Tag Archives: Marriage Penalty

Wall Street Journal: Rick Santorum is a supply-sider for the working man

Just to refresh everyone, a proponent of supply-side economics is someone who believes that economic growth is driven more by innovation and entrepreneurship, and less by consumer spending and government stimulus spending. Supply-siders are all about creating wealth – by letting creative people have the money invent something valuable that consumers will want to buy – like an iPhone or a Kindle. Demand-siders are all about redistributing wealth – by having the government take from one group of people to give it to another group of people – like a Solyndra loan or a Chevy Volt subsidy.

Here’s the Wall Street Journal article about Rick Santorum, and where he fits on the scale.

Excerpt on his economic plan for businesses:

‘I’m someone who believes that making things creates wealth,” says Rick Santorum. It is primary day in New Hampshire, and the former Pennsylvania senator and current presidential candidate is describing his plan to slash corporate tax rates. To encourage companies to make things, he would completely eliminate the federal income tax on manufacturers. For all other businesses, the rate would be cut in half, to 17.5% from 35%.

[…]I ask if his corporate tax plan opens him up to criticism that he and President Obama are both favoring particular sectors of the economy, with Mr. Santorum picking manufacturing while Mr. Obama anoints green energy. “Oh, green energy is not a sector, I mean, come on. It’s like a half-dozen companies,” says Mr. Santorum.

Does this mean the Obama policy would be more legitimate if the president were favoring a larger group of Solyndras?

“He’s talking about handing out tax-free grants and loans,” says Mr. Santorum, who adds that his own plan “is a conservative approach. It’s supply-side. It’s cutting rates. Why are we cutting the corporate rate to 17.5% and making it simple? . . . Because we think it’s what’s necessary to grow the economy. . . . So if what’s necessary to grow the economy in one sector of the economy is different from another, then why should we have the same tax rate?” He argues that manufacturing has been hit particularly hard by the costs of regulation and litigation.

That’s pro-growth – we’re all going to have multiple job offers if he executes this plan – back to 4% unemployment like under Bush.

But what about his economic plan for taxpayers?

Mr. Santorum also believes that making babies creates wealth. It’s very difficult to grow an economy with a shrinking population, he says, pointing to the “demographic winter in Europe” as a cause of that region’s troubles. To help avoid that fate in the U.S., he wants to triple the per-child tax credit and also cut individual tax rates.

[…]On the personal tax side, rewarding child-rearing is consistent with the pro-life views of Mr. Santorum, who has seven children. But the case he makes seems to echo the analysis of some Wall Street economists, who view population growth as a critical advantage the United States will enjoy over China and the euro zone.

Mr. Santorum argues that the cost of Europe’s massive welfare states made it too expensive for young people to have families. He notes that with plummeting birth rates, many European countries have resorted to “baby bonuses” to try to reverse the tide, but the demographic picture remains bleak, while the costs of entitlement programs have exploded.

“Who are benefits promised to, overwhelmingly? Well, they’re promised to older people. And if you have a society like Europe that is upside down where there are a lot more older people than younger people, you have economic calamity,” he says. Asked if giving generous per-child credits will result in an even larger number of households exempt from the income tax and therefore amenable to more spending, he says his plan will drive growth and that, in turn, will bring more people on to the tax rolls. Elimination of deductions might also keep some people paying income taxes. He aims to balance overall taxes and spending at 18% of GDP. Spending has soared to 24% in the Obama era.

In a still-crowded field of non-Romneys trying to compete for the Republican nomination, Mr. Santorum could emerge in the Jan. 21 South Carolina primary as the man who can bring together the old Reagan coalition. A champion of cultural conservatives with a blue-collar background, he is also making the case for deep cuts in federal spending. His credibility on this last issue derives from the political price he paid for being an early promoter of entitlement reform.

And what about his plan for entitlement reform?

