Rick Santorum vs Freedom

This is another reason I can’t vote for Rick Santorum, he’s a right-wing Obama. He doesn’t believe in limited government freedom, he wants to use the power of government to mold us in the image he thinks is moral.

Advertisements

Spread the Wealth, Spread the Morality; Two Sides Of The Same Statist Coin

Now anyone who has read this blog knows my stance on “Spreading the Wealth” aka Socialism. There’s another “Spreading the” philosophy that I also oppose. Its “Spreading the Morality” that is Social Conservatism, and wanna see it in action, look at Rick Santorum.

Now my problem with social conservatism is using the power of government to force others to live by your values.

General principles are:

Personally I’m pro-life, and I see abortion as murder, however my full thoughts are here on the subject.

Man playing God, hmm. On a government scale on any of those I oppose, so I would have to agree. Also as a Primal eater I prefer natural food, not lab food.

Now this is an easy one, unless you’re marrying kids or animals, I could care less who you marry. Just don’t tell me which consenting adult anyone can marry. It’s not anyone’s business.

  • Support the continued prohibition of recreational or medically non-beneficial drugs

You’re body is your property, like the money you earn, what you do with it as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone, is your business. Leave the house, you become a societal problem.

See above. Telling me what to do with my life is as bad as taking my money in taxes and using it as you see fit (Spread the Wealth). Except you’re taking my choice instead of my money. This is my problem with Social Conservatism.

 

South Carolina Primaries; 2008 and Now

Normally I don’t watch trends however my curiosity left me with this question…

Was the field this narrow in 2008? Candidates are dropping fast.

Answer…No.

In 2008 the field had a total of 10, with 6 that the media gave the most attention to. John McCain,  Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Ron Paul, and Rudy Giuliani.

The Race is still on, wide open. Newt got more than McCain did in ’08, Hell, Romney got more this year than McCain did in ’08. Ron Paul got a 10% jump and would’ve been 3rd in ‘o8.

And here I was wondering if it was going to be over  too fast.

2012 CNN Graph

Race
Status
Candidate
Votes
Vote %
Del*
Est. % In
South Carolina

Updated 11:23 p.m. EST, Jan 21, 2012
County:
Table | Map
243,153
40%
23
99%
reporting
167,279
28%
0
102,055
17%
0
77,993
13%
0
2008 Primary
100% of precincts reporting[12]
Candidate Votes Percentage
John McCain 147,733 33.15%
Mike Huckabee 132,990 29.84%
Fred Thompson 69,681 15.63%
Mitt Romney 68,177 15.3%
Ron Paul 16,155 3.62%
Rudy Giuliani 9,575 2.15%

Candidate Profile: Rick Santorum

, U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania.

With campaign season revving up, its time to get to know the ones that want to be President. Going to look at their record if they have one, what positions they take if they don’t. Coupled with my thoughts on the said candidate.

I’m not going to list the party, because that’s just a banner politicians hide behind, look at person, not the party. To set the stage, here’s the link to his campaign website here. This has his positions, but I prefer to look at his record instead. Its a lot so instead of my commentary at the end, it will be in italics throughout.

Entitlements: Rick had been in Congress for awhile, and was part of Gingrich’s Contract. Rick drafted & managed 1994 Contract with America Welfare Reform and supports time-limits for able-bodied welfare recipients.As for his record…

He voted Yes on welfare block grants, on allowing state welfare waivers, and on welfare overhaul. Also voted for Social Security Lockbox & limiting national debt, on allowing Roth IRAs for retirees, on allowing personal retirement accounts and on deducting Social Security payments on income taxes.

He voted No on eliminating block grants for food stamps.

I prefer the end of entitlements ideally however his reforms in 1994 and time limits and on moving resposibility onto the individual. 

National Security: How well does Rick do on National Security and Wars? Lets see…he voted No on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees, on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods,on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. Also voted No on restoring $565M for states’ and ports’ first responders and on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Looks like someone is a fan of indefinite detention. 

What did he vote Yes on? Lets see…reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act and extending the PATRIOT Act’s wiretap provision.Also for allowing another round of military base closures, on cutting nuclear weapons below START levels, on deploying National Missile Defense ASAP. Voted for a military pay raise of 4.8%.Along with voting for prohibiting same-sex basic training and Yes on favoring 36 vetoed military projects. And voted for a chemical weapon ban.

Guess the 4th Amendment means nothing to him, so much for his Oath to Defend the Constitution. 

He voted No on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007, on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan, on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding and finally on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo.

Supports the Iraqi War no matter what the cost, crony capitalism(war profiteering) and at least he didn’t want to bomb Kosovo too. Not much of a difference. 

Rick voted Yes on ending the Bosnian arms embargo, on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan and for authorizing use of military force against Iraq.

 Foreign Policy: Lets see how his Foreign Policy stands up. He voted No on killing a bill for trade sanctions if China sells weapons, limiting the President’s power to impose economic sanctions, and on limiting NATO expansion to only Poland, Hungary & Czech.

He voted Yes on capping foreign aid at only $12.7 billion, on enlarging NATO to include Eastern Europe, on $17.9 billion to the IMF, and strengthening of the trade embargo against Cuba.

