Posted on 05/18/2007 10:17:15 AM PDT by Reaganesque
The 2008 presidential election may seem light years away. But when it comes to who will be the Republican and Democratic nominees, the race will be decided in less than nine months.
Georgia, along with several populous states, has moved its presidential primary to early next winter. By Feb. 5, 2008, we will likely know who will win the Republican nomination for president.
With two GOP presidential debates behind us, including one in South Carolina this week, only one candidate has emerged for conservative principles of cutting taxes and reducing the size of government. He is former governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts.
Romney is the only major candidate visiting Georgia this week as Republicans host their annual GOP state convention at the Gwinnett County Civic Center. Republicans should embrace Romney for many reasons, but especially one important one heard during the 1992 Bush-Clinton campaign: "It's the economy, stupid." While Iraq and the media's fascination with issues such as global warming or illegal immigration have captured our attention at the moment, when it comes down to it pocketbook issues such as the economy will play a vital role in who is elected our next president. During the past 50 years, Presidents John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush stood on the side of the taxpayer by enacting tax cuts. So will former Gov. Mitt Romney.
Romney is a fiscal conservative, and he promotes cutting taxes and restraining government spending. His first pledge (already aired on television commercials) is to generously use the presidential veto on wasteful government spending.
But perhaps the most important policy he is advocating for hardworking taxpayers is one that the media has conveniently ignored - he wants to make the 2001 tax cuts permanent.
In 2001, President Bush convinced Congress to adopt income tax cuts that impacted all working Americans. Thankfully, those tax cuts kept our nation from diving into a deep recession after the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001.
The tax cuts reduced marginal income tax rates by three percentage points for the middle class depending on income: from 28 to 25 percent; from 31 to 28 percent; or from 36 to 33 percent. The top 39.6 percent rate fell to 35 percent. A new, 10 percent rate was created in addition to the current 15 percent rate for low-income workers.
The 2001 tax cuts have created the healthy economy we see today as the Dow Jones Industrial Average has moved from the 8,000 mark in the period after Sept. 11 to a record well north of 13,000.
When taxes are cut, our economy grows. Retirement portfolios have expanded with the Dow; inflation remains low; unemployment remains low; and Americans have more disposable wealth than we realize.
Unfortunately, that could all change as the tax cuts are set to expire in 2010. If Congress continues to be controlled by Democrats, there is a real possibility the House and Senate could refuse to make the tax cuts permanent.
Romney has the ability to make the case to the American people and Congress the importance of making tax cuts permanent. If not, then the tax cuts will automatically return to higher levels and that will severely hurt the American economy.
A new report by the Heritage Foundation found that with the planned spending already enacted by this Congress combined with the potential expiration of the tax cuts, the average Georgian would pay $2,743 more in taxes. That would result in the loss of more than 31,000 jobs in our state.
On the campaign trail, Romney speaks of free-market capitalism and how an economic policy of low taxes and limited government stimulates our economy. He also has a record that illustrates his support of free-market economics. As governor of a liberal state, he turned a $250 million retroactive capital gains tax hike into a $250 million tax refund, made investment tax credits permanent, passed sales tax holidays, gave property tax breaks to seniors and cut state spending. Every economy cycles up and down, but there is no reason for a big-spending Congress and federal tax hikes to prematurely push us into a recession. Romney will stand tough against the forces within Washington that want to set back our economy and instead fight to keep more money in our pockets and our economy strong. That's the kind of president we need.
Mark Burkhalter, a state representative from Johns Creek, is Speaker Pro Tempore of the Georgia House.
Mitt Ping!
I’d like to see him come out a little tougher on the war but liked what he said at the last debate about it.
Romeny is getting stornger each week. It will be a slug fest between him and Thompson, if he joins. If Thompson gets in, I think he will win the nomination but I would endorse Romney as his VP. They would make a strong effective ticket and great PR to hammer the lousy donks.
And then turns around and signs Romneycare, which screws over taxpayers in an entirely new manner.
No sale.
After 8 years of Thompson, Romney will have proven his conservative bf’s. Then he will glide to the nomination and become the next President, after Thompson. I like the sound of your ticket!!!
Then don’t shop here.
I'm sure Mark Burkhalter also endorses Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, whose smiling faces are pictured on the front of newspapers across the state with Ted Kennedy.
The Georgia Republican Party will break its back to endorse a RINO.
So you own Free Republic now?
Where does he stand on the current “immigration” deal?
For it, against it, or trying to stay under the radar?
I generally like Romney, though he’s not my first choice, he’s an articulate, well-spoken guy who has clearly thought things through. But while the war is my number one issue, immigration has just jumped to number two with the current attempt to force through a compromise bill. So I will want to know where each candidate stands. I think Bush (and Congress) are trying to leave a fait acompli for the next president. I want to see which candidates are prepared to reject it now while there is still time.
Romney has said he opposes it.
‘Fred’- Now, that’s a solid name!
Awesome. If anyone would know how market dynamics and tax systems work, it’s Mitt Romney.
Tom is a good name, too. Especially when it's followed by Tancredo.
I was, of course, referring to this particular thread. I find it a total waste of time and energy to go to and read threads on issues I have no interest in or do not wish to support and, for the life of me, I cannot figure out why so many people here at FR feel the need to rain on someone else’s parade just because they can. It’s like a non-smoker going to a smoke shop for the express purpose of telling all the patrons there “I don’t smoke and would never buy anything from here!” What’s the point?
Could you tell me exactly what your problem with it is? From what I have heard it isn’t much different from requiring people to have car insurance.
My problem is FORCING people to get something as expensive as health insurance - some folks would rather just pay as they go. And once again, it is NOT a conservative position to use government force in such a manner.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.