
The Club for Growth Evaluates The Romney Plan
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
9:31 PM
|
|
Governor Romney gave a speech on the economic policies he would pursue as president today, and the Club for Growth reacts:
Club for Growth Responds to Romney’s Economic Speech
Washington – As part of the Club for Growth’s ongoing analysis of presidential candidates and their economic policies, the Club for Growth commends Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney for promoting a pro-growth, limited government agenda in his speech before the Detroit Economic Club today.
The Club’s President, Pat Toomey, highlighted Governor Romney’s call for permanent tax cuts, tax reform, spending discipline, regulatory relief starting with the reform of Sarbanes-Oxley, and tort reform as “solidly pro-growth.”
“Governor Romney outlined today an economic platform that is, generally speaking, very pro-growth despite the surprising limit he suggests for tax-free savings,” Toomey said. “As the governor develops the specifics of his economic policies, we hope he will boldly build upon the limited government, free-market policies he discussed today.”
“The other presidential candidates should follow Governor Romney’s lead and propose similar, if not more extensive, measures to protect American taxpayers and promote continued economic expansion.”
|
|
The reason we have a problem right now in healthcare is because of government. Local, state and federal government being involved with healthcare is the problem, not the solution. From where I come from that is a conservative principle. It appears now many people in the GOP believe government getting involved in healthcare is the solution. Fair enough. I disagree.
If this is good for Massachusetts, I'm guessing Romney would say it is good for the nation. Why not just take the plan national? In CA where I live, it is mandatory to have car insurance. My car insurance premiums are out of control because huge portions of the population of CA do not carry insurance. It is the law though. Mandatory. Who do you think pays? I have to pay. The vast majority of people in MA who are currently not insured will not pay anything to be insured. They will get some money out of productive 20 something's who don't want to have insurance. The businesses who are barely hanging on competing with labor in China will be forced to pay for the non productive. Not a good idea in my opinion. |
|
here is an article discussing the downside:
http://www.sbsc.org/content/display.cfm?ID=57
of note:
"For good measure, businesses face a new tax. As passed, the legislation required that firms with more than 10 employees that do not provide health care coverage pay an annual tax of $295 per worker. Romney used his line item veto to get rid of this tax, but legislative leaders pledge an override, and they apparently have the votes."
i.e. Romney was against this portion of it.
Of note is that the article doesn't really address the problem on individuals who carry the burden of paying for the uninsured when they hit up the ER. Taking this into consideration, is the program, possibly an improvement? Secondly it doesn't address if there is the possibility to make future incremental steps (once universal coverage is there) to further deregulate and shrink goverment involvment. Finally it doesn't address what the legislature and Deval Patrick might have brought us, if the RomneyCare wasn't done. People outside the state are often critical of Romney, but conservatives in the state, are usually happy that he's consistently pushed the liberal goverment to the right, more so than Weld, Celluci, or Swift ever did.
|
|
All the uninsured people were walking around and getting coverage when things went bad, because we had to pay for their ER visits. My wife used to be a social worker, and was also a Big Sister, and saw this first hand. Sometimes you can't let perfect be the enemy of the good. I agree that businesses should not be forced to offer Medical. I haven't seen this as directly true of RomneyCare - but it's certainly true of ArnoldCare in CA.
By forcing the uninsured to carry high deductible insurance Romney has seen the light. The future in medical insurance HAS to be high deductible insurance. By moving a large group of residents onto it, a market should start to develop. Federally the goverment needs to eliminate the pretax status of all benifits (this is really part of income tax reform.) All benifits should be counted as salary by using their value. This would eliminate the desire to have companies be medical insurer providers. If some companies wanted to let employees seek their own insurance, they could offer higher salary. For most people the money would be better than the low deductible HMO or PPO plans they are offered. [My work's high deductible option is 95% of the low deductible option, but if I could find my own high deductible insurance and get the value of the low deductible insurance as salary I would come out WAY ahead.] - But the pretax nature is a federal gimic brought on by wage freezes during WW2, nothing more and nothing less.
Finally, Romney was dealing with a very antagonistic legislature and working at the state level. I have more willingness to see locally funded and admistrated goverment programs than federal ones. And my guess is that in the end RomneyCare will make it cheaper for the state, since they won't be covering the ER treatments of the poor. Once everyone is covered, then a lot more options for reforming the plan will be available, especially in reaction to federal reform.
|
|
|
You planted the seed Quint. It's only a matter of time now :) |
|
Patty,
I don't know of any states which force employers to pay for their employees auto insurance.
|
|
It's got to be harder than at the state level, but as states go, Massachusetts is probably as tough a case as you could have. Reagan himself was no Reagan Republican when it came to controlling spending, because he believed that upgrading our defense was more important and had to make deals to do so. Funny how the President gets blamed for the misdeeds of Congress. His own tool is the veto, which is awfully blunt.
