If there are frankly statist economic policies that Mitt is proposing today thinking that it would be better than a lot of laissez-faire, then by all means shout the specifics of that to the rooftops — but even then, keep a sense of proportion. What’s worse, one skunk or an acre of open air sewage plant?
Mitt’s at least in a position to appreciate what the golden rule would mean towards business and can’t want too badly to risk strangling that part of America’s economic engine. Obama never was.
The long term problem for the future of our Republic is to get the Federal government out of the position whereby it thinks it can micro-manage the economy to health by special laws and/or tax policies in the first place.
Instead of proposing to “change” certain special tax rates (like corporate dividends), a transformational President would be proposing universal flat tax rates, corporate and personal, no exceptions, exemptions or deductions so that all corporate and personal economic decisions could be based on the most economically efficient choices without being bent by any tax considerations.
Everyone would pay something and at the same rate, without excuses - and without accountants, without tax lawyers, without lobbyists, without politicians attempting to game the system in a hunt for next seasons campaign contributions - except for a floor above the very most needy.
Then the economy can and will perform without new and special rules every season from Presidents and Congress.
Mitt is not that President. He will continue holding and executing the Federal beast created by FDR (and he will enjoy doing so) and he will leave it intact when he leaves. He will do no more than make adjustments at the edges, not at the core.
I am not saying that on the Margin he won’t be better than Obama - a feat a frog could do - he will, but only at the edges. Better made be good enough to chose him over Obama. That does not change the fact that it won’t be enough better in the long run and that does not alter the need to kill the concept that the Federal government can and should make long-term economic predictions - implying it can make them come true, nor is it enough better for us to hope for once we’d get a true Conservative candidate that would quit making them, and quit wanting and expecting to be the nation’s economic savior.
What is the worst economic fact about Obama? His economic predictions and how wrong he was? No. His intellectual arrogance that the President is (and ought to be) the economic manager of the nation.