Ah, well, not quite. Romney did not cut taxes overall. What he did was drastically jack up fees (a form of taxes) to make it appear that he wasn't raising taxes, which resulted in an overall tax hike. Romney hiked fees faster and farther than any governor in the country and second place wasn't even close. Did he balance the budget? Yes, like every MA governor he was required to by law.
Romney cut taxes. He cut spending He cut the size of the government.
As a MA state worker we are still cutting the size of the government today to comply with Romney's standing executive order for consolidation of resources.
Yes, he updated the fees for government services. He didn't raise them. What he did is apply the same fees that were applied long ago to match current inflation, going back in some cases to 1974 without being raised. Thus the same fee was applied as it was initially intended when the service fee was created. The state was losing money because the costs had risen with inflation, but fees had not. Thus, he was closing loopholes and getting rid of freeloaders.
Dont give me this required by law BS, you can be required by law to do it, but several before and after him had failed at the proposition. He accomplished the feat in 2 yrs, turning a $2B deficit into a $2B surplus.
You act like, oh since he wont be required to do so as President that he wont... Of course he would apply the same principals to do both. Though, we all can agree the federal debt is a much larger piece of work than a $2B deficit. I dont think he will have it eliminated in 2 yrs, but we can both be fairly certain that a Romney presidency would include straightening out the US spending, eliminating the deficit, and attempting to pay down the debt.
I agree that Romneycare is the same thing as Obamacare, but I don't think that conservatives will take solace in that.
I dont agree that CommonwealthCare is the same thing as Obama Care. CommonwealthCare was designed as a means of combating a federal regulation which required them to provide service, but did not necessitate health coverage. It did so legally, forcing private responsiblity. When put in place it was going to save taxpayer money. Obamacare is a violation of the US Constitution. It is also going to be a huge cost expenditure, in a time when we are infinancial crisis.
I have no doubt that Romney would try to repeal Obama Care, even if just nominally on the grounds that he knows how much of an expense it is going to be in the budget he will be attempting to balance...
However badly Santorum wants to point to RomneyCare as goverment run healthcare, his active participation in creating Medicare Part D will cost the US taxpayers FAR more in government run healthcare than ObamaCare and CommonwealthCare combined.
Was Romney opposed to cap and trade as you suggested in another thread? No, not really. He was very involved in the creation of the NE cap & trade program. He backed out at the last minute ... after he had decided to run for President. Did he back out because he thought it would be too expensive, as he claimed? Or because he knew it would be toxic in the Republican primaries? That's a matter of opinion.
That's not factual. Someone Romney appointed to look into envronmental means of stimiluating economic growth suggested and worked out the deal for cap and trade. Romney has never been in favor of Cap & Trade, even in his most liberal of moments. Romney is the son of a Detroit auto-maker. He was not going to come out in favor of capping emissions on manufacturers in a time when growth is needed. Only Romney's opponents have conjured up this scheme that he only changed his mind on it later on when looking nationally. He had already looked nationally when he ran against Kennedy in 94! He never said, go try and work out a regional cap and trade program for New England.
In terms of job growth, MA was 47th in the nation during Romney's tenure. Not exactly something to brag about.
The only positive numbers for job growth in MA in a 12 year period were under Romney. Both his predicessor and his successor have lost jobs.
You have to figure a whole different dynamic in MA. The cost of living is so high, since its such a thickly settled and well established area. Add in the weather trouble.
The people who are boasting job growth in their states are in places like North Dakota, Utah, Texas, NC, etc. Where land is dirt cheap and there werent all the existing declining markets in place when new jobs were created.
You look around the state, and most of the cities were founded on industries which have long since faultered. Textile Mill manufacturing, Ship building, whaling/fishing, arms manufacturing, etc. Then when you look to the financial firms who all moved much of their basic operations to the midwest where land is cheaper, you can see why many jobs were being lost.
However, what really killed Romney's administration was a backlash against "liberal MA" in the selective process of base closures. Much like Nixon tried to punish MA by closing the Charlestown Naval Base, Rummsfeld hated MA and closed 5 bases in MA, and many bases all around NE. The economy had recovered for the most part in MA, then suddenly the base closing left so many veterans out of work, and those who serviced the veterans who inhabited those areas as well.
Still, under Romney's watch, the two numbers which were major crisis numbers when he arrived were the loss of population and the loss of jobs. He stemmed both those tides, leveling out in the first year, and then even recovered positive numbers.
Other hot-button issues: Romney campaigned on, and signed into law an assault weapons ban. He also doubled the fee for gun permits. On abortion, he said that he was personally opposed to it, but that he would not seek to impose his views on the electorate.
As he shouldved. Theres a real problem with urban violence in many areas across this country. Boston, Springfield, New Bedford, Brockton, Lowell, Fitchburg, etc. (you know the mill cities which no longer have working mills) all have problems with increased gang violence. Theres a huge difference between a right to bear arms, and actively killing innocent civilians. Those are criminals, and that's a way to pursue criminals for their actions. I agree that is not the most conservative stance, but I never once said he was the most ultra conservative human ever created. He is a moderate conservative for that and many other reasons.
As far as not seeking to impose views on an electorate, that's what the constition states as his purpose, as the executive. It's also the true conservative principal. Conservative = less government intervention, not government intervention when it suits someone's beliefs.
However...
THOSE ARE NOT HOT BUTTON ISSUES ATM... THE HOT BUTTON ISSUE RIGHT NOW IS THE MOUNTING FINANCIAL CRISIS!!!
Perspective here... atm, who cares about any of these social agenda issues that Obama and Santorum want to distract people with. Priority number #1 is relaxing government restrictions to promote growth. #2 is fixing the budget deficit, #3 is paying down the debt... I can't even see for 1 second where any of these side distractions matter in comparison.
Romney had an approval rating in the low 30s when he left office.
Romney's low approval rating was because 1) MA Repubs thought he was focused elsewhere on a national race, and 2) this is liberal MA, where 70% of the population persistently votes democrat.
However, you saw what occured during the primary when he won with 72% of the vote. Thats a clear indication of what conservatives in MA think.
Let's also keep another point of perspective here.
The race isn't who is the most conservative candidate. The race is who can best defeat Obama, and who can best turn around the problems the country is facing.
Romney consistently proves he appeals to a far broader audience than any of his opponents. That's what will also be of assistance to him in the general election.
He also consistently shows up as the best performing Republican against Obama, thus, if you want to get a conservative in the White House, you better get behind Romney, in order to oust the communist in chief, Premier Obama....