Posted by Eugene Volokh:
Prof. Brad Smith on Why He Supports Mitt Romney for President:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_12_30-2008_01_05.shtml#1199296568
From [1]Prof. Brad Smith -- please see [2]here for more on this
feature:
For politically oriented libertarians, politics is the art of
picking the most libertarian candidate who has a chance of winning.
Bill Richardson has no chance of winning, and the other Democratic
hopefuls offer nothing to supporters of limited government. On the
Republican side, we can safely skip the Ron Paul debate -- he is
not going to be the next president of the United States. John
McCain sometimes blunders into support of limited government, but
his usual reaction to his personal whim of the day is that
government should do something about it. And, his honorable service
to his country notwithstanding, his unstable personality and temper
make him uniquely unqualified for the presidency.
That leaves three electable candidates who can offer some
legitimate claim to libertarian sympathies -- Mitt Romney, Rudy
Giuliani, and Fred Thompson. Romney is an easy choice.
Governor Romney's tax policy should make a libertarian's mouth
water. It begins with the no-brainers -- make the Bush tax cuts
permanent, eliminate the estate tax, and nix any increase in social
security taxes. In addition, Romney has proposed substantial
reductions in the corporate tax rate, where the United States rate
is now one of the highest among the Western democracies, and in
individual income tax rates, across the board. He has proposed
eliminating all taxes on dividends and interest for those earning
less than $200,000. One of Governor Romney's most important yet
overlooked proposals is to make all spending on health care
premiums and medical expenses tax deductible, an initiative that
will do much to rationalize health care markets by putting
individual coverage on the same plane as employer-provided health
plans.
Romney is a talented businessman with an understanding of how
start-up enterprises and a dynamic, growth oriented economy work.
He understands how Sarbanes-Oxley is costing the U.S. is
predominant place in world capital markets, and will take an ax to
the Washington regulatory machine. As the Club for Growth says,
Governor Romney has �an intuitive appreciation for free markets.�
It's in his blood.
Romney is a strong supporter of free trade, as befits his
background helping companies compete in the global economy. On
immigration, Romney has exactly the right position -- opposition to
illegal immigration (which libertarians should oppose if only
because it undercuts support for legal immigration) while acting,
�to encourage legal immigration and streamline the system.�
At one time, Romney, Rudy and Thompson all supported the egregious
McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill. Rudy and Fred have since
trimmed their sails, but only Romney has forthrightly admitted that
his prior support was in error, and come out four-square in favor
of the law's repeal.
Romney supports school choice and home schooling. And Mitt will
appoint good judges.
Of course, it is one thing to have an agenda, and another to
deliver. Both Romney and Rudy have shown an impressive ability to
make headway on tax and spending issues in the face of
overwhelmingly liberal legislatures and political cultures deeply
attached to high levels of regulation and taxation. Despite a
generally admirable voting record, Senator Thompson lacks the
executive experience of Governor Romney and Mayor Giuliani, and it
is difficult to name any issue, during his eight years in the
Senate, on which he took the lead in promoting smaller government.
The one bill which he played a critical role in passing was the
odious McCain-Feingold legislation.
On its 2006 Governors Fiscal Policy Report Card, the Cato Institute
rated Romney 12th overall and 7th of 26 Republicans. In 2004, Cato
put Romney 11th overall, and 8th among Republicans. The Club for
Growth has praised his �support for broad based tax cuts in liberal
Massachusetts.� It is true that in addition to cutting spending in
order to balance the budget deficit he inherited, Governor Romney
supported a variety of fee hikes and the closing of �loopholes� in
the tax code. Given the overwhelming Democratic majorities in the
state legislature (137-23 in the House, 33-7 in the Senate), it is
not realistic to think that the budget could have been balanced by
spending cuts alone. Politics is the art of the possible --as it
is, many of Governor Romney's spending vetoes were overridden by
the legislature. In Washington, Romney will not face Democratic
legislative majorities of such magnitude. Meanwhile, Governor
Romney was victorious in what the Club for Growth calls a �bloody
fight� with the legislature over the state capital gains tax,
winning a rebate of $275 million for state taxpayers. He proposed
reductions in the state income tax. During his tenure, state
spending rose by an average of just 2.22% per year, versus
annualized inflation and population growth of 3.0%. By comparison,
under Mayor Giuliani spending in New York City rose at an average
rate of 2.84%, versus population growth and inflation of 2.9%. Over
a four year presidency, those differences would add up to nearly
$80 billion in reduced government spending.
As Governor, Romney actually vetoed an increase in the state's
minimum wage. He also successfully vetoed a legislative effort to
put a moratorium on the opening of charter schools.
Governor Romney is a man who knows how to get things done, from his
success in business, to turning around the Salt Lake Olympic Games,
to running a remarkable campaign for President that most observers
thought was totally improbable just two years ago. Halting and
reversing the growth of government requires more than just the
right views -- it requires the right abilities. Governor Romney has
those abilities.
In foreign policy, libertarians were among the staunchest foes of
communism during the Cold War. We should be equally in the
forefront in the battle against the current threat to Western
liberal values, Islamic extremism. The Cold war lasted over 40
years, and although it sometimes involved significant military
action (most notably in Korea and Vietnam for the U.S., and in
Afghanistan for the USSR), the principle antagonists avoided direct
conflict on the battlefield. It was a series of small proxy wars,
intelligence battles, and economic and diplomatic pressure. The
United States must begin to think of the fight with Islamic
extremism in similar terms -- as a long commitment in which
conventional armies are of limited use. Romney is a candidate who
is serious about the threats presented: resolute, but not
bellicose; prepared to use force when necessary, but mindful of the
limits of conventional warfare; aware of the need to win hearts and
minds but not naïve about the nature of our enemies. Trade,
commerce, and appropriate restraint will mark a Romney foreign
policy.
Libertarians must understand that the Democratic nominee is going
to be committed to a substantial growth in government, will
probably be working with an even more statist Democratic Congress,
and will appoint judges who see the Constitution's restraints on
government power as obstacles to overcome rather than limits to
heed. Governor Romney has demonstrated the ability to plan and run
a first rate campaign, and to reassemble the elements of the Reagan
coalition (including its non-libertarian elements) that resulted in
the most libertarian Presidency of the last 80 years. He has a
proven record of executive experience that Senator Thompson cannot
match. While Governor Romney and Mayor Giuliani offer similar
economic prescriptions and have each demonstrated ability to see
them through In hostile circumstances, the Governor's opposition to
McCain-Feingold, support for free trade (the Mayor has opposed
NAFTA), and more restrained attitude toward the use of U.S. power
abroad make him the preferred choice. His pro-growth tax proposals,
proven record of controlling and even rolling back government
spending and regulation, support for basic individual freedoms such
as home schooling and the right to bear arms, and ultimately his
ability to defeat the whichever unrepentant statist wins the
Democratic nomination, make him the place where libertarians should
be in 2008.
References
1. http://www.law.capital.edu/Faculty/Bios/bsmith.asp
2. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_12_30-2008_01_05.shtml#1199295694
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
