Romney on Obama's Spending Frenzy

From FOX News: This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," February 26, 2009. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: And our headline on this Thursday night, it's day number 38 of Obama-nomics which we will define in our top story tonight as unstoppable, uncontrollable, unbridle and unfunded government spending. And that's what the president the American people today as he unveiled his plans for a $3.60 trillion federal budget for fiscal year 2010.

Now, included in this plan, a $634 billion dollar reserve fund to move us down the road towards national health care and up to $750 billion of bailout money for banks, which, if used, would be bigger than TARP 1. And what about the president's pledge of fiscal responsibility and cutting the deficit in half in four years?

Well, next year's deficit will soar to $1.2 trillion. Now as Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic magazine points out, his deficit reductions appear temporary, because after supposedly cutting the deficit to $533 billion by the end of his first term, the baseline deficit projection for 2019, well, it goes back up to over $700 billion.

And, of course, well, how does the president plan on paying for all of this? Tax hikes, tax hikes, and more tax hikes.

And joining us tonight is a man who would have truly had a better plan than this nonsense, former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney.

Governor, good to see you.

MITT ROMNEY, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thanks, Sean. Good to be with you.

HANNITY: $4 trillion, $1.75 trillion deficit. Your initial thoughts? I doubt this would be the Romney plan.

ROMNEY: Well, I'm afraid it is actually dangerous. I don't think people in this country generally understand that we face, not just a short- term economic strain right now with a potential of falling into a more severe recession, but also a risk that if we continue to borrow excessively that the world may decide that the dollar isn't worth very much.

There may be a run on the dollar. We could have a kind of economic collapse which would, which would wipe out the savings of middle class Americans and put us in a very long-term, depressed situation. And as a result of that we've got to be very careful about our spending and — as well as our borrowing, and the idea that Barack Obama, at a time like this, putting aside the stimulus to get the economy going, at a time like he'd be forecasting down the road running up budget deficits of $500 billion.

It's simply dangerous. It's the wrong course for us to take as a nation. We have to rein in the kind of spending, particularly in entitlements that are really have put the country in a very jeopardized position.

HANNITY: You know, I've been very critical of pork but I agree with you that entitlement spending is where the real money is going to be spent, and we're not going to have that money for our children and grandchildren.

What do you make of this aspect, though, Governor, and that is, when he talks about this top 2 percent that he's going to tax, well, that's 80 percent of small business owners in America. 80 percent of — the top 2 percent, that's 80 percent of business people.

How is that going to impact them, and how does that impact jobs?

ROMNEY: Well, I think there's a general misunderstanding on the part of some people in Washington. They presumed that jobs just happened, that the economy just happens, that businesses just grow and thrive on their own, but they have to have an environment where that's possible, and raising taxes on small employers will kill jobs. It will make it more difficult for new businesses to get going.

He's laid out a whole series of things he wants to accomplish, Barack Obama has, but listen to what he said the other night. He said he's going to be responsible or government should be responsible for a child's education from birth until their first job. Is that universal preschool? Is it universal college?

He also said universal service corps.

HANNITY: Sure.

ROMNEY: He said we're going to have a universal health care plan. These are massively expensive programs the way he's outlined them, and we, frankly, cannot take on these additional costs at a time when our economy is feeling such pain.

HANNITY: One other thing you talked about during the campaign, and now this has now come to fruition, he's going to raise the top marginal tax rates from 35 to over 39.6 percent. He's going to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, so-called wealthy. And on top of this, $634 billion for health care. They're saying it's only a down payment.

Let's talk about the sustainability of that in terms of the sheer numbers of it all.

ROMNEY: Well, it's too much to add to our federal budget, and I know that there are a lot of people across the country that say hey, I'd love it if someone would pay for my child's education, and I'd love it if someone would pay for five years of preschool, that would be nice, but the truth is it's us. The American people are the one who're going to be the asked to pay for these things.

We'd be adding enormous deficits and burdens to our kids and to their kids. It's not just wrong and bad economics. I think it's immoral to place this kind of a burden on future generations.

HANNITY: Let me ask one last question because they're using — and I'll get into with Karl Rove, perhaps, deeper in the next segment, they're using rosy numbers, rosy scenario numbers. What if things go below what they are projecting? How dangerous then does it become?

ROMNEY: Well, I think we've seen over the past multiple years that the forecasts of improving economic circumstances do not always come to pass, and as a result, you could see a $500 billion deficit four years from now become much larger than that.

But look, even $500 billion, a half a trillion is an unthinkable number for us to have to burden future generations with, particularly in good economic times, which we would anticipate four years down the road.

