Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Rick Perry: Opps! Calling Anti-Illegal Immigration Supporters Was Mistake

After insulting Conservatives during two separate debates by stating that those who oppose in-state tuition are heartless and are racist because they don’t like people whose names sound different, it has taken Rick Perry almost a week later to realize his mistake. Today he issued his non-apology and you watch the full interview below. He attempts to walk back his statement around the 5:25 mark. 

Here's the key quote: 
“I was probably a bit over-passionate by using that word and it was inappropriate,” Perry admitted. “In Texas in 2001 we had 181 members of the legislature – only four voted against this piece of legislation – because it wasn’t about immigration it was about education.”
The fact that Perry is doing damage control a week after the debates instead of the day after the debates will not get him any redemption in the eyes of conservative voters. The fact that he has waited this long to offer his non-appology reeks of desperation since he's now issuing his mea culpa after he lost the Florida straw poll after working so hard to win it and that polls show up. He also may be saying sorry because his poll numbers are dropping quickly in places like Florida and Iowa. Finally, he might be offering his mea culpa now since wealthy donors are ditching Rick Perry and running to Mitt Romney. 
Rick Perry has done more damage to himself than any other candidate and his attempts at damage control  almost a week later, are only continuing to hurt him rather than help him. Its too late for him now to repair the damage he's done to himself. Conservatives will not and should not be easily forgiving to a candidate who was so willing to demoagouge them not once but twice by implying the worst motives for their opposition to subsidized tuition for illegal immigrants. 
Whats even worse, Rick Perry appears to be clueless as to why conservatives are angry with him. Ace, a well known conservative blogger, explains why Rick Perry's apology shouldn't be accepted. Its worth reading.
 

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Why I'm Fairly Confident ObamaCare Will Be Held Unconstitutional

With ObamaCare potentially coming before the United States Supreme Court as early as this fall, people are already wondering and debating how the Justices will rule on the constitutionality of Obama's health care plan. 
I am fairly confident that the ObamaCare will be held unconstitutional by a 5-4 vote. We can be fairly certain that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer will vote to uphold Obama's health care plan as constitutional. We also absolutely confident that Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and John Roberts will strike down the law as unconstitutional. 
The lone vote will probably come down to Judge Anthony Kennedy who will most likely vote against ObamaCare. How certain am I this will happen? Judge Kennedy gave us a sneak peak of how he might rule on ObamaCare based on how he ruled in the Supreme Court case Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn
If Kennedy remains consistent in his holding, he will strike down ObamaCare on basis that it violates the Commerce clause because the law makes an unproven assumption about people's choices in purchasing or not purchasing health insurance: 
A key provision of that 2010 law is the “individual mandate.” It requires most Americans to buy health insurance or face a hefty fine. Such an imposition on private health choices is based on an unproven assertion that everyone at some point will use a hospital emergency room. (The mandate also provides the major funding to achieve universal health care.)
But in writing for the court’s majority in Monday’s ruling, Kennedy warns against government action based on hypotheticals or conjecture. Courts especially should not endorse mere speculation and must instead deal with actual or imminent situations.
He argues against making inferences about “premises as to which there remains considerable doubt” or that are “not particular to certain persons.”
Such general language reflects Kennedy’s long-held caution about government overreach – which could include the health-care mandate. The justice also is often concerned about liberty of conscience, as he noted in this latest ruling.
His approach won the day in the 5-to-4 decision involving an Arizona program that allows individuals to keep $500 of income that they might owe the state if they give that money to groups that provide private-school scholarships for needy children.
His reasoning against ObamaCare can be explained this way:
Note the concepts here – speculative and conjectural – that could also apply to the premise of the health-care mandate, which is that everyone will someday use medical care at the expense of others.
Kennedy makes clear that any legal standing for taxpayers on church-state issues should be based on specific injury, not theoretical causation. The same reasoning could easily apply to the various federal court cases on the health-care mandate now working their way up to the Supreme Court.
I'm fairly confident that Kennedy will strike down ObamaCare based on his decision in Winn. Moreover,  Judge Henry Hudson and Judge Roger Vinson, have struck down ObamaCare based on the same reasoning that Kennedy did in Winn. Kennedy can simply carry Judge Hudson and Vinson Winn's argument in his decision on ObamaCare. 
Kennedy's decision in Winn can give Americans the confident it needs to know that ObamaCare will be held unconstitutional.

Monday, September 26, 2011

Obama Makes His Choice: ObamaCare Will Go Before The Supreme Court

In my last post, I wrote about how Obama had the choice to decide when his health care plan would be heard before the United States Supreme Court. He could have the case heard this upcoming fall or he could have it heard sometime in the next year or two. Well, Obama made his choice:
The Obama administration chose not to ask the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to re-hear a pivotal health reform case Monday, signaling that it’s going to ask the Supreme Court to decide whether President Barack Obama’s health reform law is constitutional.
the Obama Administration intentionally missed the deadline required to seek a review from the 11th District court of Appeal which struck down his health care plan: 
Since the ruling, the Justice Department had until Monday to ask the entire 11th Circuit to review the case. Administration lawyers didn’t file the paperwork by the 5 p.m. deadline, so the ruling would stand unless the Justice Department asks the Supreme Court to step in.
The petition isn’t due until November, and the administration could get an extension.
The timing of when to file and when the case will be heard will be risky for the Obama administration:
But a Supreme Court ruling in the middle of a presidential election could carry serious political risks, since a decision upholding or striking the mandate has the potential to galvanize either Republicans or Democrats.
If the court accepts the case before January, it is likely to be put on the calendar to be heard in the spring. A decision would likely be postponed until June.
Many spectators are confused why Obama is chosing to go ahead and have it heard so close to the election. Some people believe that the Obama Administration is confident they will win. Others believe Obama will use it as a rallying cry to motivate the liberals to relect him to another term so that he can put more progressive liberal judges on the Supreme Court bench in the event ObamaCare is found unconstitutional.
For me, it doesn't matter why Obama is choosing to go ahead rather than delay having his health plan heard at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court leans right thanks to President Bush appointing Judge Alito and John Roberts and the outcome will be that ObamaCare will be struck down on a 5-4 vote. 
Obama seems to be confident that he will prevail. I think he's about to be in for a real shock. 

Obama Decides When ObamaCare Will Die: Will It Be Sooner or Later?

One way or another, ObamaCare will end in 2012. ObamaCare could be undone by a Republican majority in both houses of Congress. It might be terminated with a new Republican president like Mitt Romney who has declared that he will repeal ObamaCare by issuing an executive order that will instruct the Secretary of Health and Human services to grant a waiver to all 50 states. The United States Supreme Court might declare ObamaCare unconstitutional which would effectively end the program. 
All three scenarios are possible. However, the most realistic scenario is that ObamaCare goes before the Supreme Court. The sweetest thing about this scenario is that President Obama and the lawyers working for his administration gets to decide whether his health care plan goes before the Supreme Court this fall or or sometime in 2012 or 2013: 
Obama administration lawyers face a decision by Monday that carries a high political risk and will probably determine whether the Supreme Court decides on the constitutionality of the health care law before next year's presidential election.

