American Traditions and American Economy: What to Expect from Mitt Romney as President

In the Union Leader, Mitt Romney presents a concise synopsis of his position on taxes, balancing the budget, cutting federal spending, making America more economically competitive, health care, and the terrorism. In that excellent article, Romney made the following statement:

Both political parties claim to represent change, but there are major differences. When Republicans talk of change, we talk about opportunity, freedom and the people who can make these changes. When Democrats talk of change, they advocate big government, big welfare, big taxes and big brother. Time and time again, it has been proven that these big government policies do not work, and they take our nation down the wrong path.

Democrats talk about raising taxes on people. We talk about cutting spending by government. For Democrats, it is always government first, people last. In 2011, they plan a record-breaking income tax hike. When you take money out of the pockets of hard-working Americans and give it to government, you slow down the economy.”

I’m reminded of the usually conservative versus liberal diatribe to evaluate political rhetoric. Instead of evaluating Romney’s statement from merely an us versus them view, a historical approach might be more enlightening.

Romney’s politics is informed by an ideology extending beyond his own religious experience. His views are informed by the traditional ideology of American popular governance. Although American political tradition migrated with the Puritans from Western Europe, it was always called republican. Like most colonies, all states were guaranteed a republican form of government. Early American documents like the Northwest Ordinance—the law regulating the creation of new states—are permeated with the traditions of republican government. In addition to such documents, political economy was also vital to America’s survival and growth. Leaders of America early in our national history determine to follow Adam Smith’s morally based views. Smith’s free market, anti-monopoly, and international trade based economy is very much an American tradition. So were his views on property ownership and the elimination of poverty by eliminating the injustice of merchant and industrial monopolies, high profits, and unnatural market prices.

Limited small government is quintessential of constitutional government. Socialist welfare programs, which were created by democrats in the 20th century, are an affront to the nature of independence on economic terms. Everyone who comes under their control become dependents of government’s paternal power. Social security is another socialist program. According to the Social Security Administrations history, it began with pension program for veterans, but universal retirement benefits instituted in Social Security Act of 1935 was the product of industrial worker impoverishment. Social Security may be a great program for dependent retirees, but should a free people be dependent even in old age? Yes, they should be dependents of family and friends. So why didn’t government require all Americans to learn economics and finance in order to guarantee their own retirement? Because all Americans did not make sufficient amounts of money. Put differently low-income was acceptable and large income pools of money gave the new socialist government much working capital; the same as it did in banks. As Romney said, “it has been proven that these big government policies do not work, and they take our nation down the wrong path.” They do not work for freedom because they lead to diminished independence.

Mitt Romney would be a great president because he upholds the ideological traditions of the Republic. America needs a strong and intelligent leader in the White House who will continue to support and restore them. Those traditions made America unique in the world of nations. They guided America to economic, cultural, military, and political greatness. Liberal democrats, however, forsook them for globalist European socialism and humanism. That is our nation’s problem not solution, and it is why they cannot make the changes Romney mentions.

Romney plans to maintain previous tax cuts and lower federal spending with the goal of a balanced budget. I know many low-income earners saw more end-of-year income under Bush’s tax cuts than they did under democrat regimes. The democrat spiel about only the rich benefiting by the tax cuts is socialist rhetoric not reality.

Nevertheless, Americans would benefit by knowing how Romney will get more money into the pockets of low-income as well middle income Americans. It seems to me that until a real solution to bringing their level of wealth to a livable non welfare amount all of the talk about a better tomorrow is a lot of hot air, except of course for the other half of Americans. That was where Adam Smith started his economic proposal.

Technorati Subscribe by Email Permalink