Look, I think the economy is going to get stronger. I'm one of those who believes that the American people are going to start new businesses, we're going to add jobs, and we're going to come out of this. But I don't believe that we're going to be able to be secure economically long term if we so lard up our federal budget that we just shrink the availability of capital for every new business that wants to get started.

HANNITY: All right, Governor, thank you for being with us tonight. We really appreciate it. Thanks very much.

ROMNEY: Thanks, Sean. Good to be with you.

Governor Romney's Remarks to the House Republican Conference Retreat

Governor Romney today delivered the following remarks to the House Republican Conference Retreat hosted by the Congressional Institute at the Homestead in Hot Springs, Virginia.

As prepared for delivery

January 30, 2009

Thank you for the warm welcome. And thank you for the vote you took this week. You stood strong. You stood for principle. You put the best interests of the American people ahead of politics. I got some calls yesterday, after the news. They said what I feel. We want you to know that we’re proud of you.

It sure feels good to be in a room full of Republicans who came out ahead on Election Day. You can be proud of your success. And don’t be afraid to remind the President of this: you, too, won your election.

After my own campaign was over, Ann and I just wanted to get away from it all. We ended up in Beijing, about as far away as you can get. We went to the Olympic Games, and one of the events we attended was women’s beach volleyball. I noticed a lot of people looking in our direction, pointing toward us and taking pictures. It’s always nice to be recognized, and I told Ann, let’s be sure to smile and look our best. Ann said, they might like us even more if we got out of the way—Kobe Bryant is standing right behind you.

A few months have passed since the election. It’s enough time to consider the outcome and take stock of our party’s future. I want to make clear that I’m optimistic: our ideas are good, our agenda will make America stronger, and your action this week showed that we have the kind of leaders who will stand up for what they believe in.

I have often been asked what I think the Republican Party must do to recover. What I’ve said is this: My first concern isn’t about our party—it’s about our country.

In fact, the two are closely related. The best way for us to advance the prospects of our party is to do what we know is right for the country. This is what the American people expect of us. And that’s what we should expect of ourselves.

This is a time of hardship and uncertainty for millions of Americans. The question is: whose leadership and ideas will turn things around. And in such a moment, it’s our job to offer the clear answers, the proven solutions, and resolute leadership that will make this country strong again.

The new President and the Congressional majority are having a difficult time doing that. After all, they have a lot of campaign rhetoric to make good on. And they’ve got plenty of special interests to pay back. As the opposition party, we’re entirely free to do what is right for the country. There are certain advantages to that kind of freedom, and I suggest we make the most of them.

That begins with a clear analysis of what’s needed to get the economy moving again. Predictions that we are almost out of the woods, based on the length of prior recessions, are wishful thinking. Americans have lost some 11 trillion dollars in net worth. That translates into about 400 billion dollars less annual consumer spending in the economy.

There’s something else people don’t talk much about: The pool of investment capital—all the money available for new investments, business start-ups, business expansions, capital expenditures, and new hiring. The size of that pool has shrunk by trillions of dollars. This was a huge loss in value, and the effect could be felt for years—in businesses that don’t start up or grow, in jobs that don’t get created.

Given these extraordinary conditions, I am convinced that a stimulus is needed.

So why not just spend and borrow with reckless abandon? Because we’re in a very delicate situation that could easily get worse if Washington does the wrong thing. The package which passed the House is a huge increase in the amount of government borrowing. And we’ve borrowed so much already, that if we add too much more debt, or spend foolishly, we could invite an even bigger crisis. We could precipitate a worldwide crisis of confidence in America, leading to a run on the dollar … or hyper-inflation that wipes out family savings and devastates the middle class.

We’re on an economic tightrope. That’s why it is so important to exercise extreme care and good judgment.

So far, the Democratic leadership hasn’t shown a great deal of that. They’ve passed 355 billion in infrastructure spending, 60% of which won’t be spent by the end of 2010. Billions for electronic medical health records—it’s a fine idea, but it won’t produce jobs for years and years.

Even worse are the liberal payoffs—50 million dollars for the National Endowment for the Arts, hundreds of millions of dollars to the states for STD prevention and education. Until your loud protests got it dropped from the bill, there even was 200 million dollars for the DC Mall. That might have grown some grass, but it wouldn’t have grown the economy. And they’re doing this when the economy is on a tightrope.

