Critics of Senator Santorum’s Economic Plan are entitled to their Own Opinions but not their Own Facts

A considerable number of conservatives have expressed criticism at Rick Santorum’s manufacturing plan. Incidentally, many of them have a horse in the race – someone other than Santorum - and that’s pretty understandable and perfectly fine. It’s still a free country where people may publicly disagree with the president and anyone else they so much as desire. When taking someone’s plan to task, though, it would be most beneficial to be factual especially if attempting to promote a rival candidate. If one’s disagreement is full of falsehoods and non-factual information then not only won’t they be successful in convincing many that their argument is correct, they present themselves to the public as possibly uninformed and more likely to be purposely misleading.

For those unfamiliar with Santorum’s "Made in America" Plan it is one portion of his economic plan and is in itself a lengthy and detailed plan. The Plan includes but is not limited to pushing for a balanced budget amendment, removing unnecessary burdensome regulations, granting permission to increase of energy production, providing authorization for the Keystone Pipeline, simplifying the tax code, reducing taxes to the Reagan-era pro-growth top tax rate, and completely eliminating the corporate income tax for manufacturers from 35% to 0%. For the complete details please check out the link provided above.

It is the last item I’ve mentioned – the elimination of the corporate income tax for manufacturers - at which many have expressed their opposition and for a variety of reasons. I’ve decided to review the criticisms and then explain the facts surrounding this one aspect of Santorum’s economic plan, since lots of untruths are circulating.

A popular argument is the notion that Santorum is playing class warfare by favoring one group over the rest of the country. A second misconception which has circulated widely is that his plan favors big unions. A third criticism often put out is that the problem manufacturers face is not increased taxes but burdensome regulations and that Santorum’s plan doesn’t address it. A fourth claim is that this is a minor tinkering of the tax code which will result in nothing but increased taxes in another sector to make up for the loss in federal income.

All of these complaints appear quite serious, except that none of them are based on the facts.

Firstly, Santorum’s plan is unrelated to class warfare. Class warfare is pitting the poor against the rich, employees against employers, and so forth. Class warfare is usually achieved through placing a strong emphasis on the bounty others have and comparing it to the state of those who have less in order to create strong emotions of envy and unfairness in those with less. The politician then promises to punish those better off – such as taxing the rich guys – while extending help to the little guy via handouts aka tax-cuts/tax credits by spending other people’s money in order to “make things fair.”

Secondly, Santorum’s plan doesn’t turn employees against employers or anything of a similar nature. It simply eliminates the corporate income tax for manufacturers of all sizes and stripes as an incentive for manufacturing companies which have left the USA and gone to countries with fewer burdensome regulations and lower taxes to return to American shores. His plan will once again make the USA a country where it is financially worthwhile to manufacture goods rather than making them elsewhere and then having the goods shipped over. The elimination of the corporate income tax for manufacturers thus benefits the owners of manufacturing companies in order to benefit the overall economy of the US. The economy will receive a much-needed boost since the creation of many businesses will lead to the employment of millions who’ve previously watched their jobs be shipped overseas.

Santorum has put forward an actual plan (and not a twitter hash-tag like Newt’s 2.50) for a sector of the economy that’s crumbling and shrinking at a time when million are unemployed and many have despaired of finding a job. Santorum has also clearly explained why manufacturing requires additional reductions over local retailers and other companies who will also watch their taxes being cut. This is because your local pharmacy isn’t disappearing to China and neither will your grocer. It is manufacturing and jobs that are disappearing from this country and in order to be competitive with the rest of the world one has to look at the global rate and adjust accordingly.

This is the exactly what Obama and the left so strongly oppose; the trickle-down theory which keeps government out of the lives of the people.

Those who describe Santorum’s plan as pro-Union have portrayed his plan as though he were out to specifically favor union workers/bosses over the rest. This is completely untrue and those using this argument are either uninformed or purposefully misleading. The only method for unions to benefit from Santorum's plan is if they are successful in signing up more workers into their membership. This may occur since Santorum’s plan will lead to a greatly increased number of American workers, yet is far from guaranteed to happen since Santorum has also promised as a president to push for “right-to-work” on a national level.

Even if unions do increase their membership levels, then that in its own right will be proof of the success of Santorum’s plan. It will provide clear data that removing government from the picture has led to business owners hiring many workers, thus creating a considerable number of new jobs and new union members. This may indirectly lead to benefit unions but so be it if that’s one of the results of an improved economy and millions of new jobs. Unlike Democrats who only seek to benefit specific voting blocs and political donors, Santorum is out to create equal opportunity for all Americans.