The Justice Department could ask the full U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta to reconsider a 2-1 decision in August that declared the law's mandate that all Americans must have health insurance unconstitutional. But seeking the full court review could take weeks, or even months, and probably push back a Supreme Court ruling until 2013.

Or government lawyers could opt to skip the full review in the lower court and appeal directly to the Supreme Court this fall. That in turn will probably lead to a constitutional ruling on President Obama's healthcare law by next summer.

Under the appeals court's rules, the Justice Department must notify the 11th Circuit by Monday whether it will seek a full court review. In recent weeks, lawyers on both sides of the case have been speculating on whether Obama's legal team is eager to get the healthcare dispute before the Supreme Court soon, even if it means risking an embarrassing defeat for the president as he seeks reelection.

"Everyone is waiting to see what they do Monday," said Karen Harned, a lawyer for the National Federation of Independent Business. "For the Supreme Court, this is only a question of when they will decide it. And we are hoping it will be decided in the next term."
Whatever Obama decides to do, it comes with a strong political risk or reward: 
The fate of Obama's healthcare overhaul figures to be at the center of next year's presidential race. Republicans have been running on a promise to "repeal Obamacare." If the Supreme Court were to strike down Obama's signature law as an unconstitutional overreach by the president and a Democratic Congress, it could deal a damaging blow to the president's campaign for reelection.

However, if the justices were to uphold the law as a reasonable regulation of the nation's health insurance market, their decision would give a powerful endorsement to Obama's crusade for healthcare reform just when he most needs it. A pro-Obama ruling by the court would also badly undercut claims by "tea party" activists who contend federal regulation of healthcare is outside the bounds of the U.S. Constitution.
ObamaCare will most likely be ruled as unconstitutional by 5-4 vote and it will be a crushing blow to Obama and his chances of being reelected. 
However, if the Supreme Court does uphold ObamaCare, the law will still be unconstitutional. Just because the Supreme Court says it is doesn't necessarily make it so. There have been plenty of Supreme Court cases that have been held not to be in violation of the Constitution despite the fact that it was and still is. Many of these cases were later overturned and some of them still have yet to be overturned. 
Regardless, I think Americans have many reasons to be excited for 2012. However, if we want to defeat Obama and roll back his progressive agenda, we are going to have to work real hard to unseat the Democrats in Congress and the White House.  

Sunday, September 25, 2011

Former CEO/Chairman Of General Electric Endorses Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney has received a lot of notable endorsements lately from high profile political leaders such as Tim Pawlenty, Thaddeus McCotter and Arizona Republican Congressman Jeff Flake. He's also received a slew of endorsements from elected officials around the country such as Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire and Massachusetts.   
While Mitt Romney is racking up an impressive list of endorsements from political leaders around the country, he's also getting endorsements from businessmen who know what it takes to create jobs and what is required to keep the economy healthy. One such businessman is Jack Welch, the former CEO and Chairman of General Electric, who recently explained why he was endorsing Mitt Romney:

Its interesting to point out that many people speculated that Jack Welch would be endorsing Tim Pawlenty and nobody knows if he would have endorsed him had he not dropped out. That's still up for speculation. However, now Tim Pawlenty is not a candidate for 2012, the former CEO and Chairman of General Electric has decided to endorse Romney. 
Now that Jack Welch has endorsed Mitt, I expect more high profile businessmen to step forward and also give their endorsement of Mitt Romney in the near future.

Mitt Romney Clobbers All Other Candidates In Michigan Straw Poll

Mitt Romney left all the other candidates in the dust in the Michigan straw poll taken at the 29th Biennial Mackinac Republican Leadership Conference. He won the poll by a wide margin over other 2012 candidates:
Romney received 51 percent of the 681 votes cast, a whopping 34-percentage point victory over second-place Perry, who garnered 17 percent. It was the second straight defeat for Perry in a straw poll, after he finished second in another contest Saturday in Florida. The twin disappointments, along with weak debate performances, have raised questions about whether the Texas governor will remain the perceived front-runner in the GOP nomination fight.
Here's the breakdown of the polling: 
Mitt Romney 51%
Rick Perry 17%
Herman Cain 9%
Ron Paul 8%
Michele Bachmann 4%
Newt Gingrich 4%
Rick Santorum 3%
Jon Huntsman 2%
If you'd like an idea of what the voters who voted in the straw poll were like, read below:
The straw poll was conducted Friday and Saturday at the biennial Mackinac Republican Leadership Conference. Nearly 700 people cast votes in a poll that was open to all voting-age conference attendees, most of whom were party activists and elected officials. The straw poll is not a scientific survey and it does not necessary reflect the attitudes of Michigan primary voters at large.
Questions exploring the activists' ideological views suggest that while the delegation was overwhelmingly conservative, a strain of pragmatism drove their decision-making. For instance, half said they would be willing to support a candidate who would get the economy moving, even if that candidate supported abortion rights and same sex marriage.
While 80 percent said the tea party will help the GOP in the 2012 elections, 17 percent said they fear the movement could alienate independent voters. Two out of every 10 straw ballot voters hold a negative view of the tea party.
The delegates were split almost evenly on the question of whether they value the qualities of electability or ideological agreement most in a candidate, with ideology getting 51 percent of the vote.
It appears that getting the economy back on track was the primary concern among the voters and were pragmatic in choosing who they would support as President. Voters overwhelmingly supported Mitt Romney which indicates they believe he is the best candidate who can get this economy back on its feet. 

Saturday, September 24, 2011

2012 Will Be The End Of ObamaCare

The Republican wave that washed across the nation in the 2010 election will return in 2012 and come crashing over the nation again. Americans are angry about the way the Democrats have been handling the economy. Many Democrats, including President Obama himself, will find themselves unemployed after the 2012 elections are over. 
If the Republican tsunami does indeed return in this upcoming election and many Democrats are washed out of office at the local, state and national level, there will be an additional bonus for the Republican victory: ObamaCare will end even before it had a chance to ever begin: 
At the risk of sending more Democrats reaching for their Prozac, consider this not implausible scenario: Republicans lose 10 to 15 House seats but maintain their majority, albeit a more narrow one. In my mind, this is the single most likely outcome in the House. Across the way in the Senate, the GOP picks up a net gain of four or five seats, creating either a 51-49 or 52-48 Republican majority in that chamber. Now let’s say Obama loses reelection, whether it’s to Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, or any other GOP contender.
Obviously for Democrats, who less than two years ago held not only the presidency but also substantial House and Senate majorities, this scenario would represent something just short of the end of Western civilization as they know it. The conventional wisdom is that if Republicans pick up the presidency and a Senate majority while keeping control of the House, they would either starve or nibble away at the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as the health care reform law), or at least as much of whatever the courts haven’t thrown out. The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet weighed in on the matter.
But consider a second scenario. Let’s assume that the first piece of legislation introduced in the House is H.R. 1, a bill to effectively repeal the health care law. Upon arriving in the Senate it is incorporated into the budget reconciliation process and therefore cannot be filibustered. Only 50 votes would be necessary, with the (Republican) vice president breaking the tie, or it could get 51 or 52 votes without the vice president even needing to weigh in. Thus in the first weeks of the newly minted Republican Washington, health care reform is effectively repealed—not just nibbled at or starved to death, or for that matter picked apart by courts.
Having a Republican in the White House along with a majority in both houses of Congress will ensure that ObamaCare ends immediately after all candidates have been sworn into office. The best Republican to have in the White House in 2012 is Romney. He has repeatedly promised that he will repeal ObamaCare by issuing an executive order that will instruct the Secretary of Health and Human services to grant a waiver to all 50 states. That is no hollow promise. He will honor his commitment to the American people and work to repeal ObamaCare starting on his first day in office by issuing that executive order. 
There are so many reasons for Americans to be excited for 2012. Another Republican tsunami that will wash over the nation at the local, state and national level. Obama will be out of office. ObamaCare will be repealed and Mitt Romney will be the new President of the United States. 