Capping Foreign Aid? Good move. Interfering in global politics…No.

Now onto the War side of it. He voted No on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007, on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan, on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding and on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo.

He voted Yes on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan, on authorizing use of military force against Iraq to begin with. Before that he supported allowing all necessary force in Kosovo and ending the Bosnian arms embargo.

Healthcare: Lets see…he voted No on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D, increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics, negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drugs and $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. Also voted No on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada, on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages, on including prescription drugs under Medicare. Plus No votes on on increasing tobacco restrictions and on blocking medical savings accounts.

Voted no on socialized medicine but then knee-capped the free market by allowing cheap drugs from Canada. Crony Capitalist.

He voted Yes on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000, on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit, on limiting self-employment health deduction and Medicare means-testing.

Medicare means-testing is good.

 The Economy and Taxes: This is an incredibly extensive list of votes. He voted Yes on $40B in reduced federal overall spending in 2005, on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts in 2000, and on a Balanced-budget constitutional amendment in 1997.

He voted No on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore and voted Yes on reforming bankruptcy to include means-testing & restrictions and on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy.

Spending cuts are good, but allowing subsidies (more crony Keynesian capitalism) is bad. If he claims to be a free market capitalist, you’ll know he’s lying.

We have No votes on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska’s ANWR, on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%) and on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

He voted Yes on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010, on drilling ANWR on national security grounds, on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months in 2002. Also for preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling, on defunding renewable and solar energy and on approving a nuclear waste repository.

He voted Yes on free trade agreement with Oman, on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade, on establishing free trade between US & Singapore between the US and Chile, extending free trade to Andean nations, granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam, on removing common goods from national security export rules.

Is it “free trade” if it needs Government approval?

Voted Yes on permanent normal trade relations with China, on expanding trade to the third world on renewing ‘fast track’ presidential trade authority and on imposing trade sanctions on Japan for closed market in 1995.

He voted No on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25 and on replacing farm price supports. He voted Yes on repealing Clinton’s ergonomic rules on repetitive stress, on allowing workers to choose between overtime & comp-time.

Finally on Taxes. Voted Yes on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts, on permanently repealing the `death tax`. Voted Yes on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends, on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends, on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. Voted No on increasing tax deductions for college tuition. And Voted Yes on eliminating the ‘marriage penalty’, on across-the-board spending cut in 1999 and on requiring super-majority for raising taxes in 1998.

I particullarly like the super-majority tax vote.

Government Transparency: Lets see how well he cleans house. He voted Yes on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress, on requiring photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration, and on Approving the presidential line-item veto. (I need to do a post in line-item vetos, don’t know anything about them.)

Other than requiring photo ID, he’s a lousy janitor.

He voted No on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity, on banning “soft money” contributions and restricting issue ads, on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations, on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance and on banning more types of Congressional gifts.

Free Speech is at least important to him.

Civil Rights: He voted Yes on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration and on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage, on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. Also voted Yes on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping.

Spoke to soon, all of the above is interfering into your life and privacy and what you say.

He voted No on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes, and on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. He voted No on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women and on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business, on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation, on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds.

Hate crimes? I’m against. I don’t care about the intent, it’s the result. Any crime can be a hate crime. You don’t do it if you like the person. Also Equality to me is no special treatment based on sex or race, you have to do it all on your own. That’s true equality, not with an outside influence stacking the deck.

Now to Gun Rights. He voted Yes on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers, on more penalties for gun & drug violations, on loosening license & background checks at gun shows, on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks.

Voted No on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence, on background checks at gun shows.

Immigration: He voted Yes on building a fence along the Mexican border, on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work, on visas for skilled workers, on limited welfare for immigrants.

No fence. Its a two-edged sword. Plus with Unemployment as high as it is, how about leaving the field work for Americans. I know, “Its work We don’t wanna do.” How about this, you wanna eat, you gotta work. 

He voted No on establishing a Guest Worker program, on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security, and on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship.

My Conclusion: Cookie-cutter statist Republican. Wants to police the world, interfere with your life and tell you who to have sex with. And you better not complain because he’s listening in. Big Government is fine as long as its Republican Big Government.

 Sources:

CNN Republican Debate: Final Part

Continuing the post I started yesterday, we continue looking at the CNN New Hampshire Debate. Here is the debate transcript here.

Lets look at some quotes from it. Answers to different subjects, and I will be picking and choosing for space’s sake. Read the transcript for the full story.

The Housing Problem(people up side down, foreclosures)

T. Pawlenty: “Well, the first thing we need to do is get the government out of crony capitalism. We have this alliance between big government, big unions, and certain big bailout businesses. And as Congressman Paul said a few minutes ago, we had politicians in Congress trying to micromanage the housing market, and they created a bubble and they created the mess.”

R. Paul: ” The government shouldn’t be involved. You take the bankruptcies, we’ve been doing a whole lot. We’ve been propping them up. We’ve had the Federal Reserve buy all the illiquid assets, which were worthless, stick it with the taxpayers. The people who’ve made the money when the bubble was being blown up, they’re the ones who got bailed out…You need to get the prices of houses down to clear the market, but they’re trying to keep the prices up. They actually have programs in Washington which stimulating housing. You need to clear the — clear the market and then we can all go back to work. But what we’re doing now is absolutely wrong.”

