The energy plan is moving in the right direction, but I'd like to see it more aggressive. A two year approval process for a new reactor at an existing approved site still seems ridiculous. At that rate, Mitt might be approving some new reactors before his first term is up, but nothing will be built.
His trade plan is still weak. It's focused on opening new markets and reducing trade barriers. When that's the problem. We've lowered our trade barriers so far that countries with excess and very cheap labor like China simply take our jobs.
We had import tariffs from the start of our country until the 1980's free trade mania that served us well. Now we've export an amazing amount of jobs and imported cheap labor to boot.
Mitt doesn't talk at all about protecting our market.
Mitt does at least acknowledge China is abusing the relationship, but it's clear Mitt just wants China to play by the rules. He still wants a completely open trading relationship with China. And that's not wise when we have unemployment. We need to protect our market until our own people are gainfully employed. Then we can consider how best to use cheap labor abroad.
Mitt isn't going to roll back much of health reform. After all he authored Romneycare. At best, I expect him to change the mandate from a tax penalty to a tax credit with an associated increase in general taxes to cover it. That'll make it more palatable, because we are used to tax credits, but in effect, it will be exactly the same.
He may make ObamaRomneycare a voluntary state program rather than a federal program, but he will offer federal purse strings large enough that no state can refuse them. So again, it's mostly semantics. The cost isn't going to improve. And he's still got to pay for the Bush drug program. So I'm not seeing economic gains from healthcare.
Romney is not going to be able to cut enough regulations to make a difference. And most of them are automated now anyway. And even if he could eliminate all regulations, it wouldn't make a difference in the outsourcing. Companies like to complain about taxes and regulations but cheap labor is why they are outsourcing, not taxes and regulations.
And while I certainly agree that cutting government spending is necessary and will help long term. If it's done short term before the structural issues of trade and energy are addressed, it may send us over the cliff faster.
Some good analysis. With Healthcare, remember, there is already complete repeal passed in the House. Those members cannot expect to get reelected in 2014 if they renege on that. The voters will hold their feet to the fire on that one. The Senate will be a different story, and that’s where your scenario is a real one.
My only argument is that Romney is not really the author of Romneycare. It was a largely Democrat statehouse, and he participated. Ultimately he owns it, just like Obama owns his odoriferous health care bill, but it is not like this is his passion nor his bread and butter. His purpose in being president isn’t to implement Romneycare.
The key to getting rid of Obamacare as passed is to get rid of the giant new government bureaucracy, the panels of bureaucrats and the countless taxes and regulations that further distort the industry. Unfortunately, we’ll probably end up with some aspects that poll well because none of these guys are going to fight to the death over those portions and risk no repeal.
I am not as bearish on health care as others with Romney’s stupid comments this weekend. He’s trying to show himself to be moderate to the moderate voters. It is ill conceived, but not too alarming to me. More alarming is that he was given the blueprint by Santorum, Newt and others on this issue and seems to be going moderate verses explaining the problems. That is unfortunate, but not unexpected. Repealing Obamacare is going to be a bear no matter how much Romney wins by, or how many Senate seats we get this cycle. It is really hard to get rid of entitlements, the Dems are going to pull out all the sob stories before and after the election.