The real culprit in any spending problem is always Congress, because if they didn't appropriate it, the president couldn't spend it. Nixon tried to embargo appropriated funds and not spend them, and the courts ruled that illegal.
The only time during my lifetime (at least since I became aware of what the government did) when the budget was balanced was when the Republican-controlled Congress forced it on Clinton. Since then, they've succumbed to the siren song of the pork barrel.
Deficits are practically forced upon the president nowadays by the entitlements we're locked into.
Nevertheless, if anybody can do it, either Romney or Giuliani would be our best bets. Romney has done it in business, in the Olympics and in politics. I like Giuliani, but I don't know much about how he'd govern. He's kind of like Obama that way. But, that's what campaigns are for.
Right now, Romney is setting the pace as far as making actual proposals, and he's getting a lot of important supporters to sign on. Smart.
He's a very good communicator as well. |
|
He said a few things that sounded 'Reagan conservative-ish'. Big deal. So did Bush, pre-election, if you recall. And we all saw what happened after that.
Romney says: "I don't want to add entitlements. I want to find ways to reform our entitlement programs."
Sheesh, Hillary said almost the same thing. Well guess what, Mr. Romney. You have almost 2 years to find those ways and submit them for our voting approval. If you can't do it by Nov. 2008, why would we expect that you could do it in 4 years after that?
|
|
I have been watching Giuliani since the day he turned down the $10 mil from the Saudi Prince. He knows the enemy, and responded correctly in one millisecond to that insult. He also has on the job training in handling terrorism. I agree with Ed Koch - the war against Islamic fascism will be Job 1 for many years to come, and Rudy has a long attention span.
Still, Romney is looking better all the time. I listened to him describe the health care plan in Mass, which is absolutely NOT socialist. He negotiated with insurance companies to get reasonable rates, they needed higher deductibles to remain afloat, and Mass. made it illegal for them to hold pre-existing conditions against a person buying insurance. That's all that's wrong with healthcare in America - if you don't have employer coverage, you'd better not need a heart transplant!
I say Rudy for President, because I believe he'll take the fight to the enemy. Romney for VP, and have Rudy assign the job of reforming health care to him. Sort of what Hillary tried for, but thank God failed at. This time the approach would be a capitalistic solution, not a socialistic toilet. |
|
But I am no fan of getting anywhere near expanding entitlements related to healthcare. I am willing to consider insurance reforms that allow people the means to purchase catastrophic coverage at affordable prices but it has to pencil out. Mitt's MA plan is not penciling, so people are wise to be cautious of it.
Better than anything the Dems are proposing, but still risky. |
|
Romney is a solid Presidential Candidate.
And his desire to promote tax reduction, reduced spending is a welcome message these days.
We need attractive, successful, positive advocates, pushing for sound Conservative economic policy.
Especially when the failures of socialism are being pushed foolishly by the all powerful Liberal Media.
Very healthy to see a Presidential Candidate discussing important issues, with conviction, without generics, to enhance our National discourse.
This Country needs more ethical Leaders promoting sound policy.
Very thankful for Romney at this time. |
|
How is mandatory health care so different from mandatory car insurance?
In Mass. you are required to buy minimum coverage. If you can't afford it you can qualify for one of two public owned insurance pools.. (similar to fire insurance in California high risk areas)
But there is no centralized governmental control over health care. |
|
|
|
Guess I would have to disagree with the "limited government" tag for Mitt. We do know Mitt is interested in socialist healthcare. Mitt believes in a transfer of wealth. Small business must pay for everyone's health care. Not just my opinion. Below from Herman Cain's article from today on Townhall.com The GOP can nominate someone who supports socialist medical programs, but as a conservative, I don't have to vote for him.
Entitlement is a Disease By Herman Cain - According to Grace-Marie Turner of the Galen Institute, the recently enacted “universal” health care plan in Massachusetts, which isn’t yet in effect, will cost nearly double the original projections. The Massachusetts plan is pure socialism. Individuals must purchase health insurance by July 1, 2007 or face significant tax penalties. Further, as Turner notes, “State agencies will be checking on individuals’ insurance status, monitoring their income to see if they qualify for subsidies, and tracking individual health habits to determine how much they should pay for their health insurance.”
|
|
|
|