Friday, September 23, 2011

Rick Perry: Americans Are Racist And Cold Hearted Towards Illegal Immigrants

Rick Perry has been doing a wonderful job alienating the Republican base in which he defends his record on illegal immigration by insulting those who oppose allowing illegal immigrants to have access to government benefits. In the CNN/Tea Party debate, he implied that those who oppose illegal immigrants getting their education subsidized by the taxpayers were racists:
BLITZER: Governor Perry, I’m going to move on to Governor Huntsman in a second, but you did sign legislation giving some illegal immigrants in Texas the opportunity to have in-state tuition at universities in Texas, explain what that…
PERRY: In the state of Texas, if you’ve been in the state of Texas for three years, if you’re working towards your college degree, and if you are working and pursuing citizenship in the state of Texas, you pay in-state tuition there.
And the bottom line is it doesn’t make any difference what the sound of your last name is. That is the American way. No matter how you got into that state, from the standpoint of your parents brought you there or what have you. And that’s what we’ve done in the state of Texas. And I’m proud that we are having those individuals be contributing members of our society rather than telling them, you go be on the government dole.
 In the Fox News/Google Debate, Rick Perry bluntly stated that those who don't want illegals to have subsidized college education were heartless people:
Here's the transcript from the video above:
"If you say that we should not educate children who come into our state for no other reason than that they've been brought their through no fault of their own, I don't think you have a heart," Perry said. "We need to be educating these children because they will become a drag on our society. I think that's what Texans wanted to do. Out of 181 members of the Texas legislature when this issue came up [there were] only four dissenting votes. This was a state issue. Texas voted on it. And I still support it today."
Mitt Romney spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando today and explained that those who oppose illegal immigration are not cruel and unthinking people:
“My friend Gov. Perry said if you don’t agree with his position on giving that in-state tuition to illegals, that you don’t have a heart,” Romney said at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando. “I think if you’re opposed to illegal immigration, it doesn’t mean that you don’t have a heart. It means that you have a heart and a brain.”
Rick Perry's claim its racist, cruel and heartless for those of us who don't want children of illegal immigrants to receive a taxpayer subsidized education that allows them to get an education at a cost that is cheaper than what American citizens get simply because they were brought to America through no fault of their own is not true.
Mitt Romney is correct. It is a logical and compassionate position to insist that illegal immigrants should not be getting a discounted tuition rate at college. Why? Let me explain.
I agree with the argument that children shouldn't be punished for the sins of their parents. These children didn't sneak into the country. Their parents brought them along when they entered the country illegally. However, illegal children shouldn't benefit from the sins of their parents either. And they shouldn't be getting reduced tuition on the taxpayer's dime either. 
What is even more astonishing is that  many Texas college campuses are accepting illegal immigrations while turning away thousands of Americans who want to be educated. Lets also not forget that 40% of jobs created in Texas went to illegals and not citizens of Texas. As a result, Texas citizens are having to compete with illegals for jobs and education and are losing that competition. Its one thing for citizens of a state or nation to compete with another for these things, but its another when citizens are having to fight for these things with non-citizens.
Thus, the logical and compassionate position is to give priority to American citizens when it comes to tuition and college acceptance. It is unfair and illogical to give non-citzens benefits that citizens don't get. Moreover, where's the compassion for the American taxpayer? Where's the compassion for the children of natural citizens who are paying a higher rate of tuition than their illegal peers? Where's the compassion for the children of natural citizens who can't get into college while because of admission preferences for illegals?
It just doesn't make sense on an intellectual or compassionate level. It will remain that way no matter how much the pro-Dream Act supporters spin this issue. 
Rick Perry can demonize and villify and get sanctimonious with the majority of Americans all he wants, but we won't tolerate it. However, on the bright side, at least he didn't call us Nazis.

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Part X: Concluding Thoughts About Mitt Romney's Record

It shouldn't be a surprise that given the current state of the economy, people from all walks of life are looking for a presidential candidate who can revive the economy because the economy has affected everyone regardless of religious, social, political, gender, racial, age or economic status. 
That is why we have so many Republican candidates who are seeking to capitalize on America's need for real economic leadership and are offering themselves as a leader who can fix America's economic and financial troubles. 
With the 2012 Presidential elections around the corner, one of the crucial issues to be debated and discussed by both Republicans and Democrats is the current state of America's economy. Many voters will have this question on their mind: Can this candidate actually fix the economy and get Americans back to work?
By looking the entire span of Mitt Romney's career in business and politics, we have have gotten and in depth and comprehensive look at his record which should help you, the American voter, answer the question of which Republican candidate is qualified to be in the White House in 2012.

Given that the economy will be a major issue in 2012, Mitt Romney's economic record will be scrutinized. So will the economic record of other Republican candidates. However, I hope that I have made your work in learning about Mitt Romney's economic record easier. But more importantly, I hope that I have been some of assistance in helping you answer the question regarding which candidate can save our jobs and the economy. 

I have been following Mitt Romney ever since he ran for president in 2008. As you can see, I have done my research and have come to the conclusion that Mitt Romney actually has a proven record that makes him the most qualified person to be in the White House in 2012.
I hope you come to the same conclusion as well.