Manufacturing currently costs over twenty percent higher in the USA than in other countries excluding labor costs because of regulations and taxes. This has caused and continues to cause many manufacturers to flee the country. Those who attack Rick’s plan to eliminate the corporate income tax for manufacturers as a worthless solution while explaining that the key to increasing manufacturing is cutting regulation, have proven that they are unable to walk and talk simultaneously. The argument displays their ignorance and lack of research in a day and age when information is available at one’s fingertips. Or worse yet, some are attempting to purposely omit Santorum’s heavy focus on regulation, somehow thinking that if they ignore it then it doesn’t exist.

For the sake of those truly uninformed, here’s a link to a video in which Rick Santorum speaks to voters in which he labeled the removal of all unnecessary regulations as Step Number One and only then continued to Step Number Two which is the reduction of the manufacturing tax to zero.

Additionally, Santorum is the only GOP candidate to have opposed from the start the burdensome regulations the government enforced on the people based on the bogus global warming facts. His support for increased energy production through additional drilling, nuclear energy plants, and all other forms of safe energy had never wavered. Newt and Romney, though, supported government regulation - as recently and to the far extreme as having supported Obama’s Cap & Trade.

As for the last misinformed case against Santorum’s plan, his Made in America plan does indeed eliminate the corporate income tax for manufacturers. In today’s topsy-turvy world where Obama “cut taxes” for people who pay no taxes, cutting taxes is seen as the government sending (back) a check to people/companies and thus thought of as a federal expense. This is not the case here and whenever true tax cuts occur. Tax cuts aren’t refunds. They simply allow the company to keep more/all of the money which they’ve earned. As for the government making up the money they’ve received until now through the raising of taxes of other groups, Santorum’s plan includes tax cuts for ALL as can be viewed here. He thus won’t raise the taxes of another group because he’s cutting everyone’s taxes.

The question of how the government will manage with fewer taxes is null and for two reasons: Firstly, lower taxes leads to increased government revenue since it jumpstarts the economy. Even though manufacturers will pay zero % on corporate income tax, the tremendous growth of newly employed people who will pay the new lowered rate of taxes, will lead to considerable federal income.

Secondly, and equally importantly, a large focus of Santorum’s economic plan is to cut government spending with five trillion in the next five years thus reducing the amount the government will require to operate. Santorum plans to shrink continuously the size of government while working with all states to accept a Balanced Budget Amendment. Newt supporters who use this argument of “how will the government manage with reduced funding” when discussing Santorum’s plan is pretty ironic when considering their applause for Newt for similarly saying that he’ll cut taxes and reduce government expenses to match the money that comes in.

Santorum has had the guts in the past to create actual reform – he had written the successful welfare reform – and continues to present actual details in the actions he will take. He doesn’t just throw platitudes and empty promises, but addresses all the issues facing this nation including but not limited to the economy. Santorum focuses on the importance of energy Independence, the need to bring jobs back to America, and so much more including the freedom –grabbing Obamacare. The success of his campaign therefore isn’t hinged solely on the price of gasoline as Newt’s is, or the unemployment levels, as Romney’s is. He can successfully battle Obama on every topic since he’s the only one who provides the contrast to Obama we so desperately need. 



 

Values, Morality, and G-d Given Rights are Winning Issues

Santorum has put forward an economic plan, a path to increase our energy, and his views on foreign policy. There’s one plan which he hasn’t put forward, as the others have, and I commend him for that. It’s the type of plan he had fought against in blue Pennsylvania both as a Senator and as a congressman. That plan consists of sweeping moral values under the carpet because it’s not too popular especially amongst the youth and thereby bidding goodbye to a normal society.

Santorum had been extremely outspoken on the conservative view of social issues during his representation of the state of Pennsylvania, he did not lose his seat because of social issues. He lost his reelection run for the Senate – after winning twice – because of his strong support for Bush on the Iraqi Surge and his calls for serious sanctions on Iran before they become nuclear. The Democrat Party pounced upon the vehement anti-war and anti-Bush emotions at the time and spent millions upon millions in ads against Santorum depicting him as a lover of war and warmonger. Indeed, many Republicans had lost their seats that year, including Rick Santorum who represented a purple/blue state. As an aside, since his warnings about Iran had gone largely unheeded, Iran is now mere months away from amassing nuclear arms and the world is currently deep in debate whether or not to bomb Iran.

Many conservatives are concerned that if one speaks in defense of moral values than it is impossible to win. This is inherently false. Firstly, speaking of social issues doesn’t mean the candidate ignores all other issues. Santorum has a great economic proposal, discusses it far more often than he does of social issues, and released a powerful video last week in which he makes the speaks directly to the voters explaining why they should support him for economic reasons.

