-
Senator Frank Lautenberg, R.I.P.
June 3, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Activist Saves Colorado From Massive Tax Hike
May 28, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant
May 24, 2013 | 10 comments
-
Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats
May 24, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Dismantling Networks, Preventing Footholds
May 23, 2013 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
In the Wall Street Journal today, former Senator and current Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum lays out his economic and tax framework.
He begins with an aggressive attack on Mitt Romney:
Attempting to distract from his record of tax and fee increases as governor of Massachusetts, poor job creation, and aggressive pursuit of earmarks, he now says he wants to follow my lead and lower individual as well as corporate marginal tax rates.
It’s a good start. But it doesn’t go nearly far enough. He says his proposed tax cuts would be revenue neutral and, borrowing the language of Occupy Wall Street, promises the top 1% will pay for the cuts. No pro-growth tax policy there, just more Obama-style class warfare.
By contrast, in my first 100 days as president, I’ll submit to Congress and work to pass a comprehensive pro-growth and pro-family Economic Freedom Agenda.
Santorum then highlights 10 areas of tax and economic policy:
- Increase energy production
- Reduce regulation, especially at EPA
- New tax rate structure, with only two rates (10%, 28%), along with tripling child deduction and eliminating marriage penalty
- Cut corporate tax rate in half, to 17.5%, and eliminate tax on repatriated income
- Cut spending $5 trillion over five years
- Repeal Obamacare (mentioned along with the requisite attack on Romneycare.)
- Balance budget in 4 years and support Balanced Budget Amendment
- Support free trade agreements
- Reform, reduce, and block grant entitlement programs
- Housing: Phase out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and allow tax deduction for capital loss on homes
It’s a strong plan, commendable for its relative simplicity, with little to disagree with.
One small criticism, which plays into the overall perception of many (including me) that there may be an uncomfortably large degree of influence of Santorum’s social views on his policy positions, relates to his suggestion of tripling the child tax deduction.
There are two separate aspects of the tax code which deal with children. One is a per-child tax credit of $1,000. This may be what most people think of when they hear the proposal, but it is not what Mr. Santorum is suggesting increasing.
Instead, as he clarified in a letter to the WSJ last week, Mr. Santorum said that his intent is to triple the personal exemption: “Families would be able to subtract $11,100 from income for each child instead of $3,700, an extra $7,400. For a family in the 10% bracket, this would reduce the tax liability by $740. For a family with no tax liability, there would be no effect.”
I do appreciate that Santorum suggests a change which does not increase payments through the tax system for those who pay no income tax, and which is not modeled in implicit class warfare terms.
But Santorum’s plan would probably add something on the order of $100 billion to the deficit, with its ultimate impact — whether there are offsetting spending cuts or reduced other tax cuts — being a transfer of money from those who don’t have children to those who do, or from those with a few children to those with many children.
If people can’t afford to raise children, they shouldn’t have children. Furthermore, while I absolutely support tax policy which is applied equally across all levels of income, the biggest beneficiaries of Santorum’s policy suggestion are those in the highest income bracket, who can afford to raise their own children without taking money from a single person still trying to build up a nest egg to eventually afford having children of her own.
Santorum’s tax plan has much to be admired, and I don’t want to overstate the importance of one negative within a 10-point plan. Still, his obvious willingness and desire to change our culture through the tax code is different only in detail (rather than in fundamental understanding of the proper role of government) from anything Barack Obama might do to “spread the wealth around.”
Santorum’s tax plan would be a vast improvement over what we’re living through now, and is arguably stronger than Mitt Romney’s (though Romney’s “revamped” plan is good enough). I just wish it didn’t reinforce my fear — shared by many, and certainly to be made a huge issue by Team Obama should Rick Santorum win the GOP nomination — that Santorum would be overly influenced by his social and religious views when it comes to governing.
View all comments (46) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Ross Kaminsky
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/27/santorums-tax-plan
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Ricky Santorum| 2.27.12 @ 9:41AM
God willing, we will prevail, in peace and freedom from fear, and in true health, through the purity and essence of our precious bodily fluids. God bless you all.
Willard Romneyfeller| 2.27.12 @ 11:02AM
who cares?
when I get through sliming this guy, no one will recognize his plan.