To prevent an economic calamity on this side of the Atlantic, he also proposes to cut $5 trillion from federal spending in five years. He calls the plan advanced by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan “a good starting point,” but he notes that few of the spending cuts happen in the first decade of the plan. Also, Mr. Santorum says that he wants to reform Social Security, not just Medicare and Medicaid. “I like the Ryan plan on the Medicare side. I don’t like waiting 10 years. I don’t like waiting 10 years on anything. I’ve also talked about Social Security.”

Has he ever, going back at least to the 1990s. Says Mr. Santorum, “Some guy just walked up to me at the [New Hampshire campaign] headquarters with a picture of me standing at the presidential podium in Kansas City, Missouri, in April 1998 when I went with Bill Clinton to talk about Social Security reform. I was the Republican lead on the issue,” he recounts, a dangerous proposition for someone representing Pennsylvania, a state with one of the oldest populations in the country. “And I won re-election after that, I might add.”

But after winning that 2000 election—his second Senate victory and his fourth straight win in Democratic territory—Mr. Santorum aggressively backed President George W. Bush’s call for allowing younger workers to own personal accounts.

It’s much easier to contemplate marriage when you 1) have multiple job offers and 2) you are keeping more of what you earn and 3) children are less of a burden on your income and 4) the government is not going to bankrupt those children with out of control entitlements. Marriage-minded men who want to start families will love this plan. It is a signal to men to start working, start marrying and start having children. Men think about these things, you know – losing our jobs, whether our children will be better off than we were, and so on. Santorum gets it – he has a pro-marriage, pro-family economic plan.

Related posts

Why Christians and social conservatives should vote for Rick Santorum

Mary sent me this article from Life Site News.


GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum has taken the Obama administration to task for its role in eroding traditional views on sexuality to make way for a more pluralistic view.

During a campaign event in Muscatine, Iowa last month, Santorum took on a questioner challenging his marriage views by expounding on the benefits of a traditional household for children and society, and blasting the “hate” branding used by gay rights leaders and media against marriage defenders.

Santorum said that he learned radio conservative pundit Bill Bennett’s wife, who runs an abstinence program called Best Friends, had been pressured by the Obama administration not to use the word “abstinence” or uphold the traditional family as better than other lifestyles.

“The Obama administration has said to them, they can’t use the word abstinence anymore. They can’t use it, because of course that is a cultural artifact of a bygone era, and therefore you can’t promote that,” said Santorum. “You can’t promote traditional marriage, because it’s one of a variety of different lifestyles, and it’s no better or worse than any other lifestyle, which is simply not the case.”

“I love it when the left says, quit trying to impose your morality on us,” he continued. “What’s that? that’s their morality, and they’re now imposing it on us.

“The idea that this is a morality that may not be based in faith does not make it more legitimate than one that may be based in part in faith. But in their eyes, it is different. They want to drive faith and moral conclusions that come from faith out of the public square of the public law, and replace it with their values.”

In a recent discussion with Dr. James Dobson, Bennett had said that his wife Elayne had been told by the Obama administration that they “strongly prefer that she not use the word ‘abstinence’” in her program, which received public funds.

Santorum went on to defend marriage as a fruitful union uniquely suited to raising children that society is best served by defending, and blamed its erosion beginning with the no-fault divorce movement of the 1960s and 70s.

“We have seven children, and I can tell you that my wife brings a very different thing to our children’s growth and development than I do, because we’re different. It’s not just we’re different because we’re different people, we’re different because we’re husband and wife, male and female, and there are different attributes and qualities that go with that. Yes, true: the way God made us.

“So what we need is a society that promotes that. … other relationships are important in society: my relationship with my aunt, my relationship with my friends … but they don’t have the unique benefit that men and women bonding together for the purposes of marrying, having, and raising children and nurturing them to be successful citizens of our country. That’s why we should focus and promote marriage as something that is a good.”

He also took a moment to criticize those who were poised to label his position or statements “hateful” because he defended marriage, something he said doesn’t mesh with the values America promotes.

