This website has made no secret of its contempt for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Like U.S. President Barack Obama, he’s a tax-hiking, crony capitalist-backing, socialized medicine supporter (not to mention palace-dwelling chicken hawk) – and we refuse to be assimilated by his big government borg.
The latest example of Romney’s allegiance to unsustainable government growth?
His attack on U.S. Rep. Ron Paul’s budget-cutting plan (a.k.a. the only spending proposal that comes close to restoring some semblance of fiscal sanity in our nation’s capital).
“My job is to get America back on track to have a balanced budget,” Romney told a crowd in Cleveland, adding that “I’m not going to cut $1 trillion in the first year.”
That’s a gratuitous swipe at Paul – which is curious because we thought Romney was done with the Republican presidential primary and focused exclusively on drawing distinctions between himself and U.S. President Barack Obama (to the extent that he can).
Anyway, one member of the crowd quickly (and correctly) asked Romney “why not?”
“Taking a trillion dollars out of a $15 trillion economy would cause our economy to shrink (and) would put a lot of people out of work,” Romney said.
Ummmm … no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
That may be true in Paul Krugman’s world, but in the real world taking $1 trillion out of the federal government and pumping it into the economy would create a broad-based economic revival – particularly if this money was pumped into individual income tax relief. In addition to scaling back our welfare state and incentivizing productivity for a change, such relief would empower our consumer economy- thus creating new private sector jobs, stimulating investment and raising income levels.
Romney’s belief that we need to leave that money in government coffers because it would “cause our economy to shrink” is further evidence that he’s nothing but “Obama light” – a status quo politician fully convinced that he can create economic growth by costly Washington decrees.
Once again, Romney is proving he’s the same sort of Keynesian as the man he is running to replace – which is why we will never support him.
UPDATE: For more, check out this excellent article by Michael Tennant over at The New American.