MikeN| 2.27.12 @ 10:01AM
The child tax credit has no short or medium term growth effects, but the long term effect may be positive. Where do you get the people to pay these benefits or grow your economy without kids? Ramesh Ponnuru suggested a $5000 epr child credit to payroll taxes as well.
Purple Lips| 2.27.12 @ 10:34AM
Good point. This should be kept in mind when we consider that each child represents a person who will be expected to support a whole gaggle of old people through Medicaire and Social Security.
Ricky "Church Lady" Santorum| 2.27.12 @ 2:33PM
SATAN!
Bill| 2.27.12 @ 10:03AM
Guess Who?
voted for
1. Raising the debt ceiling 5 times
2. Planned Parenthood
3. Medicare Part D
4. NCLB
5. Bridge to nowhere
voted against
1. "Right-to-Work" law
Ans: Ricky "Keystone big-government pro-union RINO" Santorum
Purple Lips| 2.27.12 @ 10:38AM
And Ronald Reagan was the second govenor to allow abortion on demand; he also tripled the Social Security payroll tax; he signed into law massive new regulations of health insurance companies; he granted amnesty to illegal aliens and voted into law (which was repealed within a month) a massive new catastrophic health insurance entitlement for Medicaire patients.
You look close enough at any pols record and you will find lots of stuff that turns your stomach.
Tim the Enchanter| 2.27.12 @ 2:38PM
Love your handle.
Bill| 2.27.12 @ 3:01PM
adding to my previous comments, santorum is also a "terrible" debater.
NealGrahamOne| 2.27.12 @ 3:27PM
I am not voting for "debater in chief", I am voting for PRESIDENT of the United States of America.
As far as the points you bring up on Santorum, EVERY politician that has been in Washington DC for multiple terms - will have multiple votes where they voted FOR the overall bill but would have voted AGAINST the individual items within the bill that are against their values and ideals. It is IMPOSSIBLE to accomplish anything (see Ron Paul's record), unless you are willing to give a little to get a little.
Not only that, but budgets in general are voted on as a giant overall package. The members of the House and Senate do not have the ability to say I vote FOR subsections 1-45, 47-84, 86-99, 101, 103-144, 146-end, and AGAINST 46, 85, 100, 102, 145. That simply isn't how congress works.
Simply stated it is IMPOSSIBLE for a member of the Congress to ALWAYS vote their principles, UNLESS they are willing to get NOTHING ACCOMPLISHED. To get things accomplished, you have to pick your battles. You HAVE to be a team player to get things accomplished.
Mittens Romneycakes was Ridiculous when he attacked Rick Santorum for requesting earmarks for PA, because Mittens himself BEGGED for earmarks for MA and for the Olympics as well!
Ryan| 2.27.12 @ 10:04AM
We get rid of some of the class and social engineering with a Fairtax - style plan. No loopholes, no carveouts.
David T| 2.27.12 @ 10:36AM
I'm afraid the Fairtax would start a boom in the underground economy. I like Newt's optional flat tax on incomes along with elimination of capital gains and death taxes.
Haddit| 2.27.12 @ 4:11PM
Tell me David......Ya think there isn't an underground economy regarding taxes right now? People who never have paid a tax will pay with the fair tax. If they want to eat they will pay.
Brendan| 2.27.12 @ 10:09AM
Santorum needs to pick up on Newt's Alzheimer's concept. Currently, dementia related treatment is almost 1/3 of medicare payments, and it is expected to continue to be the major cost of medicare. Newt feels that the must be a concerted effort to find a cure. Although I usually feel that govt should stay out of most issues, this is one I feel needs major funding (to universities and research hospitals). By major I mean in the billions. Obama spends billions on renewable (and has promised a pittance of 156 million this year, almost certainly in response to Newt) but energy is, if govt gets out of the way, not a clear and present danger.
Kidney disease costs almost $40 billion. There are solutions that are very close on actually growing new kidneys using adult stem cells (thereby eliminating the need for expensive antirejection drugs). The research needed to get this over the finish line would actually lead to the ability to create transplants that don't need antirejection drugs for a whole host of organs, so this is another one.