Sunday, September 18, 2011

Part IX: Mitt Romney's Leadership Style

Now that we've looked at Mitt Romney's early experiences of being a leader while serving in various positions in his faith to his business career and his record as govenor of Massachusetts, we can learn a lot about his leadership style. Its not enough to look at a candidate's record. Its also important to inquire about a candidate make his decisions? How does he react in a crisis? How well does he work with others?
Mitt Romney's Love Of Facts And Data
Mitt Romney is a pragmatic yet creative leader. He is not an idealouge like George W. Bush or Barak Obama have been accused of being. Mitt Romney loves looking at data, statistics, trends and other items of information to come up with a creative solution to a problem:
Of Mitt, says Fraser Bullock, a former Bain partner who worked with Romney on the Olympics: “He’s not an ideologue. He makes decisions based on researching data more deeply than anyone I know. As people get to know him better, they’ll see an extremely competent, strong leader.” It’s true. Mitt is known for his fixation with data, disparagement of waste, and diligent digging until he finds a working solution to a vexing problem.
Indeed, Mitt Romney himself confesses that he has a love for scrutinizing data: 
My ten years in consulting and my sixteen years in venture capital and private equity taught me that there are answers in numbers. Pile the budgets on my desk and let me wallow. Numbers can help solve a mystery. I discover trends, form hypotheses, most of which fail but lead to others that are more fruitful. Almost without exception, I learn something that is key to the success of the enterprise (Turnaround, Regnery Publishing Inc, Washington DC).
Here's another article that provides more insight about Romney's love of diving into the facts:
“My favorite thing to do is to bathe in data,” he says now, “do analysis, reach conclusions, and then find a breakthrough. There is nothing as exciting as that ‘aha!’ moment—seeing something that looks insoluble and finding a way to make it work.”
The episode highlights what would become the defining characteristic of Romney’s career as a venture capitalist—and later as a government executive. He was willing to pursue—and analyze—data that others wouldn’t bother to chase down. His dogged persistence paid off. During the 14 years Romney headed Bain Capital, the firm’s average annual internal rate of return on realized investments was a staggering 113 percent. At that growth rate, a hypothetical $1,000 investment would grow to $39.6 million before fees. Few, if any, VC firms have ever matched Bain Capital’s performance under Mitt Romney.
You can see the influence of his Bain background in how he approached government. He explained in an interview with Fast Company magazine: “The business world is very unforgiving if your numbers don’t add up. In the public sector, there is a potential for a great deal more sloppiness…. My experience in the investment and consulting worlds helped me develop an approach to turnaround situations….
“Number one: Stanch the bleeding…. Then you do a strategic assessment of how bad things are. When I became governor, we immediately found that we were in financial distress. We carried out an audit of where we were and developed a pared-down budget that didn’t force us to raise taxes or eliminate essential services. You have to build the right team. I look for bright people with strong personalities who will argue with me…. Finally, you have to focus. In business, you realize that unless you improve the way you’re doing things, you’ll be left behind. Government tends to add programs but doesn’t think in terms of eliminating inefficiency, much less constant improvement. I look at every program and think, How can we make this better? In the private sector, change is a part of everyday life.”
Mitt Romney's love of diving into the facts can be seen in the creation of his health plan for Massachusetts: 
It was inevitable that, as governor, Romney would go after the thorniest public-policy problem of all: health care. Tom Stemberg convinced him to take it on. In April, with a good deal of national attention, Romney signed a measure to provide universal coverage for the uninsured in Massachusetts without raising taxes or resorting to employer mandates. The conservative Heritage Foundation played an advisory role; the measure won grudging support from Ted Kennedy (who had beaten Romney, 58 percent to 41 percent, in a Senate race in 1994) and even The New York Times editorial board, which called it “a carefully crafted plan with elements that could serve as a model for elsewhere.”
Romney had started, naturally, with a Bain-style strategic audit, pulling together experts from business, academia, and government, and posing a few basic—though frequently overlooked—questions: Who exactly was uninsured? Why were they uninsured? What could be done to enable people to keep their health coverage even if they switched jobs or worked as independent contractors?
A survey of 5,000 state households turned up some surprises. Twenty percent of the uninsured were eligible for Medicaid but had not enrolled. Another 40 percent had annual earnings high enough to afford health care but had decided to forgo it. The remaining 40 percent were earning too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford health insurance.
Romney focused on the fact that so many people who could afford health care had decided to go without it. He asked for data on the bundled price of health care to be unpacked and looked for ways to change the market conditions that had driven up the cost of care. He ultimately settled on a measure, known as the Connector, which created an entirely new market for health care—enabling individuals and families to purchase private health insurance, with pre-tax dollars, at a savings of 20 percent to 40 percent. (Romney also pressed for eliminating a number of state-imposed mandates on health insurers, as these mandates had the perverse effect of driving up premiums and leading some companies to drop health insurance as a benefit. The legislature refused to go along, but did agree to a moratorium.)
Because, under the Connector system, health coverage was not tied to an employer, residents had a property right to the insurance and would not lose it if they switched jobs. “This is something conservatives have been trying to achieve for 50 years,” says Robert Moffit, a former Reagan administration official who, as director of Health Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation, regularly consulted with Romney.
Romney created an Internet portal for hospitals and clinics to enroll eligible residents in Medicaid automatically when they sought treatment. For uninsured residents whose income was too high to qualify for Medicaid, Romney offered a subsidy funded from the state’s uninsured care fund, which totaled about $1 billion. Romney asked an MIT economist, Jonathan Gruber, to develop an econometric profile of this segment of uninsured residents. Gruber discovered that they were disproportionately young single males who were both educated and healthy, so the subsidies were unlikely to be greater than the $1 billion in the pool.
