The Right Opinion
The Reagan in Romney
While some of my conservative colleagues are criticizing the Romney campaign for one thing or another, I want to make a distinct point that is largely being overlooked: Mitt Romney is the most fiscally conservative Republican standard-bearer since Ronald Reagan.
Looking back through his speeches, interviews and programmatic proposals, I see an emphasis on economic freedom, free enterprise, low tax rates, deep federal spending cuts, free trade, and a free-market approach to tough social problems, such as health care, education and poverty. Meaning no disrespect to George W. Bush, John McCain, Robert Dole and George H. W. Bush, not one of these former Republican leaders was the consistent and comprehensive free-market advocate that Romney is.
A few recent examples help illustrate my point.
Following his trip to Israel, Romney released an essay called "Culture Does Matter," which was printed on National Review Online. In it, he strongly defended his statement that culture plays a key role in creating prosperity.
Romney wrote that "one feature of our culture that propels the American economy stands out above all others: freedom. The American economy is fueled by freedom. Free people and their free enterprises are what drive our economic vitality." He added that "economic freedom is the only force that has consistently succeeded in lifting people out of poverty ... the only principle that has ever created sustained prosperity."
Who was the last Republican leader to talk specifically in those terms? Ronald Reagan.
And when Romney walked into the NAACP lion's den in July, he told the crowd: "Free enterprise is still the greatest force for upward mobility, economic security, and the expansion of the middle class." He was booed at the beginning of that speech when he opposed Obamacare. But he received a standing ovation at the end, once people heard his overall philosophy.
I recently asked the former governor about Obama's now infamous "you didn't build that" statement. Romney blasted it by saying, "This is an ideology which says, 'Hey, we're all the same here, we oughta take from all and give to one another,' and that achievement, individual initiative, risk-taking and success are not to be rewarded as they have in the past." He called it an upside-down philosophy that does not comport with the American experience. The language is clearly Reagan-like.
Programmatically, Columbia Business School dean and top Romney economic adviser Glenn Hubbard recently laid out the specific Romney economic plan. (Undoubtedly, the Romney campaign crossed every "t" and dotted every "i.") The plan would lower the spending share of GDP to 20 percent from 24 percent by 2016, which is probably the largest proposed spending cut ever. The cumulative net savings of that cut could be a whopping $1.8 trillion, which not only would finance huge deficit reduction, but also would help pay for Romney's pro-growth tax reform: a supply-side, across-the-board 20 percent personal-tax-rate reduction, a limit or end to various tax deductions for upper-income payers, and a dramatically reduced corporate tax rate, from 35 percent to 25 percent -- perhaps the most powerful growth stimulant of all. Rounding out the economic program is a regulatory rollback, entitlement, trade, education and energy reform, and a sound monetary policy -- replacing Ben Bernanke at the Federal Reserve.
The liberal Brookings Institute seized on the tax portion of this plan, arguing that revenue neutrality would force Romney to end deductions and raise taxes on the middle class. Nonsense. That analysis completely misses the massive spending reduction in the overall package, along with growth incentives for everyone and base-broadeners only for the upper brackets.
And according to Hubbard, team Romney believes this pro-growth economic plan would generate 4 percent annual growth and create 12 million new jobs in a first term.
So Romney has set specific policies and connected them to specific, positive economic results. He is arguing that a free-enterprise, supply-side program will rejuvenate jobs and economic growth. And he backs this up with an unmistakable philosophy of economic freedom. It's the backbone of his thinking, and it connects to policies that will restore American prosperity.
Now I'm willing to concede that Romney's message has not been refined enough for the public at large. In particular, I would prefer that he harp on the word "growth" far more than he does. And he will probably have to winnow his key points even more, though he has brought them down from 59 to 5.
So there's more work to do before the big convention speech. But to suggest that Mitt Romney is not an economic conservative makes no sense to me. Look at what he's saying. And look at what he's proposing. And then think of Reagan.
COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM

7 Comments
Capt. Call in New Mexico
Saturday, August 11, 2012 at 1:57 AM
A good plan, definitely. But does it go far enough? The tax system must forever end the free ride that some 47+% of the population are currently receiving. And Romney must close the gates! No more illegals!
tod-the tool guy in brooklyn N.Y.
