Let me build on Charles Krauthammer’s great Friday column, “The GOP’s Suicide March.” Krauthammer argues that just as President Obama’s class-warfare, soak-the-rich mantra started lagging in the polls, some Republicans on the campaign trail started making the case that Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital was involved in nothing more than vulture capitalism, looting companies, and destroying jobs. Keeping class envy alive.
I’m not going to name names, because everybody knows who these Republicans are. Instead, I want to go positive, and commend Mitt Romney himself. Romney did his best in the second South Carolina debate to fight for free-market capitalism and Adam Smith, and against the spread of Obama-style crony capitalism and class envy.
Advertisement
During the Thursday night debate, Romney launched this:
“You’ve got to stop the spread of crony capitalism. [Obama] gives General Motors to the UAW. He takes $500 million and sticks it into Solyndra. He stacks the labor stooges on the NLRB so they can say no to Boeing and take care of their friends in the labor movement. . . . He has to bow to the most extreme members of the environmental movement. He turns down the Keystone pipeline, which would bring energy and jobs to America.
“My view is capitalism works. Free enterprise works. . . . There’s nothing wrong with profit, by the way. That profit went to pension funds, to charities. It went to a wide array of institutions. . . . And by the way, as enterprises become more profitable, they can hire more people. I’m someone who believes in free enterprise. I think Adam Smith was right. And I’m gonna stand and defend capitalism across this country, throughout this campaign. I know we’re going to get hit hard from President Obama, but we’re gonna stuff it down his throat and point out that it is capitalism and freedom that makes America strong.”
Whoa. Tough stuff. The right stuff.
I watched this on DVR late at night. So just to be sure, I read the transcript the next morning. Still there. And let me say, this is exactly what the Republicans must say.
The issue of crony capitalism should be front and center in this campaign. President Obama defends his cronies instead of the so called 99 percent. That’s his contradiction. Big Labor, Big Business, and Big Green Energy are collections of cronies with big jobs, big salaries, and big privileges. Nothing to do with the 99 percent.
But Governor Romney can go even further to slam crony capitalism. This is where tax-reform and deep spending cuts come in. A flattening of tax rates should be accompanied by the elimination of cronied tax deductions, exemptions, and carve-outs. Even more, we should get rid of crony corporate welfare wherever it exists, including crony government subsidies to energy, exports, and agriculture. Wherever it exists.
Let’s say you went to two tax brackets at 10 and 25 percent, as per Paul Ryan’s plan, or even the next step of a single-rate flat tax. Here, all the crony tax advantages should be wiped out. They won’t be necessary at lower rates and their removal would end crony favoritism.
Finally, Romney can punctuate his crony-capitalism attack by telling folks he will overturn and upend the prevailing Washington, D.C., establishment.
Sadly, with the exception Rick Santorum making the case for lower tax rates, Thursday night’s debate had virtually no discussion of tax reform. Newt Gingrich never even once mentioned his 15 percent flat-tax plan. Unfortunately, Newt still leaves most deductions and carve-outs in place, and that needs to be fixed.
That aside, Governor Romney capped his strong performance with a Reaganesque summation. As he has in the past, he criticized Obama for trying to “transform” America from a merit society — an opportunity society where people are free to choose — to a European-style entitlement society. Romney said, “We need to restore the values that made America the hope of the Earth. . . . [President Obama] has made it almost impossible for our private sector to reboot. . . . I will defeat Barack Obama and keep America as it’s always been, the shining [city] on a hill.”
Strong stuff. Good stuff.
Is anyone listening?
– Larry Kudlow, NRO’s economics editor, is host of CNBC’s The Kudlow Report and author of the daily web log, Kudlow’s Money Politic$.
Agree with you, Mr. Kudlow. Now, if only Mr. Romney would embrace an unapologetic pro-growth, small government set of policies with as much vigor as he *finally* exhibited Thursday evening.
But why do I not believe Mitt when he says what he "will do" vs what he "has done"?
His 59 point, whatever plan is premised on pretty much the status quo...he seems very much like a big government statist and a dyed in the wool moderate, at best.
Past results are better indicators for future results than are "cheap talk".
Re: "Even more, we should get rid of crony corporate welfare wherever it exists, including crony government subsidies to energy, exports, and agriculture. Wherever it exists."
Yeah, but Romney buys into the Crony Capitalist Labor model of importing Asian technologists to displace American workers. The imports are not more competent than Americans, just cheaper.
Romney wants to open wide that faucet of compliant indentured servants while American born scientists, engineers and programmers pound the pavement. Romney's web page policy position states that he's only too happy to grease up Crony immigration for his Plutocrat Pals in Silicon Valley and the Investment Banks.
Romney may be a selective Crony Stooge. But he's a Crony Stooge just the same.
Refusing to use government force to artificially prop up labor prices is not "crony capitalism". It is disliked by those people whose wages fall to fair market value, but it has nothing to do with what Obama does, which is forcibly take money from taxpayers and hand it to his cronies.
When "crony capitalism" is defined this way it becomes wholly meaningless.
It's not the government's job to control immigration? Under that rubric, every American's job could fall below "fair market value" if the floodgates of immigration were fully opened. (Which Romney supports for technologists.)