“Everybody’s trying to impose their values. … Come into the public square make your case as to why same-sex marriage should be the law of the land. I have no prob with that at all. Make the argument,” he said. “But accept the fact that other people who disagree with you don’t hate people who disagree with them, they just happen to believe that marriage is a good that should be preserved.”

I think there really is only one social conservative activist left in the Republican Primary. Rick Santorum. He knows how to debate social issues well enough to spot the self-refuting rhetoric of the “tolerant” left. The left wants to impose their moral relativism on society, and Rich Santorum will fight them. If you are sick and tired of being labeled as hateful because you think that traditional marriage is best for children, then vote for someone who can make the case for you.

The Christian Post says that social conservative stalwart Gary Bauer has endorsed Rick Santorum.


Social conservative leader Gary Bauer endorsed Rick Santorum at a campaign event in South Carolina on Saturday.

In a Sunday press release, Bauer said, “the main ‘pillars’ of Senator Santorum’s governing philosophy – smaller, constitutionally-based government, lower taxes, a strong and confident American role in the world to keep our nation safe, a commitment to defending America’s families and defending the sanctity of life – is exactly the blueprint to put America back on the right track.”

Bauer was previously president of the Family Research Council and helped build that organization into the top advocacy organization and think tank representing social conservatives. Bauer also served in the Department ofEducation under President Ronald Reagan. Currently, he heads Campaign for Working Families and American Values.

Here is Rick Santorum’s speech at the Right to Life convention in 2011.

Part 1:

Part 2:

If you are a pure social conservative, there here is the candidate ranking for you:

  1. Rick Santorum
  2. Newt Gingrich
  3. Rick Perry
  4. Ron Paul
  5. John Huntsman
  6. Mitt Romney

Santorum is the best, and Gingrich has a good voting record. Perry would be OK, but he can’t persuade anyone in a debate. The rest are all social liberals. Mitt Romney would be the absolute worst candidate on social issues. And that’s why the Republican establishment and the news media are pushing him as the nominee.

Related posts

Rick Santorum’s pro-family economic plan TRIPLES the child tax deduction

The title of this article in the liberal Washington Post is “Santorum wants tax code to reward traditional marriage and families“. HOLY SNARK.

Excerpt: (links removed)

Rick Santorum’s socially conservative brand has helped him break through with a last-minute surge in Iowa. But his agenda isn’t restricted to reimposing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,”outlawing gay marriage nationwide, or promoting prayer in public schools. Santorum also wants to use the federal tax incentives to promote traditional marriage and families.

“Tax policy as social policy” is the most distinguishing characteristic of Santorum’s tax reform platform. The Pennsylvania Republican wants to reduce taxes by tripling the child tax credit, which currently stands at $1,000 per child. Santorum also wants to reduce federal taxes that penalize married couples. Under the current tax code, some spouses who earn about the same salary on the middle-to-upper end of the spectrum pay more in taxes by filing jointly as a married couple than they would as individuals. Justin Wolfers explains further: “The U.S. has a household-based taxation system which subsidizes married families when one person stays home and taxes most people extra if they choose to marry and both work full-time. The average tax cost of marriage for a dual-income couple is $1,500 annually.”

As James Pethokoukis points out, such policies are in line with a pro-natalist policy that some policy analysts have pushed for, both for social and economic reasons, citing Robert Stein’s commentary in National Affairs. “Too many free-market economists still consider families an afterthought — ­arguing that the tax code should be ‘neutral’ about raising children, as if parenting were merely one hobby among many. But raising children is hardly just another pastime: It is one of the most important services any American can perform for our country,” Stein writes, arguing that higher fertility rates would also bolster the financial future of Social Security and Medicare. By contrast, candidates like Rick Perry would eliminate the child tax credit and most other kinds of deductions in the tax code.

Since when did politicians care about ordinary families? Rick Santorum cares about working class families.