True to form, Romney became deeply immersed in crafting the health-care proposal. Moffit recalls that when he was asked to brief Romney, he found the tables turned. Romney was the one who gave Moffit the comprehensive PowerPoint presentation. “In 25 years of briefing elected officials and senior government executives, this was the first time I was the one who got briefed,” Moffit says. “It was like being in a private class with a very high-energy professor, and Romney was the professor and I was the student.”
Finding Creative Solutions To Problems
Another important leadership skill that Mitt Romney has is the ability to be creative in finding solutions to the problems. A good example of this is during the 2002 Winter Olympics when Mitt Romney was confronted with the problem that the Olympic games in Utah would most likely be a financial disaster. However, Mitt Romney found a way to raise revenue by adding additional sponsors to the Games:
Previous Olympic Games had a set number of sponsorship categories, for example, and when Mr. Romney and his team began work, they were told the list was full. So they invented new categories, said Fraser Bullock, who had worked with Mr. Romney at Bain and followed him to Utah to be chief operating officer for the Games. Mr. Bullock is not related to Kenneth Bullock.
That is how the Olympics got its first cake-mix sponsor (General Mills), first official Olympic meat (certified Angus beef) and first official job-search Web site (Monster.com).
“There was $500 million in sponsorship when we arrived, and by the time we were done there was $860 million, so over $300 million came from these additional categories,” Mr. Bullock said.
Working Well With Others
Another aspect of Mitt Romney's leadership style is that he has the ability to work well with others, even when the people who he is collaborating with are his critics.
Mr. Romney, the persuasive businessman, also defanged some critics. Stephen Pace knows about that. He was a business consultant who believed the Games would spell ruin for Utah and had made great sport of eviscerating Mr. Romney’s predecessors.
After the scandal broke in 1998, Mr. Pace and his friends paraded in front of news cameras with T-shirts that read, “Slalom and Gomorrah.” Organizing Committee leaders barred Mr. Pace from meetings, which of course only gave him even more ammunition.
Mr. Romney, however, was a different kind of foe. Instead of shunning Mr. Pace, he invited him to come to a committee meeting, and about the same time announced that all meetings would be open to the public. And when Mr. Pace arrived, with the cameras rolling, Mr. Romney proposed a trade — he wanted a “Slalom and Gomorrah” shirt and would give Mr. Pace a regular Olympics booster shirt. Mr. Pace took the deal, or some might say, the bait.
“Romney was levels of sophistication above the people who were here before,” Mr. Pace said in an interview in his home near the State Capitol. He said he could not help liking Mr. Romney.
Mr. Dryer, the lawyer and board member, recalled that day. “He invited the enemy,” Mr. Dryer said. “He sort of made fun of it, but in a lighthearted way, and diffused the situation — it cut the legs out from under Stephen Pace and his criticism.”
The 2002 Winter Olympics also shows that Romney is flexible in working with others and he picks his battles carefully so that he can achieve his ultimate goal of making the event a success:
“He always has an objective in mind and a goal that he works toward,” said Randy L. Dryer, a lawyer and a former member of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee who worked closely with Mr. Romney and described himself as a Democrat, but also an admirer of Mr. Romney’s. “But he’s not unwilling to modify that objective if it’s an uphill battle and not worth the fight to get there — he is not bullheaded.”
Mitt Romney's ability to work well with others would come into play as governor as he worked with a state Congress dominated by Democrats to get Massachusetts out of debt, lowering taxes, creating jobs and providing health care for those who didn't have it. 
Efficient Time Manager
Mitt Romney doesn't like to waste time. Its not a part of his leadership style. Once again, this can be seen in that he used every minute of his time to find ways to keep the 2002 Winter Olympics from being a financial failure:
Mark Lewis, who led a fund-raising venture between the United States Olympic Committee and the Salt Lake Committee, remembered a trip to New York to woo corporate sponsors.
“We had 10 meetings, breakfast to dinner, but then suddenly we had an extra hour because of a cancellation,” Mr. Lewis said. “We were on some block in Midtown, and I remember Mitt saying, ‘What can we do for an hour?’ ”
Kicking back with a beer, or even a latte, was not an option — Mr. Romney, a Mormon, does not drink alcohol or coffee. So Mr. Lewis said he scratched his head and thought of a friend whose advertising agency represented Gateway Computers. Landing a last-minute appointment, they raced over. Four weeks later, Gateway was in the Olympics for the first time as a $20 million sponsor.
Thus, when Mitt Romney says that he will work to repeal ObamaCare on the first day in office via an executive order and proposing 5 bills to Congress and issuing 5 executive orders as part of his comprehensive economic plan get the economy back on track also on the first day of office, you can be confident that he won't waste any time following through on his promises.
Courage In The Face Of Crisis
Finally, an important aspect of Mitt Romney's leadership style is remaining strong in difficult times. He demonstrated that courage during the 2002 Winter Olympics:
On Sept. 11, 2001, when terrorists brutally attacked the United States, questions abounded about the safety of the 2002 Winter Games. Many wondered aloud if the Olympics should be held at all. Romney responded respectfully and intrepidly. "Tears and prayers flood our hearts. But not fear. As a testament to the courage of the human spirit, and as a world symbol of peace, the Olympic Games are needed even more today than the day before," he said in a prepared statement two days after the attacks.
"The Olympics are about courage," he stated. "The Games represent the greatest qualities of the human spirit, including world peace. The message of the Olympics is even more important today than before."
As our nation faces many daunting challenges, Mitt Romney is a confident leader the American people can look up to. People can place their trust in him to confront the biggest issues of our time such as terrorism, unemployment and debt. 
Based on Mitt Romney's leadership style, he is without a doubt, the most qualified person to be in the White House in 2012.
Next, I will provide some concluding thoughts about the results of my comprehensive review of Mitt Romney's economic record and summarize what I have learned about him.

