Skip to comments.Supply-Side Whiff in Iowa
Posted on 12/17/2011 5:22:08 AM PST by Kaslin
Color me cranky about this weeks Republican presidential debate in Iowa. The headline stories were about whether Newt Gingrich actually lobbied for Freddie Mac, or why Mitt Romney changed his positions on gay rights, guns, and abortion. But a GOP growth message to defeat President Obama was completely missing in this debate. It was a supply-side whiff.
This election is principally about the economy and its poor performance. Its about the slow rate of growth, the high rate of unemployment, and the tax, regulatory, spending, and monetary obstacles conjured up by Obama that are holding back the animal spirits which are so essential to job creation and prosperity.
Risk-taking is virtually absent today. Business profits are strong, but firms wont make commitments in front of Obamacare, regulations, mandates, and tax threats. The president is on the campaign trail with a leftist, class-warfare message. He blames successful entrepreneurs for their wealth, and slurs high-powered businesses at every turn. His is a big-government planning vision, an FDR-like vision.
But where was the GOP response in Sioux City, Iowa?
Newt Gingrich, for example, has a pro-growth 15 percent flat-tax-reform program. But he never mentioned it. He recalled that he campaigned with Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp. But he neglected to talk about their supply-side tax reforms that ignited growth and ended the stagflation of the 1970s.
If Newt truly understands the supply-side power of low marginal tax rates, he should talk about it and connect it to job creation and growth. But he didnt. This was a disappointment.
Mitt Romney has a business-tax reform to lower the corporate rate to 25 percent. This is good as far as it goes (lower would be better). But so far, Romney has not proposed a flat-tax reform for individuals that would slash rates and broaden the base. Meanwhile, his staff has been trashing the flat taxes proposed by Gingrich and Rick Perry. Does Romney believe in the incentive-model of growth?
Oh, by the way, what about sound money and King Dollar, preferably linked to gold, which would have avoided the subprime financial catastrophe? Does either Romney or Gingrich have a dollar policy? If so, tell us.
If you go back to the Reagan era, recall that the Gipper had a simple yet powerful economic-growth message: Across-the-board tax cuts to generate growth incentives, deregulation to unleash business, limited domestic spending to stop government meddling, and a strong dollar to vanquish inflation.
It was a simple four-point program, sometimes called the four pillars of wisdom. It was easy to understand, made good practical sense, and constituted a completely different vision than the big-government plans of Jimmy Carter. Todays candidates need to emulate Reagan.
Now, there are kudos for the two frontrunners. All is not dark.
Newt had a terrific moment when he defended the Keystone pipeline in terms of job creation, energy security, and saving blue-collar workers from extinction. He understands that Canada is our friend and ally, but that theyll build a pipeline to the Pacific and sell oil to China if we turn them down. This is good. He also understands that Obama is ruled by the radical environmentalists who are destroying blue-collar jobs and American energy security.
And Romney gets kudos on reforming Medicare with a hybrid system that would keep the existing plan as an option, but would offer free-market choice and competition for private health-insurance programs. Wunderkind Paul Ryan recently adopted this Romney approach. This is good.
But the best I can say is that on taxes, spending, regulations, and money, the frontrunners skirted around the edges or missed completely. Regarding economic growth, they did not clarify. They did not connect. They did not vanquish Obama in the Iowa debate.
But which time??
Milt Romney the Magic RINO:
"I'm not running as the Republican view
or a continuation of Republican values.
That's not what brings me to the race.
(Romney Video, accessed 9/19/07)
"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party
over to the traitors in the battle just ended.
We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged
to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support.
Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates
wouldnt make any sense at all.""
-- President Ronald Reagan
With Chris Wallace asking stupid little questions with the sole intent of getting these folks at each others’ throats - there’s no time for the candidates to actually talk about their vision for America.
I think Rush really missed this yesterday when he praised the moderators - who I thought were awful.
Forget a third party.
We need a second one.
this election is unique...The Ruling Elite have no interest in “supply-side” anything....those ideas cost them power..
Welcome to the United Soviet States of America..where the Pravda State Media vet the candidates to the pleasure and needs of the RinoCrat UniParty.
This election will be a non-election...featuring the state approved candidates-whose only distinction is whether they are black or white.
I beg to differ. I think this was the best of all the debates so far. And IMHO, one of the highlights was when Newt boldly stated that....any one of us here on this stage could defeat Barack Obama, and any one of us would make a far better president than him! Paraphrase.
C., I saw the same thing. Clearly, Wallace’s sole intent was to start a fight, not delve into the issues.
“And Romney gets kudos on reforming Medicare with a hybrid system that would keep the existing plan as an option, but would offer free-market choice and competition for private health-insurance programs. Wunderkind Paul Ryan recently adopted this Romney approach. This is good.”
Romney never said that.
>> I beg to differ. I think this was the best of all the debates so far. And IMHO, one of the highlights was when Newt boldly stated that....any one of us here on this stage could defeat Barack Obama, and any one of us would make a far better president than him! Paraphrase. >>
With due respect, your point actually does not counter my point nor the author’s point. Yes, the debate was good because the candidates did a great job for the most part - but they did so IN SPITE OF the moderators and not because of them. And Newt’s comment about “any one of us on stage” is something he’s said in EVERY SINGLE DEBATE.
Which brings us back to Kudlow’s point: there was not enough attacking of Obama - and I say it was because of the line of questioning, especially from Wallace.
Nice! nice! well done right to the gipper’s thumbs down
—Ronald Reagan commenting “moderate” Republicans who didn’t support Goldwater in 1964
I liked when Ron Paul did that. Kudlow missed Newt never denied influencing Top Republicans, that’s the technicality I would like clarified, and the ‘who for what’ if true.
I agree that there WAS NOT enough attacking of Obama. And I don’t mean just badmouthing him, but reciting his own words back for the world to hear, pointing out in detail how his policies have done much harm and NO good, etc.
Newt’s not a conservative; he’s a “progressive.” Like Romney.