It’s still early in the administration of President Obama. Like everyone who loves this country, I want him to adopt correct principles and then to succeed. He still has a chance to step in and insist on spending discipline among the members of his own party. It’s his job to set priorities. I hope for America’s sake that he knows that a Chief Executive can’t vote “present.” He can’t let others run the show. He has to say yes to some things and no to a lot of others.

We need to stimulate the economy, not the government. A true stimulus package, one that respects the productivity and genius of the American people, could lift this country out of recession. And experience shows us what it should look like.

First, there are two ways you can put money into the economy, by spending more or by taxing less. But if it’s stimulus you want, taxing less works best. That’s why permanent tax cuts should be the centerpiece of the economic stimulus. Even Christine Romer, the President’s own choice to lead the Council of Economic Advisors, found in her research that tax cuts are twice as effective as new spending.

Second, any new spending must be strictly limited to projects that are essential. How do we define essential? Well, a good rule is that the projects we fund in a stimulus should be legitimate government priorities that would have been carried out in the future anyway, and are simply being moved up to create those jobs now.

As we take out non-essential projects, we should focus on funding the real needs of government that will have immediate impact. And what better place to begin than repairing and replacing military equipment that was damaged or destroyed in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan?

Third, sending out rebate checks to citizens and businesses is not a tax cut. The media bought this line so far, but they’ve got it wrong. Checks in the mail are refunds, not tax cuts. We tried rebate checks last year and they did virtually nothing to jump-start the economy. Disposable income went up, but consumption hardly moved. Businesses aren’t stupid. They’re not going to invest in equipment and new hires for a one time, short term blip.

You know, by proposing tax rebates, the Democrats are admitting that relief to families and employers works. Why can’t they shed their ideological bias and give the American people the kind of permanent, broad based tax relief that even they must know will relieve the suffering our country is going through?

Fourth, if we’re going to tax less and spend more to get the economy moving, then we have to make another commitment as well. As soon as this economy recovers, we have to regain control over the federal budget, and above all, over entitlement spending. This is more important than most people are willing to admit. I mentioned the economic tightrope before. There is a real danger that with trillions of additional borrowing—from the budget deficit and from the stimulus—that world investors will begin to fear that the dollars won’t be worth much in the future. They may fear hyper-inflation. It is essential that we demonstrate our commitment to maintaining the value of the dollar. That means showing the world that we will put a stop to runaway spending and borrowing. Senator Judd Gregg is rightly proposing a new bipartisan approach. It should be part of this bill.

Fifth, we must begin to recover from the enormous losses in the capital investment pool. And the surest, most obvious way to get that done is to send a clear signal that there will be no tax increases on investment and capital gains. The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts should be extended permanently, or at least temporarily.

And finally, let’s exercise restraint in the size of the stimulus package. Without restraint, it may grow as the days go by. Last year, with the economy already faltering, I proposed a stimulus of 233 billion dollars. The Washington Post said, and I quote: “Romney’s plan is way too big.” So what critique do they have for the size of the Democrat’s package? I’m afraid they’ve caught a bad case of liberal laryngitis. It’s everywhere these days.

In the final analysis, we know that only the private sector—entrepreneurs and businesses large and small—can create the millions of jobs our country needs. The invisible hand of the market always moves faster and better than the heavy hand of government.

The difference between us and the Democrats is this: they want to stimulate the government, and we want to stimulate the economy.

Government does have an obligation to address some of the abuses we’ve seen in the markets, particularly in the mortgage finance market and the mortgage guarantee sector. But when markets work as they should, when they are effectively and efficiently regulated, free markets create jobs and boost incomes.

As Republicans, we remain the confident voice of limited government and free enterprise. These principles are going to face another test when it comes to healthcare.

We should be first to propose a Republican plan to bring health insurance to all Americans, one based on market dynamics, free choice, and personal responsibility. I think what we did in Massachusetts is a good model to start from, but whatever direction we take, let’s not simply react to what the Democrats do. Their own plan would undoubtedly create a vast new system of costly entitlements and bureaucratic dictates, burdening the people and threatening the economy. Americans will be looking for a better alternative. Let’s give it to them.

Let’s also defend the rights of workers—against coercion and intimidation. The working people of this country should be able to unionize the way their fathers and mothers did – by free choice and secret ballot. The Democrats’ plan to take away those rights would result in economic calamity. More than that, it’s an insult to the dignity and common sense of working people. We’re going to defend the freedom of workers and the rights of labor. Interesting, isn’t it, which party stands up for workers and which one jumps for union bosses.

Ours is the party of freedom and enterprise, and we are the party of life. I know that I’m not alone in wondering why our new president, in the earliest hours of his administration, directed that international groups that promote and provide abortions be funded with American taxpayer dollars. Is that really what the world needs, more abortions?