Saturday, August 11, 2012 at 5:47 AM
The Hubbard plan you outlined has great merit, but we'll need I.C.E. with teeth, like Capt. Call says! There are an estimated 14 million illegals, here, stealing goods and services! Close the border for 24 months, and gracefully DEPORT!!
Gregory in Yakima Wa.
Saturday, August 11, 2012 at 6:09 PM
"Mitt Romney is the most fiscally conservative Republican standard-bearer since Ronald Reagan." I don't remember Ronald Reagan signing mandatory health care into law as governor or president.
Here we go again with how great Ronald Reagan was. Reagan did some things that worked and did some things that did not. By the way it's a fact that Reagan raised taxes.
From Real Clear Politics " In fact, Reagan compromised on many issues, including an agreement negotiated with the late Democratic House Speaker Tip O'Neill to improve the solvency of Social Security for the past several decades. As Timothy Noah explained cogently in The New Republic (and not for the first time), Reagan repeatedly raised taxes in the years following the gigantic, budget-busting 1981 tax cut. Noah quotes former White House and Treasury official Bruce Bartlett, who served under Reagan and wrote a paper last year on "Reagan's Forgotten Tax Record," demonstrating beyond any doubt that the GOP icon raised taxes at least 10 times during his two terms as president and also during his governorship of California. In that paper, Bartlett destroys the mythology of Reagan, which has been made concrete by the right-wing activist and lobbyist Grover Norquist with the "anti-tax" pledge signed by most Republican politicians."
Tod-the tool guy in BROOKLYN, N.Y.
Sunday, August 12, 2012 at 7:50 AM
Only a leftist would call a huge tax cut a "budget buster!"Comrade Gregory,"The gold standard, for job creation, wealth, and prosperity, invention & patents, upward mobility, innovations, WAS THE REAGAN-FRIEDMAN TAG TEAM OF CONSERVATISM. As Rush Limbaugh has been saying for 24 years on WABC in NYC, "A tax cut means, your government confiscates less, and you capital stays in your own pocket!"
Gregory in Yakima Wa.
Sunday, August 12, 2012 at 11:51 AM
Tod the tool guy...It's fascinating to me that people want to create in Ronald Reagan's legacy something he did not do while alive. Not just Reagan, it happens often. I guess we just want our heroes, not the facts.
No doubt that distorted image is useful when so many settle for that instead of researching. Here's a little something to think about, but you probably won't. "As Timothy Noah explained cogently in The New Republic (and not for the first time), Reagan repeatedly raised taxes in the years following the gigantic, budget-busting 1981 tax cut. Noah quotes former White House and Treasury official Bruce Bartlett, who served under Reagan and wrote a paper last year on "Reagan's Forgotten Tax Record,"
Gregory in Yakima Wa.
Sunday, August 12, 2012 at 12:36 PM
Mac, I am not an economist nor do I play one on television. While taking your suggestion and researching Fredrick Hayek I came across this:
"Hayek also wrote that the state has a role to play in the economy, and specifically, in creating a "safety net". He wrote, "There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision."
When I read comments here and other extremely conservative sites, there seems to be a belief or impression that the more a society is ruled by pure capitalism, the better off the lives of its citizens. Mr. Hayek wouldn't agree based on the above quote.
We live in a mix of capitalism, representative democracy and socialism. That's the way it is and will always be. Getting the proper balance is the hardest thing but market and social forces are mutually dependent. Perhaps I'm wrong. Can you provide an example of any government, at any time, anywhere in the world that is purely capitalistic?
wjm in Colorado
Sunday, August 12, 2012 at 2:38 PM
No perhaps about it Gregory, you are wrong. America was founded as a purely Capitalist Country, until the liberals started chipping away at freedom, a little at at time, until now, we are at the brink of marxist statist failure that you embrace. Insanity is doing the same think over again and expecting different results. The results of Marxist Ideology have always been failure, yet you embrace it and expect it to flourish. You are insane.