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Part VIII: Govenor Mitt Romney's Impressive Record of Job Creation

Introduction
Mitt Romney's record on job growth in Massachusetts will be the subject of intense debate in this presidential race. Yet, if you look closely at his record, there's no debate that Mitt Romney's record is amazing.
A Look At Romney's Record of Creating Jobs In Massachusetts
Before Mitt Romney took office, not only was the state facing a major deficit, the unemployment situation in Massachusetts was very grim. The state was hemorrhaging jobs and it was losing more jobs than the rest of the country
“Massachusetts is number one in the nation in job losses, shedding 4.7 percent of all jobs over the last two years. The state has lost 71,000 manufacturing jobs, or 17 percent; 69,000, or nearly 14 percent, of all jobs in the professional and business services sector; and nearly 18 percent of all jobs in the information industry.”
We know that Massachusetts was in a bad place in terms of jobs before Mitt entered office and the current govenor, Deval Patrick, has not made job creation a priority in his administration. Mitt Romney makes that point himself when he explains his record as governor: “The governor before me lost jobs; the governor after me has lost jobs; we actually created jobs.”

What surprises me is that the issue of whether or not Mitt Romney left the state in better shape than he found it, is a matter of fierce debate. As I will show below, the facts clearly demonstrate Romney left the state in a much better shape than his predecessor or successor.
One of the common complaints about Mitt Romney's record of job creation is that at the end of Mitt Romney's first year of working as governor was that Massachusetts was number 50 out of 50 states in America for job growth and that by the time he left office, it was 47 out 50.
However, that claim is contradicted, or refuted, depending on how you look at it, when you look at the actual statistics provided by the Department of Labor's Bereau of Labor Statistics which you can see when you click on the linked footnotes below:
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics - Mass. Unemployment Rate
The unemployment rate had doubled from January 2001 to January 2003 when he took office, and was continuing to increase at a fast rate. He implemented pro-growth policies and programs. By summer the increase in unemployment had stopped and by fall unemployment was dropping. [13] While Massachusetts was 50th, or nearly the worst in the nation in the increase in unemployment rates the year that just ended when he took office, he got it down to 38th place his first year in office. [14] The unemployment rate continued to rapidly drop for nearly two years, hit a plateau for about a year and a half, then started dropping again at the end of his term of office (see chart below). The year he left office (2007), the trend in Massachusetts' unemployment rate was the 11th best in the nation [15], a big improvement from the 50th place it was in the year he won office.
While jobs were shrinking by the thousands each month in Massachusetts when he took office [16], by the time he left office, "the state had attracted hundreds of new companies and added [a net total of] 60,000 new jobs." [17] It takes time for pro-growth policies to effect the economy, but before the end of his first year in office the job losses had stopped, and in his remaining time in office 81,000 new jobs were created.[18]
Its clear that Mitt Romney improved the Bay State's unemployment ranking from 50th to 11th in the nation. Mitt Romney's record is eually impressive when look at his record from another perspective. A blogger explains that did better than most states did on average and was able to obtain full employment for his state: 
The invalid conclusion that Romney-bashers hope you’ll buy into is that,  in terms of employment,  Massachusetts did poorly, compared to the other fifty states.  Unfortunately for them, that simply isn’t true! In fact, Massachusetts beat the national average for unemployment for three out of the four years that Romney was Governor. Take a look at these numbers, and let the 2002-2006 employment numbers for MA speak for themselves, or more accurately, speak for Gov. Romney. Mitt Romney assumed the office of Governor in Jan 2003 and left in Jan 2007:
Mo/Year MA USA
Jan 2003 5.6% 5.8%
Jun 2003 6.0% 6.3%
Jan 2004 5.6% 5.7%
Jun 2004 5.3% 5.6%
Jan 2005 4.9% 5.3%
Jun 2005 4.8% 5.0%
Jan 2006 4.8% 4.7%
Jun 2006 4.8% 4.6%
Compare these numbers to the US unemployment rate of 7.8% when Barack Obama took office in January 2009.   By January 2010, it was up to an astounding 9.7%, and in January 2011, it was 9.0%.   Yet, in spite of these miserable numbers,  President Obama’s supporters have the chutzpah to criticize Mitt Romney for an average unemployment rate of 5.2%?
Most people may not be aware of this, but the United States Congress passed a law in 1946 called the Full Employment Act, which was later amended as part of the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978.  As part of this law, which is still on the books, the statutory definition of “full employment” was set as 4% unemployment for persons aged 16 or older.  In 1999, the U.S.  Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) updated and issued their definition of the “full-employment unemployment rate” as being between 4 to 6.4%.
In other words, according to congressional statute and the OECD, the state of Massachusetts was at or very near full employment during Governor Romney’s four years in office – a goal that the federal government has never even come close to accomplishing in the 65 years since the Full Employment Act of 1946 was made law.
Bottom line:  The Obama team will continue to toss out that “47th in jobs-growth” statistic, hoping you’ll buy into the false notion that the jobs picture in Massachusetts was a poor one.   When it came to unemployment, Massachusetts did better than the national average for 3 out of 4 years during Romney’s term, and achieved better than half the unemployment rate that the nation suffers under now. Instead of criticizing Romney’s jobs record, perhaps President Obama would be well-served to try and learn something from it.
No matter how you look at Mitt Romney's record, it is a record that is not very easy to criticize. Some people will point out that job growth in that state was not very consistent. However, that claim is not true.  According to factcheck.org, unemployment in Massachusetts hit hit its lowest point at the end of the first year of Mitt Romney's term but Mitt Romney was able to turn it around and that the number of jobs only declined in seven of the remaining 36 months of his term.
There are some additional facts about Mitt Romney's record of creating jobs that I'd like to share with you. First of all, not only did Mitt Romney was able to get full employment for his state, his economic policies created a surge in the development of businesses:   
"Under Ranch C. Kimball, who became Romney's secretary of economic development in 2004, the number of companies in the Massachusetts development pipeline jumped from 13 to 288 in three years."(Brian C. Mooney, Stephanie Ebbert and Scott Helman, "Ambitious Goals; Shifting Stances," The Boston Globe, 6/30/2007)
Anther important fact that makes Romney's record of job creation so impressive is that people's income rose substantially under his administration. The per capita income grew by 17% which out paced the per capita personal income growth for the entire United States:
In 2003, Massachusetts per capita personal income was $39,442 and rose to $45,877 in 2006.(U.S. Department Of Commerce, Bureau Of Economic Analysis, "State Annual Personal Income," www.bea.gov, Accessed: 7/29/2007) 
In 2005, Massachusetts Had A Per Capita Personal Income (PCPI) Of $43,501. This PCPI Ranked 3rd In The United States And Was 126 Percent Of The National Average, $34,471.(U.S. Department Of Commerce, Bureau Of Economic Analysis, "State BEARFACTS 1995 – 2005: Massachusetts," www.bea.gov, Accessed: 7/29/2007)
Conclusion
With unemployment as the number one concern for Americans, everyone ought to be taking a close look at each of the 2012 contenders job creation record.  People will find all kinds of ways to attack Mitt Romney's record on jobs but if you analyze the facts and look at it closely, you'll find that the criticism lacks merit because they do not match with the public record. 
As a result of looking closely at his record, it tells us a few important things. He knows how to create jobs. He knows how to get businesses growing. He knows how to create the right policies so that people are earning more income. This means he has the skills, knowledge and leadership capability of required for a national leader in helping to fix our nation's economic problems.  Those are the qualities that America needs and is looking for. Mitt Romney has it. That's why we need him in the White House in 2012. 
Next, we will look at Mitt Romney's leadership style to see what makes him so successful in business and politics.

Monday, September 12, 2011

Part VII: RomneyCare

Yesterday, I took a look at Mitt Romney's record on taxes and fees which gives us a great picture of how Mitt Romney likes to manage the government.  No comprehensive review of Mitt Romney's economic leadership is complete without looking at RomneyCare. We can really learn a lot about his leadership skills by look at this program in great detail.
The Creation Of RomneyCare 
Mitt Romney got his idea for RomneyCare after hearing the Heritage Foundation propose the idea of individual mandates as a  conservative alternative to Hillary Clinton's attempt to nationalize the United State's health care program in the 1990s. Conservative think tanks and politicians opposed the idea of a universal health care. They wanted individuals to be responsible for their own health care, not the government. 
Once Mitt Romney heard Heritage Foundation's proposal, he decided that he would undertake a serious in depth and detailed investigation to see if he could make the conservative think tank ideas a reality:
Romney had started, naturally, with a Bain-style strategic audit, pulling together experts from business, academia, and government, and posing a few basic—though frequently overlooked—questions: Who exactly was uninsured? Why were they uninsured? What could be done to enable people to keep their health coverage even if they switched jobs or worked as independent contractors?
A survey of 5,000 state households turned up some surprises. Twenty percent of the uninsured were eligible for Medicaid but had not enrolled. Another 40 percent had annual earnings high enough to afford health care but had decided to forgo it. The remaining 40 percent were earning too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford health insurance.
Romney focused on the fact that so many people who could afford health care had decided to go without it. He asked for data on the bundled price of health care to be unpacked and looked for ways to change the market conditions that had driven up the cost of care. He ultimately settled on a measure, known as the Connector, which created an entirely new market for health care—enabling individuals and families to purchase private health insurance, with pre-tax dollars, at a savings of 20 percent to 40 percent. (Romney also pressed for eliminating a number of state-imposed mandates on health insurers, as these mandates had the perverse effect of driving up premiums and leading some companies to drop health insurance as a benefit. The legislature refused to go along, but did agree to a moratorium.)
Because, under the Connector system, health coverage was not tied to an employer, residents had a property right to the insurance and would not lose it if they switched jobs. “This is something conservatives have been trying to achieve for 50 years,” says Robert Moffit, a former Reagan administration official who, as director of Health Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation, regularly consulted with Romney.
Romney created an Internet portal for hospitals and clinics to enroll eligible residents in Medicaid automatically when they sought treatment. For uninsured residents whose income was too high to qualify for Medicaid, Romney offered a subsidy funded from the state’s uninsured care fund, which totaled about $1 billion. Romney asked an MIT economist, Jonathan Gruber, to develop an econometric profile of this segment of uninsured residents. Gruber discovered that they were disproportionately young single males who were both educated and healthy, so the subsidies were unlikely to be greater than the $1 billion in the pool.
True to form, Romney became deeply immersed in crafting the health-care proposal. Moffit recalls that when he was asked to brief Romney, he found the tables turned. Romney was the one who gave Moffit the comprehensive PowerPoint presentation. “In 25 years of briefing elected officials and senior government executives, this was the first time I was the one who got briefed,” Moffit says. “It was like being in a private class with a very high-energy professor, and Romney was the professor and I was the student.”
Mitt Romney was confident that his health care plan would be a success because he had worked hard for the previous two years to keep Massachusetts financially stable.
When Mitt entered into office in 2003, he was a left with a massive deficit of approximately $3 billion.