Secondly, many are making the argument that Gingrich is every bit a social conservative as the former senator from Pennsylvania and that they therefore both carry “the same historical advantage “social conservatives have proven to have. Unfortunately, this isn’t the case with Newt. Newt Gingrich had melted the phone-lines of Republican candidates in 2010 warning them to not dare mention they support a single conservative social issue. This is in exclusion of Newt’s past lack of values and morality in his personal life and his fuzzy political record regarding social issues. Keep in mind as well that Newt served as a representative of a conservative district within a conservative state while Rick Santorum represented a blue state.

Newt’s advice and position on social conservatism has thus placed him at a historical disadvantage as explained by Jeff Bell in the link provided above. Bell proves that including social issues in one’s campaign agenda has proven throughout the last hundred years of American history to serve as an advantage to Republican presidential and congressional candidates. From 1932-1964 social topics were off the table, and Republicans won only 2 out of 9 presidential elections and had control of Congress for only four years. Comparatively, from 1968 when social conservatism became alive again, Republicans won 7 out of 11 presidential elections. Far more states support social conservatism than states that don’t. Read the entire article for additional surprising information.

The left and media desire to silence the conservative voice on social issues and have therefore resorted to the use of force against morality. They’ve passed hate-crime legislation so they can threaten conservatives who dare to speak out against immorality and have turned to courts and legislation to redefine marriage. They’ve thus forced through the legalization of gay marriage even in states where the people have voted against it, thus proving they don’t care what the people truly desire. They are now attempting to make contraception the new civil-liberty rights as though women are unable to purchase it on their own and are helpless if their employers don’t cover for their irresponsible and/or immoral behavior.

Santorum had said he wanted to throw up when listening to Kennedy’s phony separation of church and state speech in which Kennedy misinterpreted the true intentions of the founding fathers. Indeed, thanks to Kennedy’s revised definition, the liberals have been able to force their ideology upon the American people such as banning all religion from all public arenas including the mention of G-d’s name in public schools.

Lastly, If the last hundred years of history in is country is not enough to sway your belief that social issues are a detriment, or you dismiss it as merely coincidental, here’s proof from the last couple of years. Think of liberal California which is the bastion of liberalism. Despite their liberalism, the people of California have spoken out against their legislators and supported proposition eight which overturned the legislation which legalized gay marriage.

Here’s an even more recent example and one which I’ve experienced from up-close.

I am an Orthodox Jew from Brooklyn and live near NY9 of which the disgraced congressman Anthony Weiner was forced to resign. Both parties chose candidate to represent them in a district where the GOP hadn’t won a nomination in close to hundred years and was sure to lose once again. If this was the case when they put forth polished politicians, then it was certainly a given if an unknown candidate without any charisma, money, or political experience were to compete. Yet, this is exactly the type of guy the GOP had put forth for they had no-one else willing to run; a non-politician with limited money, no professional smile, and absolutely zero experience in running a campaign.

The Donkey Party, on the other hand, handpicked an Assemblyman who was an experienced fundraiser, had many political connections, and loaded with charisma. To top it off, the Democratic candidate was a Jew and NY9 is a district where 33% of its voters are Jewish. It was thus clear to all from the start that Weprin, the Democrat candidate, was heading to a landslide victory.

However, one seemingly minor item went unnoticed to the Democrat party heads in their nomination of their candidate. They were surely aware of it, but didn’t dream of the effect it would have on the voters. Weprin, the Democrat candidate, had voted several months earlier to legalize gay-marriage in New York. Prior to the vote in the Assembly, Weprin had stood up and addressed the Assembly. He said that he asked his Rabbi if he would officiate a wedding between a Jew and a gentile, to which his Rabbi replied, “Absolutely Not.” Weprin then used this to “prove” that just as no law would enforce his or any religious leader to do the above until now, the current law won’t mandate any religious leaders to act against their belief. Weprin finished off in expressing pride on his vote for this “civil rights” bill and encouraged others to throw their support behind it as well.

Listen closely, my fellow conservatives. The election between Turner and Weprin took place last year. It came on the heels of the success of the Tea Party in 2010 which was instrumental in obtaining many seats in Congress through the focus on the economy and Obamacare. The Republican candidate in NY9, Bob Turner, could’ve chosen to focus on the economy –as was actually expected of him. Instead he chose to also spend considerable focus on something Gingrich said we dare not touch in 2010 especially in non-conservative districts; social issues. And as is now known to all, Bob Turner is currently the Congressman for NY9 and is actually gearing up to run for the Senate since his seat is disappearing due to redistricting.

Social issues have proven time and again to help conservative candidates, not the other way around despite the media attempts to spin it as such. And to repeat once again, supporting moral values is NOT a contradiction to being a fiscal conservative, correct on foreign affairs and many other issues.