Quin, if you are reading, this needs to be added to Santorum's plank. Yes, it is a govt program. But its designed to eliminate an even more expensive one. Alzheimers is a plague that needs attention.
Al Adab| 2.27.12 @ 2:57PM
Read through the WSJ article and saw that, like any plan, it may need refining. However, I prefer a candidate who has given some thought to the matter, who has devised a plan (as Mr. Cain did) to those who have none and only attack the other potential nominees.
Clark | 2.27.12 @ 10:12AM
Anybody who believes that Any Republican is going to balance the budget is deluding themselves.
Purple Lips| 2.27.12 @ 10:39AM
You have a point.
Al Adab| 2.27.12 @ 2:51PM
Excuse me gentlemen but you don't really expect the DEMS to balance it do you? It took a GOP Congress to force Clinton into it.
Purple Lips| 2.27.12 @ 2:56PM
Nope. But the GOP's track record from 2002-2006 wasn't exactly inspiring.
Al Adab| 2.27.12 @ 3:00PM
P L:
I do not disagree and that is why many Conservatives criticized Bush and the Congress for mishandling the issue. Sadly, voter discontent gave us 2006 and 2008. Perhaps we have learned that the DEMs are not a viable alternative in which to discover proper government.
David T| 2.27.12 @ 10:38AM
Ross--Whose "social and religious views" would you prefer, Santorum's or Obama's?
Ross Kaminsky | 2.27.12 @ 4:25PM
Neither.
Dai Alanye | 2.27.12 @ 10:41AM
The US needs children to avoid becoming Japan, and children are expensive while young. Santorum's plan merely acknowledges demographic and economic realities, regardless of his social ideas.
Brooklyn| 2.27.12 @ 11:16AM
It disturbs me that so many in the media are scaring people about Santorum's religious beliefs. Do you really think a triple tax exemption is going to pass? I'm not religious, but I am spiritual and deeply respect people of faith. And I look with relief at a man who talks the talk and walks the straight and narrow walk, even though me and many others may not as much as we think we should. Religion has been undermined and attacked since the 1960's and the Democrats starting with George Stephenopolous bringing up contraception as an issue to the fore, even though access to contraceptives is not a problem.
Whether a state has the power to make laws to ban contraception is a constitutional question and Santorum gave a constitutional answer that they can. That is not the finding in Griswold, but that is a case where the Court extended its reach by defining a right to privacy within the penumbras of the Bill of Rights. I did not know what a penumbra was, until I read this case in law school, but basically the Court created a power for itself that did not exist by implying rights that were not written into the Bill of Rights that the Court has the power to determine. In the Griswold case, a Yale law professor and a Yale medical professor with a married couple, set up a case where the doctor suggests that the married couple use contractives, they buy the contraceptives, and the doctor, couple and law professor called the cops and insisted they be arrested for breaking a law the state does not enforce. The purpose was to get the case to the Warren Court to create the right of privacy and later used it for the Roe case.
Santorum's answer was not based on his religious beliefs, but on his understanding of the Constitution. If the people of a state don't want contraception bans, they could get their state legislature not to do it.
This nuanced reasoning gets lost in the media. Ed Koch in a radio interview yesterday said Santorum is nuts and wants to enforce his beliefs on people and ban contraceptions, when Santorum said no such thing. In fact, in that same Stephenopolous debate and in other venues he said he did not want to do that.
As to your point that he may institute policy that encourage people to marry and have children, your objections do not take into account that we have an aging population in this country, and a culture that encourages people to marry late, have children late if at all, and lead sexually active lives outside of marriage from an early age, and if they get pregnant, have an abortion. Which culture would be better for ourselves, our communities and our country?
One.Day| 2.27.12 @ 11:31AM
I live in Michigan. I flirted briefly with Santorum but there was just too much there that turned me off. I'm not a practicing Christian and I don't think religion should be mixed with government. So I'm back in the Romney camp. At least Mitt doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve quite so much. Not all conservatives are Christians, or comfortable with having Christianity shoved in their faces. I know many of you will take offense to that but it's true. And no, I don't prefer Obama or his shady brand of black liberation theology but that does kind of prove my point about not wanting someone's religious ideology so much a factor in governing.