However, Mitt Romney was able to balance the state budget for each year of his administration and got the state out of debt by implementing a mixture of aggressive reduction in the size and cost of government along with bold strategies to spur economic growth.
By 2005, Mitt Romney had a budget surplus of $1 billion and by the time he left office in 2007, he left the state had a $ 2 billion surplus.(Source) In contrast, President Obama did not work to make sure that America was in good financial shape before enacting ObamaCare. He simple went full spead ahead with his health care plan. 
Having a budget surplus of $1 billion in 2005 allowed Mitt Romney to confidently to unveil his health care plan in 2006.When Mitt Romney introduced his health care plan on Beacon Hill, he made sure that his proposal wouldn't undermine all his hard work of whipping the state into financial shape. Thus, when his plan was presented, it was estimated to cost less than 1.5% of the state budget and that it would be simple program since the bill was only 70 pages long.
However, Mitt Romney's health care plan wouldn't sail through the Democratically controlled state congress unmolested:
"The legislature made a number of changes to Governor Romney's original proposal, including expanding MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage to low-income children and restoring funding for public health programs. The most controversial change was the addition of a provision which requires firms with 11 or more workers that do not provide "fair and reasonable" health coverage to their workers to pay an annual penalty. This contribution, initially $295 annually per worker, is intended to equalize the free care pool charges imposed on employers who do and do not cover their workers. The legislature also rejected Governor Romney's proposal to permit even higher-deductible, lower benefit health plans."

Source.
Here are some additional alterations the Democrats made to Romney's original health care plan :
1) At the core of the House plan is the controversial payroll tax, which would be levied on businesses with more than 10 employees if they do not provide insurance to their workers. Romney and Travaglini oppose the tax.

But last night's 129 to 24 House vote on the payroll tax would be enough to overrule a Romney veto, and earlier this week House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi suggested that many senators support the idea, despite Travaglini's reservations.

2) House leaders amended the bill so that the salaries of highly paid employees would count only up to $94,200 in calculating overall payroll costs. They also exempted from the calculation employees getting healthcare coverage through their spouses.

Part-time workers would count as full-time employees in calculating the payroll tax, a detail designed to persuade employers to offer them coverage.

3) In addition to pushing employers to cover their workers, the House plan would also require people who can afford health insurance to buy it, provide subsidies to lower-income people to help them pay premiums, and raise the income limits for MassHealth, the state's Medicaid program, so an additional 130,000 people can enroll.

Background source for #1-3 is here.
4) Romney also vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid. The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two.

Source.
Thus, we can see that Romney fought with the Democrats who controlled both houses in Massachusetts and was unable to win since they were able to override ALL of his eight vetoes.

After unsuccessfully attempting to keep the democrats from modifying his original health care plan, Governor Mitt Romney signed the health legislation on April 12, 2006. Only two members of the House and Senate voted against it. Moreover, RomneyCare passed without any backroom deals, no voting gimmicks such as "deem and pass" and it was done in a bipartisan fashion. The Heritage Foundation, which was the source of this plan, praised the passage of RomneyCare.
Implementation
The intent of Romney's health care plan was to introduce free market principles into the state's health care system. Make it work more like a market.  Moreover, it was designed to reduce the "free rider problem" by making individuals responsible for their own health care plan. 
As a result, everyone in Massachusetts is covered through the private sector. They are required to purchase their own health care plan with their own money. Even in instances where an individual relies on the state for assistance in health care, insurance coverage is paid by the state to a private company. Furthermore, the only federal involvement in Mitt’s entire health care plan is that RomneyCare takes Medicaid funds and state money that was normally applied for emergency rooms and simply redirected that money to allow the poor to buy private health insurance so that tax payers are not footing the bill for those people who are with out insurance.
That's why Massachusetts has the highest health care coverage in the nation with 98% of the citizens and 99% of the children covered under his plan.  
Mitt Romney, in 2009, looked back on his health care plan and called it a success
"When our bill passed three years ago, the legislature projected that our program would cost $725 million in 2009. At $723 million, next year's forecast is pretty much on target. When you calculate all the savings, including that from the free hospital care we eliminated, the net cost to the state is approximately $350 million." 
Conclusion
As you can see, Mitt Romney solved the problem by thou roughly investigating the issue and educating himself on the issue to such a point that he was as competent as the experts who advised him on the issue. Moreover, he was able to offer a plan that was not a financial burden to the state of Massachusetts and provided coverage to almost all of his citizens. 
Mitt Romney's health care plan was a conservative approach to a state problem.Various conservatives have supported and praised RomneyCare over the years. Many people argue that Mitt Romney's plan is not a conservative plan saying that it is a socialist program. However, It is not a socialized health care plan
Another criticism that Mitt Romney gets is that Obama used Mitt Romney's plan as a basis for ObamaCare. The truth is that Obama flipped flopped on his support RomneyCare.  If you really look at the history and facts behind ObamaCare, you'll see that there was no way Obama could have used RomneyCare as a template for his health care plan. There are also  a lot of differences between RomneyCare and ObamaCare.
The Massachusetts health reform bill is far from the ideal plan to reform health care, but even with its flaws, it is fairly successful and it works. (For a good rebuttal of typical arguments against Mitt's health care plan, I suggest reading this blog.) Moreover, any criticism of the current state of the Massachusetts health care system should be laid at the feet of Deval Patrick and the Democrats who control the Congress, NOT Romney. 
Tomorrow, we'll review his record on job creation in which Massachusetts was ranked 50th in unemployment at the beginning of his term to 11th by the time he left office.