In our party, we don’t have perfect agreement on the life issue. But with an administration that is firmly on the side of abortion, that answers to the most extreme wing of the abortion lobby, our duty is clear. We should be a voice for moderation and compassion. And even if the administration will say nothing on behalf of the child waiting to be born, we must take the side of life.

The new administration has also gained the favor of liberal commentators by pledging what it calls reform in the treatment of detainees who have taken up arms against America. And of course, President Obama says he will close Guantanamo.

But I wonder if he noticed that some of the men already released from Guantanamo have turned up in new al Qaeda tapes? I also wonder where the President now intends to send the terrorists we capture. Will he send them to nations that will release them to kill Americans? Or will he send them to US prisons, to infect our own criminal population?

There may be more steps like closing Guantanamo—and they will receive the predictable applause from law professors, editorial boards, and others who have no responsibility for protecting American lives. The Washington Post last week announced President Obama’s actions with this headline: “Bush’s War on Terror Comes to a Sudden End.” I hope this President knows that the terrorists are still fighting and killing Americans, and that they plan to keep killing Americans.

Here, too, our party will speak confidently. We have no greater duty than a vigilant defense.

This great party of ours has seen setbacks before. They have never defined us. For our party, I believe this will be remembered as the time when we demonstrated the strength of our convictions, when we defended the foundations of America’s prosperity, security and liberty.

America will be tested. It’s not for us to choose every new test that may arise. But we’re entirely free to choose how we will face those tests. We’ll face them as you did this week. And we’ll face them as Republicans have done before in our finest moments—with the clarity and the confidence of those who put their country first.

That is the work you have undertaken as Republican members of the 111th Congress. You gather in smaller numbers than last year, but you have ideas, energy, and convictions—and the resolve to lead America to a better future. The comeback for our nation and for our party starts with you. You can count me as an ally in the work ahead. Thank you.

Romney to save GOP in 2012

By Alexander Mooney

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As Republican leaders sift through the ruins of the 2008 election and debate the party's future at the Republican Governors Association meeting this week, one of the GOP's potential standard-bearers is instead on a Caribbean cruise.

Former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaks at the Republican National Convention in September.

But it isn't just any cruise and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney isn't just any Republican. Since the economy began its historic downturn six weeks ago, Romney's stock in his party appears to have skyrocketed...

The former business consultant and founder of Bain Capital handled economic issues during his campaign with an ease and confidence that seemed to elude Sen. John McCain. As the stock market tanked throughout the fall, a growing chorus of conservative pundits speculated Romney would have boosted the GOP ticket considerably more than Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin did.

Now the onetime front-runner for the Republican nomination is schmoozing influential party insiders on the National Review's annual cruise -- a gathering of 700 conservative activists and the same forum where Palin wowed the movement's media elite last year, beginning her meteoric rise from obscure governor to vice presidential nominee.

But even as Romney publicly declares he has no intentions to run again, several former aides said they believe he will, and this week's get-together with leading conservatives is only the latest sign the man who spent more than $50 million of his own money to vie for the party's nomination last year is itching to do it again. Watch more on the GOP's rising stars »

After all, in many ways Romney's campaign for 2012 appeared to begin the instant he abandoned his primary bid in February. Instead of the conventional location befitting most losing candidates -- his home state, surrounded by friends and family -- Romney broke the news to grass-roots activists at a gathering in Washington.

The last-minute announcement was greeted with cries of surprise and was seen as a public attempt to bolster his standing with the key GOP voting bloc that largely broke former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's way through the first round of primary contests.

"There he was addressing the largest gathering every year of conservatives, and it was extremely symbolic in many ways," said Matt Lewis, a writer for the conservative Web site Townhall.com. "That's where he chose to say for the good of the movement he was going to get out. It was very well-received by most people, and he is now in a better position to garner more conservative support because of it."

After bowing out, Romney maintained a constant presence on the campaign trail and cable news circuit on McCain's behalf, signaling to political observers that he still harbored presidential ambitions, even after he was passed up for the No. 2 spot on the party's ticket.

Romney also has maintained close relationships with key supporters in the early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire, according to party officials there, and could easily revive the infrastructure he built should he launch another bid.

If the economy continues to flail after four years of Democratic rule, Romney's economic acumen may be in demand when it comes to restoring GOP power to the White House.

"If the economy remains the dominant issue, there will certainly be a draft Romney movement, you can count on it," Lewis said.