So you're for open borders and let the employment chips fall where they may?
It's companies like Microsoft and Eli Lilly that want access to cheap Asian labor. (Just like agri-business wants cheap Hispanic labor.) And they both want the government to enable it. That's Crony Capitalism.
Oh, c'mon. Bain Capital was and is involved in as much 'crony capitalism' as any other company. Mitt can't effectively talk about this subject without opening himself up to some very pointed questions regarding millions of dollars he procured from the Feds for companies they were investing in.
Were they involved in some special way, or was it because the game is set up so that you have scratch the right backs to operate? I ask this seriously. I don't know enough about Bain's operations.
As far as Romney goes, he's on record backing ethanol subsidies, which is one huge and egregious case of crony capitalism.
Well, if he procured funds for companies that got them only because they were the pet projects of environmental fruitcakes, or were owned by donors to the Obama machine, or were doomed to fail anyway, or who were controlled by unions (more donors to the machine) -- in other words, if there were no sound business reason, then you might have a point.
But somehow I doubt that this happened. Not to say that demagogues will not try to skim for talking points and ignore the real distinctions, but at least he'd have a good chance of making his case.
Sheesh. Mitchell complimented him, yet she helpfully followed up by declaring this "the 1%" thing to be valid. He's at least starting to deny the premise. We must go much further with the reframing. Oh, how I wish Jonah's new book was out already! I hope it has a whole chapter on this 1%/99% BS.
Another fact-free presentation divorced from any facts and filled with innuendo and aspersion. Written for folks who have no mind or ability to discern truth from fiction. A political screed of the worst kind. One does not have to be a Democrat or a backer of Obama to see this as superficial and an example of whats wrong with our political discourse. this is free speech in a league with Family Guy.
Sorry, but government subsidies to certain industries or projects whose success are in America's long term interest are not "crony capitalism."
As a matter of fact, neither are the most popular tax deductions such as the mortgage interest and the charitable tax deduction.
Either or both of these may be poor public policy, but conflating them and calling them "crony capitalism" just muddies the water and weakens the arguments against them by implying some sort of backscratching backroom deal that just isn't there.
And in general, arguments for pure, unrestrained, free market capitalism go too far and just leave space for Obama to claim the middle ground.
Just because I love football doesn't mean i want to see referees removed from the game.
Similarly, just because I believe in capitalism doesn't mean that every regulation constraining some types of business behavior are bad.
Rules allow the contest to truly go to the best prepared and most talented
The fact of the matter is that if GM and Chrysler went bankrupt the unemployment rate in this country would have skyrocketed right when the country was at its most vulnerable. Yes, the deal that was struck for these companies may have favored the unions too much, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Just because defense contracts favor the military industry is no reason to rail against defense spending is it?
Michigan is already gone to the Republicans due to the GM bailout, don't throw Ohio and Indiana away too.
Republicans fall too easily into the trap of "Obama did it, its bad" , they relinquish the middle ground and allow Democrats to box them in to a far right corner.
And calls to close the EPA,etc... just play right into Obama's hands.
romney is the class of the field. unfortunately, i didn't see a single cable station replay that clip. all they were interested in was the feigned display of outrage by gingrich.
Agree with you wholeheartedly Larry - and I also want to know why no one else is hearing this - instead of just jumping up and down for the bombastic diatribes of a man who criticised Bain Capital and the free enterprise system just a week earlier? Short memories everyone?
And no, Bain Capital doesn't (and can't) exhibit crony capitalism because that reference is only used for the government sector. Anybody is free to invest anywhere in the private market - if you want to use the same bank everyday just go ahead. (So unfortunately many of you are still carping at free enterprise like its some dirty word). What we are talking with crony capitalism is government officials propping up companies and entities solely on the campaign contributions provided - like Solyndra and the unions et al. And not approving Keystone just to keep the environmental wingbats in line.
Romney has it right - and is the most measured intelligent person on that stage. Meanwhile Newt started out his campaign on a cruise to Greece and no organization - that is not a man I want in the White House. Or in my living room.
There is no doubt about it: Mitt Romney is the perfect face of the 1%.
He does not work and gets the yearly wage of a MainSt worker in one DAY if it is true what I heard and I calculated right.
When I immigrated to the USA somone told me, welcome to capitalism central. Yes, welcome to a country that blinds its people by boasting about being the land of the free. A groundless claim because one truth is not considered but valid. The rich rule over the poor and the borrower is servant to the lender, as Salomon says.
So what went wrong? You cannot serve both, God and riches says the Bible.
And in this respect the 99% of the USA are responsible as well. As long as they refuse to accept Christ as King of King, supreme lawgiver and head of all governments, they will not have a free society. Democracy is a smoke screen. It is ruled by the rich. Currently more than ever because of the huge national debt.
Watch: German preacher's thoughts on 2012 External Link
Who is the German preacher? I've never seen or heard of him; he is certainly not a major voice in Germany. I suggest that he focus his attention on German problems like the money wasted on solar energy because people are intimidated by green threats. He might also raise questions about the communists in parliament, including one who is now romantically involved with Oscar Lafontaine (both are married). I could go on, but I just wanted to illustrate the scope of problems he doesn't deal with.
If you fall for this jerk, you have a real problem.
Follow