Sunday, September 11, 2011

Part VI: Govenor Mitt Romney's Record On Taxes And Fees

Yesterday, we looked at Mitt Romney's impressive record of getting Massachusetts out of a $3 billion debt to a $2 billion surplus. Today, I plan on analyzing Mitt Romney's record on taxes and fees. This is an area that he often receives criticism but as usual, if you look at the facts, his record on this issue is just as amazing as other aspects of his economic record. 
Mitt Romney's Record On Taxes
Many people in Massachusetts are pleased with the way Mitt Romney handled taxes in the Bay State:
Massachusetts Citizens For Limited Taxation Executive Director Barbara Anderson praised Romney, saying "There was no one else out on the horizon and with the legislature almost entirely Democratic, we felt it was necessary to have a grown-up in the corner office. … And we were right to back him. He's been a really good friend to the taxpayers."  
Wait a minute...how can Mitt Romney be a good friend to the taxpayers!? Here's how:
2004 SALES TAX HOLIDAY:  Governor Romney Enacted The State’s First-Ever Sales Tax Holiday In 2004.  (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, “Romney Promotes Tax-Free Shopping Day On Saturday,” Press Release, 8/14/04)
· 2005 SALES TAX HOLIDAY:  Governor Romney Enacted A Second Sales Tax Holiday.  (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, “Romney, Dimasi, Hart Promote Tax-Free Shopping Weekend,” Press Release, 8/14/0)
· INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT:  Governor Romney Signed An Economic Stimulus Package Making The Investment Tax Credit (ITC) Permanent. (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, “Romney Signs Economic Stimulus, Supplemental Budget Bills,” Press Release, 11/26/03)
· BIOTECH MANUFACTURING JOBS TAX REBATE:  Governor Romney Proposed And Enacted A Tax Rebate For Manufacturing Jobs Created In The Biotechnology, Life Sciences And Medical Device Fields. (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, “Romney Signs Economic Stimulus, Supplemental Budget Bills,” Press Release, 11/26/03)
· RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT:  Governor Romney Proposed And Enacted An Expansion Of The Research And Development Tax Credit. (Jay Fitzgerald, “Gov Nearly Halves Package; Rebellious Legislators Vow To Override Stimulus Vetoes,” The Boston Herald, 11/27/03)
· COMMUTER TAX RELIEF:  Governor Romney Signed Legislation Allowing Commuters To Deduct Transportation Costs From Their Income Taxes.  (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, “Governor Romney Signs $25.2 Billion FY 2007 State Budget,” Press Release, 7/8/06)
· BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT:  Governor Romney Proposed And Enacted A Refundable Tax Credit To Promote Development At The Former Fort Devens U.S. Army Base.  (Stephen Heuser, “$660M Drug Plant, 550 Jobs For Mass.,” The Boston Globe, 6/2/06)
Here are some other reasons why Mitt Romney would be a friend to the tax payers of Massachusetts:
Romney served as governor of Massachusetts (2003-2007), with a generally conservative record that included economic expansion.
He balanced the budget every year of his administration with out increasing taxes or increasing state dept. Romney turned a $3 billion budget deficit into a $500 million surplus by reducing government spending and added 80,000 new jobs by the end of his term.
In 2004, 2005, and 2006 Governor Romney proposed cutting the state income tax from 5.3% to 5.0% [4]. Although the Democratic super majority in the state legislator refused to budge. Romney vetoed 844 pieces of legislation, with over 700 overridden. He vetoed an increase in the minimum wage, saying "there's no question raising the minimum wage excessively causes a loss of jobs."
Under Governor Romney the state abolished a retroactive capital gains tax that would have forced nearly 50,000 taxpayers to pay additional taxes and fees.  
Mitt Romney's Record On Fees
One of the most common criticisms that Mitt Romney gets is that although he did not raise taxes as Governor of Massachusetts, he substantially raised fees to raise revenue.
This claim is true. However, what people don't understand is that when the government operates a program, they are are not paying the real market cost for that good or service. In other words, the cost involved doesn't actually reflect the real market price. 
Here's Mitt Romney himself explaining this simple but essential concept at during the Republican debates in 2008 election:
Q: As governor of Massachusetts, you raised hundreds of millions of dollars in additional revenue through so-called fees and loophole closings. You passed a health care bill forcing individuals to buy insurance on the threat of a fine. How do you reconcile that policy with your claim to be the authentic conservative?
A: I mentioned fees, and it’s appropriate if the state is providing a service to someone that’s not a requirement to have a car or a driver’s license, but instead, let’s say, we’re going to be taking out an oil tank from your back yard because it’s leaking into the ground and the state’s going to provide that service. But to charge a fee sufficient to do so makes a lot of sense. So the fees ought to be adjusted from time to time to compose the amount of what the cost is of providing that service. If there hasn’t been a fee raised in a couple of decades, you probably have some inflation in there you ought to adjust for.
McCAIN: Gov. Romney raised taxes by $730 million. He called them “fees.” I’m sure the people that had to pay it, whether they called them bananas, they still had to pay $730 million extra.
ROMNEY: We raised fees $240 million. Not $730 million. Facts are stubborn things. We audited our fee increase, because, of course, we cared. Now, why did we raise fees $240 million? We had a $3 billion budget shortfall, we decided we were not going to raise taxes, and we found that some fees hadn’t been raised in as many as 20 years. These were not broad-based fees for things like getting your driver’s license or your license plate for your car, but instead something like the cost of a sign on the interstate and how much it was going to cost to publish a McDonald’s or a Burger King sign on the interstate. We went from, like, $200 a sign to $2,000 a sign to raise money for our state in a way that was consistent with the what the market had done over the ensuing years.
Mitt Romney's reason for raising fees is a simple straightforward conservative and smart business approach to managing a organization's finance because in the long run, it actually saves money:for the taxpayers:
They claim Romney's increases in fees are identical to taxes. On the contrary, Romney saved millions of tax dollars by ending the taxpayer subsidizing of fees. A fee covers the cost for a special good or service provided to an individual by the government; when a fee is not high enough to cover the cost of the service provided, taxpayers end up subsidizing. Romney shifted the burden from the community onto the individual who benefits from the service provided.
Mitt Romney's act of raising fees was the correct and conservative response to managing the government.We know that when a government subsidizes an program, it actually cost MORE to operate which creates more waste and inefficiency. By shifting the cost of the service away from the government to the individual, the government becomes more efficient and cost effective since its providing the service at the price the market will determine the service should cost. 
Conclusion
The American people expect our leaders at any level of government to run the government in the most efficient and cost effective manner. That means that they have to be able to provide programs without going into debt and raise the necessary revenue (taxes and fees) to cover the cost of those programs without be a burden on citizens and businesses. Moreover, these programs and services should be offered to the community at their true cost rather than the artificial cost. 
Mitt Romney's record on taxes and fees demonstrates that he can operate the government in such a manner that businesses and jobs grow, saves the taxpayers money and keeps the government out of debt while providing these programs in an affordable and efficient manner to the general public. 
Tomorrow, I will discuss RomneyCare because it will provide us with an opportunity to look at his leadership skills under the microscope and really analyze Mitt Romney's leadership skills in managing the government.