Barry Goldwater Spins In His Grave

President Bush has officially abandoned the idea that the Republican Party believes in economic freedom:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President George W. Bush said on Wednesday that he supports a Democratic proposal to increase the U.S. minimum wage but said it should be coupled with tax and regulatory relief for small businesses.

“I believe we should do it in a way that does not punish the millions of small businesses that are creating most of the new jobs in our country,” Bush told a news conference. “So, I support pairing it with targeted tax and regulatory relief to help these small businesses stay competitive and to help keep our economy growing.”

How about just leaving business alone to begin with ?

H/T: Club For Growth

  • http://thelibertypapers.org/2005/11/22/a-bit-about-kevin/ Kevin

    I believe we should do it in a way that does not punish the millions of small businesses that are creating most of the new jobs in our country,” Bush told a news conference. “So, I support pairing it with targeted tax and regulatory relief to help these small businesses stay competitive and to help keep our economy growing.

    Or what you are going to do, veto the bill? I’m sure the Democrats are shaking in fear.

    Also, since when has George W. Bush stood for economic freedom?

  • Bret

    Also, since when has George W. Bush stood for economic freedom?

    Well there was the Social Security reform. That was a net positive for economic freedom … although it didn’t pass …

  • http://unrepentantindividual.com/ Brad Warbiany

    Bret,

    I’m not a big fan of Bush’s plan (or, what we think his plan might have been, based on our own estimates, since he never really submitted a real plan) to privatize SS. There’s a reason I referred to the proposal as Social Security Part D.

    Basically, I think any Bush-created privatization plan would be a big gift to the major investment houses, much like the Medicare plan was a giveaway to the pharma companies. And it will allow the government to stick their regulatory hands even deeper into the stock market, which we both know is a bad thing.

    You want to improve economic freedom *without* increasing regulation? Means-test Social Security.

  • Bret

    Brad,

    The only “hard” data I got on the plan was a write-up in the local San Jose Mercury news. From what I could gather it would allow you to invest a portion of your contributions in funds of your choice. There was also some talk of the choice of funds changing depending on your age. The level of risk would be indirectly proportional to your age. Regardless, it seemed more like a mandated 401(k) plan instead of a mandated ponzi scheme. In Bush’s plan I would take direct ownership of the money instead of the current system, where I’m just promised that a few poor saps will fund my retirement.

    While I think means-testing is a good idea to make it financially solvent I don’t really understand how it would improve economic freedom. In fact, with a means-test wouldn’t SS just be another wealth redistribution plan?

  • http://unrepentantindividual.com/ Brad Warbiany

    Bret,

    Have you looked at the link I provided? Basically I explain that the government will *never* let old people die of starvation, so the default position is means-testing *PLUS* an investment plan, not an actual investment plan where you’re given risk.

    Then, what will the requirements of that investment plan be? How much freedom of choice will you have on where you put that money? How much distortion will occur in the market to get a hold of the enormous sums of money the government’s restrictions on which funds become “approved investments”?

    I say if the government won’t ever let old people starve, we’re already at a means-testing. I’d prefer to have the freedom to get the tax savings in my pocket, invest it myself, and do so without ANY interference from the government.

    Another idea I heard was the idea that when this happens, government-approved funds would be required to have a certain percentage of T-Bills. What’s that? A way to force citizens who take advantage of personal accounts to help keep the government’s deficits going! Not something I want to support.

  • http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2006/11/22/comrades-i-hereby-declare-the-revolution/ Adam Selene

    My understanding was that the “private” investment would be funds managed by a government agency. In other words, CalPERS on a nationwide scale. Can you imagine the economic damage wrought by such an agency? Look at the insanity we have already seen from CalPERS (Safeway stock proxy fights anyone?). Do you really want the government to manage such funds?

  • http://exhumegoldwater.wordpress.com/ Exhume Goldwater

    He’s spinning in his grave now, but not for long!

    Exhume Goldwater ’08