Al Adab| 2.27.12 @ 2:55PM
One Day:
Religion for many is the source of their principles. That includes Romney whose religion is, well a bit different from any standard Christian theology. That may be exaqctly why he does not discuss it.
I would prefer candidates who make clear the source of their governing philosophy and its implications in real world decision making.
NealGrahamOne| 2.27.12 @ 7:17PM
Rick Santorum has stated repeatedly, and his record bears this out, that he will NOT force his religious beliefs upon the country. It will of course affect his decision making process, but beliefs would also affect the decision making process of an agnostic or even an athiest.
Mitt Romney on the other hand is extremely LIBERAL in his beliefs, and is willing to LIE to people's faces to get votes.
On the other side of the equation, Rick Santorum is willing to stick to his beliefs and won't back down just because it becomes inconvenient.
Misha| 2.27.12 @ 11:35AM
Many conservatives agree with Santorum's child tax deduction plan. An article by the editors at NRO reviewing Romney's new plan, attack Mitt for not having this included like Santorum.
"Second, the plan breaks with the party’s emerging consensus that families bear a disproportionately heavy part of the tax burden. The plan would leave parents paying a slightly higher proportion of the tax burden than they already do. This was a large missed opportunity"
For me this is another plus of Santorum's plan, and since it is not a credit, if you do not pay taxes already you get no advantage, but if you are working and contributing, then the burden is lessened, correcting the imbalance that exists in the code now against married couples and families.
wodiej| 2.27.12 @ 3:10PM
I bet they do agree with it. Why should I pay more taxes for people to raise their kids? Can't afford them, don't have them.
Joseph Smith| 2.27.12 @ 1:13PM
The angel Moroni appeared to me and told me that this was a bad plan. So did lil' brother Satan.
Ricky "Church Lady" Santorum| 2.27.12 @ 2:33PM
SATAN!
Haddit| 2.27.12 @ 4:13PM
Obama antichrist!!!
wodiej| 2.27.12 @ 3:05PM
Newt gets Dynamic By STEPHEN MOORE
Overlooked because of the buzz about Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's new 20% income tax cut plan was the latest splash out of rival Newt Gingrich's economic policy shop.
Mr. Gingrich has announced he will use dynamic, not static, scoring to demonstrate his plan's potential to jumpstart growth. The former House speaker arguably has the boldest tax plan, which includes a 15% optional flat tax. He would also allow young workers to take a share of their payroll tax dollars and divert the funds into a personal IRA.
These plans have come under attack from liberal groups like the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and even from some of Mr. Gingrich's fellow Republicans. On Thursday Mr. Gingrich showed that using this dynamic scoring -- which takes into account the extra economic steroid effect of the plan -- there would be six million new jobs in two years.
The new economic numbers, from former Reagan economists Peter Ferrara and Gary Robbins, also show that the Gingrich policies would balance the budget within the first term of his presidency.
In an interview, Mr. Gingrich said that "we make the most serious cuts in entitlements of any of the candidates." He's embraced many of the Paul Ryan entitlement reforms and calls for a sweeping devolution of the welfare programs to the states. Mr. Gingrich stressed "the crucial role that growth plays in balancing the budget. We figured that out when I was speaker."
His plan calls for the "elimination of the capital gains tax and death tax, deregulation and sound monetary policy," as well as for rolling back the "regulatory barriers to energy production [and] unleashing the private sector to maximize all forms of American energy production."
There's no doubt Newt is the real supply-sider in this race," said Mr. Ferrara. "And now we have evidence the numbers actually add up." Exciting stuff, but whether that's enough to jump start a candidate who was briefly a front-runner but has slid into the teens in recent polling is yet to be seen.
wodiej| 2.27.12 @ 3:09PM
Gingrich policies would create 6.6 million new jobs in first 2 years and balance budget by end of first term.
http://www.newt.org/news/gingr.....irst-term/
david| 2.27.12 @ 4:37PM
does he say that?
smokedaddy| 2.27.12 @ 4:18PM
Who the hell does Ross think will be caring for and paying for the multitude of freeriding, childless seniors fifty years from now? Today's parents who go above and beyond the call of their duty and raise kids who will be paying for not only their parents, but individuals who prefer to rely on other people's children for their sustenance, are to be encouraged and enabled. Now, yes, absent the Social Security Ponzi scheme we have today, it would be people's own personal business whether they forego investing in children. But given the facts of today's safety net that's a little ridiculous.