In addition to social issues, Santorum shared the conservative viewpoint in his opposition against amnesty, TARP, government mandates, government take-overs, and phony global warming-turned-climate change to name a few. Although Newt now speaks the conservative talk, his record shows he’s walked the liberal walk in all of the above.

G-d desires morality. No religion in the world’s history except the liberal religion has proclaimed that marriage is anything else but between a man and woman/women. Thanks to liberalism many school children are now taught against their parents’ will that same-gender marriage is equal to traditional marriage!!

Why would someone who believes in a G-d who runs every aspect in the world want to throw morality under the bus simply because it has become unpopular amongst some? Why wouldn’t you stand up and support a candidate who respects morality and isn’t afraid to defend G-d’s will in public? All we need is the courage to stand up for what’s right and you’ll be pleasantly surprised that a majority of the country still respects a moral society.

Why Not everyone is wrong about the Gay Marriage Debate

This is a diary I've written on Red State in response to a diary written by Shoutbits which was posted on Red State the 27^th of June. It was titled “Everyone is wrong on gay marriage” and was written several days after New York became the sixth state to legalize gay marriage last week Friday.

Shoutbits argues that the gay community has not accomplished much with the legalization of gay marriage in New York because what they truly crave is for acceptance from society and this has not and will not cause those who oppose them to have a change of belief. The only thing they’ve gained was to have the same legal benefits the law provides for married couples. On the other hand, conservatives are wrong for wanting the government to ban gay marriage and define marriage, because they should really be fighting to keep the government totally out of marriage.

What bothered me so greatly about his diary which compelled me to do more than comment, but to write a diary in response, is because the debate regarding gay marriage is really not whether it is or isn’t acceptable because if you look past in the history of this world at every country and religion and every moral person believed in traditional marriage as the only definition of marriage and homosexuality has never been accepted. The debate regarding gay marriage is whether the government should recognize homosexuals as a form and definition of marriage.

Shoutbits wrote:

The government should not endorse gay marriage; the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Most of all, nobody should look to the government for validation of his life or defense of his religion. The governments of the US are corrupt, capricious, and are the biggest threat to the nation’s survival. Why should anyone expect such bodies to arbitrate morals?

When this country was founded as a country by religious people it wasn’t considered as such, not because the government got involved but because the concept of calling homosexuals as married simply didn’t exist.

This is proven because before the last couple of decades when conservatives and liberals took positions on this topic and involved the government, no one in the first over two hundred years requested the government to intervene because it was automatically understood that marriage has only one definition. Doing something immoral doesn’t constitute as marriage, and calling it as such doesn’t make the act a moral thing to do.

Human beings of all times, have always understood and believed that marriage is a sacred bond between one man and woman, thus there had been no request to change the definition of marriage. Morality is something that each of us has been created with, and someone that does or believes in immorality goes against the grain of his/her nature. This is proven with the fact that all animals follow the true definition of marriage, because they too have been created as such. Humans who have been given the power to choose between good and evil, unlike animals which lead their lives based on ingrained instinct, must rise to do that which is correct. Otherwise, such humans are considered worse than animals, which do what’s right without thought.

This world has already experienced a time when society totally crumbled and all moral behavior fall aside, as happened in the days of Noah.

The Big Flood which came because of the erosion of any semblance of morality. The filth and impurity of the people caused the animals to act immorally as well. In order to save the existence of the world which couldn’t handle the collapse of morality, Noah was commanded to build an Ark in which he, his family, and pairs of animals which have not practiced immorality resided while the rest of the world was cleansed of impurity.

There is a right side and wrong side to this debate, as in most issues, and in this case those who have been and are continuing to oppose those that are attempting to change the definition of marriage and are for the legalization of gay marriage  definition, are on the right side. For anyone claiming that homosexuals are part of the society and there’s no point in opposing them, it must be pointed out that any state that had given the voters the option to vote on gay marriage including liberal California, has always resulted in the people voting against it. They did so not because of non-acceptance, but for the refusal to allow the values that America has been built on to go down the moral drain.

This country has already faced a moral decision when deciding whether it’s pro-life or pro-choice. The result has been that anyone speaking out against abortion is accused of having no mercy on rape victims and as someone who doesn’t want to provide rape victims with the help they require. A fetus/unborn child has already lost its rights and its value has been reduced to a mass of tissue.

The path of the gay activists and equal rights fighters are leading to the destruction of the value of marriage. Marriage has always been a sacred bond between a male and a female through which future generations were created and raised. Gay marriage has no future besides for destroying the moral values of society.

Opposition against gay marriage has nothing to do with equality or acceptability. People who oppose homosexuals simply take issue with the values those people display. To them it’s strictly a question of morality and whether they take the moral or immoral side of the issue. And moral issues are not something they take lightly or are flexible about in the least bit.