Romney also may be positioned to attract a wider base of support than some of the other figures on the Republican bench, including the now-GOP rock star Palin and Huckabee, whose 2008 campaign outlasted Romney's. Both have shown the ability to generate excitement among base voters but appear to remain fairly unappealing to the more moderate faction of the party -- not to mention independent voters who are permitted to vote in some Republican primaries.

Al Regnery, publisher of The American Spectator who attended a summit of prominent conservatives in Virginia last week, said movement leaders continue to toss around Romney's name as they look to the future.

"People are going to have to compete for what will be the equivalent of several interviews with conservatives as to whether they fit the job description, and Romney would certainly be one of these contenders," Regnery said.

But even as the Romney drumbeat already can be heard in some corners of the party, it remains possible the former governor will face the same problems that hindered his 2008 campaign -- namely the perception he is overambitious and given to flip-flopping on issues for political expediency.

"Many conservatives never really trusted him," Regnery said. "A lot of people think he pretty much adjusted his message to meet the needs [of the base]. He's going to have to go back around and talk to the dinners and talk to the small groups and large groups and write op-eds with a fairly consistent message."

Stephen Wayne, a professor of American government at Georgetown University, also noted that not holding elected office now makes it more difficult for Romney to stay relevant on the political scene.

"He's going to need some vehicle to stay in the public eye and comment on the economy and, if appropriate, be critical of the new Obama administration," Wayne said. "One of the problems that people who are not in elected office have is that they don't have a ready platform until you start running for office."

But should Romney decide on a second presidential run, he's likely to face a friendlier reception than his first go-around. The base may to be more convinced of Romney's conservative commitment if he's willing to take another stab at the presidency, activists say, and the Republican Party has a history of rewarding presidential candidates who have run at least once and lost.

"There is a tradition in the Republican Party -- you run first for the nomination and lose, and then you run and get it," Wayne said, pointing to Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, former Sen. Bob Dole and McCain.

"Losing once is almost a badge of honor among Republicans."

Democrats, "The Family" of Fannie Mae

Where did it begin?

If any of you are like me, you are probably all fed up with the lines the government, the candidates, and especially the media are feeding you about the Economic Crisis. It's infuriating. You are probably asking, "How did this even happen?" I give you this video. It's long, but informative and well worth the time it takes to watch. If you are sitting on the fence about who to vote for, this video just might help you make up your mind....

Approval Ratings

I find it interesting that as the approval rating for Congress continues to decline, that Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi chooses to criticize President Bush on his "total failure" as Commander and Chief. What is even more interesting is the fact that his approval rating stayed at 28%, in comparison to Congress' approval which went from 23% last month down to 16%.

Now you tell me, who's a total failure at their job?

Why is it that Congress feels the need to do nothing? Especially on oil prices! Just days after President Bush lifted his executive ban on off-shore drilling oil prices dropped. However, the only thing our democratic run Congress is worried about is Global Warming and saving the environment from drilling, while wanting to tax oil executives (because it's their faults). Our liberal run Congress points the finger at everyone but themselves.

This cartoon sums up perfectly what I mean:

Special thanks to Michael Ramirez for this Political Cartoon

Americans are sinking in debt to these oil prices, and yet Reid, Pelosi, and Obama do nothing.

Why are gas prices so high?

Good question! It's probably one that 99% of Americans are asking.

If any of you remember the 2004 election, Democrats flocked to the polls to elect their Senators and Congressman who promised to bring the prices of gas down. Interestingly enough, gas prices have doubled since 2004 leaving most American families struggling to make ends meet. So, why don't we drill for more oil and bring the cost down? Maybe this might answer a few of your questions....

"...demand for oil isn't going to drop due to growth around the globe, the only way to bring the cost of a gallon of gas at the pump down is to increase the supply of oil. The only way to increase the supply of oil for the present is to explore for more oil and then bring it to market. That means drilling.

In the U.S. that means drilling on the outer continental shelf, more than 50 miles from the nearest coastline.

John McCain favors allowing states to do just that. Obama, Pelosi and Reid oppose it. To get the exploration underway a federal ban on such off shore drilling must be lifted, but House Democrats have blocked that move, most recently this very month. They and their presidential candidate would rather see your wallet bleed and American growth deteriorate than cross their political allies and contributors in the environmental movement. House Republicans should offer a new amendment lifting the ban on outer continental shelf drilling if the price of gas hit $6.00 a gallon. Democrats would still oppose it. Follow it with an amendment at $8.00 a galklon and then $10.00. Get the point across that the Democrats just don't care how high the price goes. They do not care about the impact on the average American family."

You can read the entire article here.