Ross Kaminsky | 2.27.12 @ 4:26PM
I didn't say people shouldn't have kids. I said they shouldn't have kids if they can't afford to support them without taking other peoples' money.
C Bowen | 2.27.12 @ 6:54PM
Ross,
Public finance of daycare aka public schooling ages 5-18 has to be part of the argument or the rest is moot.
You are on the right track, just not finishing the thought.
My children are not part of the public school system, and I don't want to pay for my neighbor's day care anymore then the childless or empty nester.
That is what has to be exploited, and in this case, Santorum voted for No Child Left Behind.
Oldefarte| 2.27.12 @ 5:15PM
That's about the most asininely stupidist thing that I've possibly ever heard in my 66 years on this earth. Moron, are you aware that children are now MOVING BACK INSIDE THEIR PARENTS' HOMES DUE TO THEIR OWN STUPIDITY AND INABILITY TO OBTAIN JOBS AND TO FINANCIALLY SUPPORT THEMSELVES? Grow a brain! The people on SS have for the most part PAID FOR their SS benefits through their lifetime of employment SS deductions and their only becoming recipient of SS after 65. The snot nosed generation of imbiciles earning minimum wages at Micky D's are not supporting seniors and never will.....hades they can't even support their own selves and their illegitimate children conceived through their hos! Give me a break, stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!
david| 2.27.12 @ 4:36PM
bs this guy is as liberal as it gets
Oldefarte| 2.27.12 @ 5:09PM
Of course he would be overly influenced by religious and social issues, and the Republican Party will lose substantially if Santorum is nominated :
'..... Santorum a Good Man in Wrong Century
Monday, February 27, 2012 09:57 AM
By: Kathleen Parker
Let me be blunt: If Republicans nominate Rick Santorum, they will lose.
The prospect of four more years of Barack Obama holds some appeal for many Americans, but probably not for most Republicans. It may give doubters among them some comfort, however, to know that Obama and Santorum share the same prayer: that Santorum be the Republican nominee.
It gives me no pleasure to rap Santorum, a man I know and respect even if I disagree with him on some issues. Not that he minds. He's a scrapper who loves a fight — and he forgives. Bottom line: Santorum is a good man. He's just a good man in the wrong century.
This doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong about everything, but he's so far out of step with the majority of Americans that he can't hope to win the votes of moderates and independents so crucial to victory in November. The Republican Party's insistence on conservative purity, meanwhile, will result in the cold comfort of defeat with honor and, in the longer term, potential extinction.
Increasingly, the party is growing grayer and whiter. Nine out of 10 Republicans are non-Hispanic white and about half are highly religious, according to Gallup. This isn't news, but when this demographic is suddenly associated with renewed debate about whether women should have access to contraception — never mind abortion — suddenly they begin to look like the Republican Brotherhood.
Add to that perception the abhorrent, pre-abortion ultrasound legislation proposed in Virginia, and you can kiss the Pope's ring and voters' retreating backsides.
The proposed law, temporarily tabled, called for women seeking an abortion to be forced to submit to a vaginal ultrasound. Aldous Huxley's "The Devils of Loudon" comes to mind, but he was writing about exorcisms in a convent of 17th-century France. When did Republicans, who supposedly believe in less government intervention, begin thinking that invading a person's body against her will was remotely acceptable?
Saner minds have prevailed, at least for now, but the fact that the bill was ever conceived and taken seriously by at least some number of legislators gives freedom-loving voters every reason to run the other way.
Informed consent is, in my view, a reasonable goal. Surely removal of a human fetus deserves the same level of awareness we would insist upon in removing, say, a gall bladder. If some women change their minds after viewing the contents of their womb, then they obviously needed more information than they had going in. Still, any procedure should be voluntary, and inserting a probe into a woman against her will is rape by any other name.
Obviously, this is no place for the state.
The Virginia bill and the broader (bogus) message often repeated on left-leaning talk shows that Republicans are campaigning against birth control have created a perfect storm for defeat. The math is clear: Sixty-seven percent of women are either Democrats (41 percent) or independents (26 percent); more women than men vote; 55 percent of women ages 18-22 voted in the 2008 presidential election.