Related posts

Obama’s new proposals penalize married couples and stay-at-home parents

Article about Obama’s SOTU proposals from the Family Research Council. (H/T Muddling Towards Maturity)


“Tonight the President also proposed expanding the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit which would only benefit families if: both parents work, a single parent works, or one parent works and the other is in school. In other words, it completely discriminates against families with stay-at-home parents, who wouldn’t see a penny from this plan. The President’s plan further drives a wedge between parents and children as it would encourage parents to place their children in government approved day-care rather than encouraging one parent to stay home and personally care for their off-spring.

“This new socialized child care proposal comes on the heels of a proposed major marriage tax penalty included within the President’s health care bills. A tax penalty on married couples only serves to discourage couples from marrying while encouraging societal instability through cohabitation and divorce.

Related:Obama praises non-traditional families on National Family Day.

Obamacare and the simulus bill will increase your taxes

First, Americans for Tax Reform. (H/T Health Care BS)


Individual Mandate Tax: Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax of up to $1,485.

Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax: For self-employed idividuals, the Medicare tax jumps from 2.9% to 3.8%. For businesses with employees, a firm’s “matching” Medicare tax jumps from 1.45% to 2.35% of employee salaries.

Employer Mandate Tax: If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $750 for all full-time employees.

Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans: Starting in 2013, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($8500 single/$23,000 family).

Medicine Cabinet Tax: No longer allowable to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).

HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike: Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent.

Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals: $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new “community health assessment needs,” “financial assistance,” and “billing and collection” rules set by HHS.

Tax on Innovator Drug Companies: $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year.

Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers: $2 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to shares of sales made that year.

Tax on Health Insurers: $10 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year.

But that’s not all – there’s a marriage penalty in there, too. (H/T Jennifer Roback Morse at RuthBlog)


“The Senate bill stipulates that two unmarried people, 52 years of age, with private insurance and a combined income of $60,000, $30,000 each, will pay a combined cost of $2,483 for medical insurance,” Quist wrote.  “Should they marry, however, they will pay a combined cost of $11,666 for insurance — a penalty of $9,183 for getting married.”

The numbers are based on the government’s definition of “poverty level.”  Those above poverty level will pay higher premiums, and the excess would be redistributed to those in lower income levels.

[…]John Helmberger, CEO of the Minnesota Family Council and Institute, said the middle class will once again take the hit financially.

“This hidden marriage penalty,” he said, “hits hardest the very people that are most suffering from the pathologies resulting from the decline of marriage in our culture.”

I recommend that all my readers click through to Dr. J’s post and read her comments about Christian liberals who vote for government-run health care, thinking that it doesn’t destroy marriage and family. The left is dominated by anti-family types who think men and women are interchangeable, and that means the traditional family is in their crosshairs.

The stimulus bill will cause tax increases

Second, Hans Bader writes about the stimulus bill taxes for the Competitive Enterprise Institute. (H/T ECM)


The federal government’s $800 billion stimulus package, which failed to cut unemployment, is now forcing states and local governments to raise taxes. The Wall Street Journal describes how “stimulus dollars came with strings attached that are now causing enormous budget headaches . . . At the behest of the public employee unions, Congress imposed ‘maintenance of effort’ spending requirements on states. These federal laws prohibit state legislatures from cutting spending on 15 programs,” such as ”welfare, if the state took even a dollar of stimulus cash,” even if a state’s tax revenue has since fallen due to the recession.  “So when states should be reducing” their spending ”to match. . . lower revenue collections, federal stimulus rules mean many states will have little choice but to raise taxes.”

[…]The stimulus package actually destroyed thousands of real world jobs by triggering trade wars with Canada and Mexico that killed jobs in America’s export sector (the stimulus package barred a measley 97 Mexican truckers from U.S. roads, a minor NAFTA violation that led to massive Mexican retaliation against U.S. exports of 40 farm products and kitchen goods worth $2.4 billion).  It also is wiping out jobs by inflicting costly mandates on state governments (such as repealing welfare reform, and imposing costly “prevailing wage” regulations and expensive racial set-asides).

Don’t elect a radical leftist during a recession.