Republicans are caught in a nearly impossible situation, none more than the more temperate-minded Mitt Romney. It is important to remember, however, why contraception came up in the first place. Republicans were forced to man their battlements by the Obama administration's new healthcare rule mandating that Catholic organizations pay for contraception in violation of conscience.
From there, things spiraled out of the realm of religious liberty, where this debate belongs, and into the fray of moral differences.
Santorum's original surge was based not on social issues but on his authenticity and his ability to identify with middle-class struggles. He was the un-Romney. But now this appealing profile has been occluded by social positions that make him an outlier to mainstream Americans.
Republicans may sleep better if they nominate The most conservative person in the world, but they won't be seeing the executive branch anytime soon. It's too bad this election season got lost in the weeds of religious conviction. It wouldn't have happened if the Obama administration had simply taken one of several other routes available for providing birth control to women who want it.
Instead, Obama aimed right at the heart of the Republican Party and, one can only assume, got exactly what he wanted: a culture war in which Rick Santorum would be the natural point man and, in the broader public's perception, the voice of the GOP.....'
teflon93| 2.27.12 @ 6:47PM
"I just wish it didn't reinforce my fear -- shared by many, and certainly to be made a huge issue by Team Obama should Rick Santorum win the GOP nomination -- that Santorum would be overly influenced by his social and religious views when it comes to governing."
Well, apparently Romney's liberalism doesn't scare Kaminsky at all.
Scott Ryan| 2.28.12 @ 12:04AM
Newt wants YOU to vote Santorum in Michigan (opinion)
http://www.TableOfWisdom.com
MissouriConservative| 2.28.12 @ 10:47AM
Hey Rick,get a clue, it is the economy stupid! Santorum scares me as a Republican as his indication from the great speech from Kennedy is that he would take marching orders from the Vatican. I no more want that than from Jerry Falwell. The "snob" remark was over the top. That is a petty liberal tactic to drop a name bomb. Of course, with Santorum, he may be a social conservative, his spending record is pretty liberal.
Mdepie| 2.28.12 @ 3:13PM
Some of us think that everyone elected will be influenced by his social and religious views when governing. It is only a matter of what views will prevail. In a society where very large and popular social welfare programs like social security and medicare are dependent on a large number of workers supporting a smaller number of older people, policies to encourage family formation would seem to be common sense. I would also argue the primary debate is really between those who see the family as the primary social unit versus the individual. It is the divide between the Traditionalist and Libertarian wings of the Conservative movement. If you are a libertarian leaning Republican, then you will favor a Romney like technician, not so much because his economic plan is better than Santorum's but because you are convinced that he is not really serious about his social conservatism regardless of his rhetoric, and you evidently are not bothered by the essence of Obamacare. Romney Care being very similar. If you like Santorum, it will not be because his economic plan is so much better than Romneys ( at the end of the day they are going to end up looking pretty similar) But because you know his social conservatism is a serious one, and/ or you are horrified at the prospect of what Obamacare would do to society. It seems clear that Santorum would actually more readily repeal it, rather than tinker with it. This is really an easy choice for me. Santorum is better than Romney. I suspect though that the Romeny advantage in terms of money, organization, and establishment backing is formidable and will prevail. I also think that this that this will not be enough to beat Obama. Turnout is down in every primary Romney wins, because he proceeds by crushing his opponent with negative ads and Drudge report feeds, while offering little that would excite someone to work for him. What about a Romney presidency is interesting?
FeFe| 3.3.12 @ 3:26AM
Ewww children! They wont grow up to take care of their parents because we dump our parents on the state with migrant nurses here in America. And don't rub your religious values cooties onto me! Why can't you leave all that God nonsense to the Founding Fathers, they were nuts. America is a moral enterprise? Like, no way man. It take us select few with Ivy degrees to redistribute your money because you all stoopid and selfish. /sarc?
Let me simply say this, the child credit you speak of is designed to take less in taxes from the individual. Get it? Smaller. Someone has to earn this money before the government takes it. You sound greedy, Mr. Kaminsky.