Medicare


R. Paul: “You know, if you’re — if you’re an average couple and you paid your entire amount into — into Medicare, you would have put $140,000 into it. And in your lifetime, you will take out more than three times that much…And I would think that if we don’t want to cut any of the medical benefits for children or the elderly, because we have drawn so many in and got them so dependent on the government, if you want to work a transition, you have to cut a lot of money.
And that’s why I argue the case that this money ought to be cut out of foreign welfare, and foreign militarism, and corporate welfare, and the military industrial complex. Then we might have enough money to tide people over.
But some revamping has to occur. What we need is competition. We need to get a chance for the people to opt out of the system. Just — you talk about opting out of Obamacare? Why can’t we opt out of the whole system and take care of ourselves?”

T. Pawlenty: “I’m going to have my own plan, John, that will feature some differences from Congressman Ryan’s plan. It will feature performance pay rather than just volume pay to hospitals and clinics and providers. It will allow Medicare to continue as an option, but it’ll be priced against various other options that we’re going to offer people, as well, and some other things.”

N. Gingrich: ” If you’re dealing with something as big as Medicare and you can’t have a conversation with the country where the country thinks what you’re doing is the right thing, you better slow down…Congressman Tom Price has a very good bill in that would allow private contracting so those people who want to voluntarily could contract with their doctor or their hospital in addition to Medicare, and it would be outside the current system and it would relieve the pricing pressure on the current system. We did a study called “Stop Paying the Crooks.” We think you can save $70 billion to $120 billion in Medicare and Medicaid annually by not paying crooks.”

R. Santorum: “What President Obama — let me finish, please — what President Obama has done is he put in, in the Obamacare bill, the Independent Payment Advisory Board. Ladies and gentlemen, seniors, Medicare is going to be cut, starting in 2014, by the federal government, and it’s going to be rationing of care from the top down. What Paul Ryan and Rick Santorum want to do, which is not radical, which is take a program, Medicare prescription drugs, that is 41 percent under budget, because seniors are involved in controlling costs, and apply it all to Medicare. It is the right approach for Medicare.”

H. Cain: “The reason we’re in the situation we are today with Medicare and Social Security is because the problem hasn’t been solved. We can no longer rearrange it. We’ve got to restructure those programs. And the Paul Ryan approach I totally support.”

Social Security Reform

H. Cain: ” Let’s fix the problem and that is to restructure Social Security. I support a personal retirement account option in order to phase out the current system. We know that this works. It worked in the small country of Chile when they did it 30 years. That payroll tax had gotten up to 27 percent for every dollar that the worker made. I believe we can do the same thing. That break point would approximately 40 years of age. Now, young people realize they still got to contribute to the current system for those people that are on Social Security, that are near Social Security. Here’s — let me give you one another example where this approach has worked. The city of Galveston, they opted out of the Social Security system way back in the ’70s. And now, they retire with a whole lot more money. Why? For a real simple reason — they have an account with their money on it. What I’m simply saying is we’ve got to restructure the program using a personal retirement account option in order to eventually make it solvent.”

Debt Ceiling

M. Romney: “What we say to America is: at some point, you hit a wall. At some point, people around the world say, “I’m not going to keep loaning money to America to pay these massive deficits pay for them because America can’t pay them back and the dollar is not worth anything anymore.” In that circumstance, we saddled our future — the future of our kids in a way that is just unacceptable.”

M. Bachmann: ” I’ve already voted no on raising the debt ceiling in the past. And unless there are serious cuts, I can’t…So, what we need to do both, from the Congress and president, he needs to direct his treasury secretary: pay the interest on the debt first, then we won’t have a failure of our full faith and credit from their prioritized spending. We have to have serious spending cuts.”

Separation of Church and State

R. Santorum: “I think the key to the success of this country, how we all live together, because we are a very diverse country — Madison called it the perfect remedy — which was to allow everybody, people of faith and no faith, to come in and make their claims in the public square, to be heard, have those arguments, and not to say because you’re not a person of faith, you need to stay out, because you have strong faith convictions, your opinion is invalid. Just the opposite — we get along because we know that we — all of our ideas are allowed in and tolerated. That’s what makes America work.”

R. Paul: ” I think faith has something to do with the character of the people that represent us, and law should have a moral fiber to it and our leaders should. We shouldn’t expect us to try to change morality. You can’t teach people how to be moral. But the Constitution addresses this by saying — literally, it says no theocracy. But it doesn’t talk about church and state. The most important thing is the First Amendment. Congress shall write no laws — which means Congress should never prohibit the expression of your Christian faith in a public place.”

Gay Marriage, State or Federal decision

M. Bachmann: “Well, I do believe in the 10th Amendment and I do believe in self-determination for the states. I also believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I carried that legislation when I was a senator in Minnesota, and I believe that for children, the best possible way to raise children is to have a mother and father in their life…I’m running for the presidency of the United States. And I don’t see that it’s the role of a president to go into states and interfere with their state laws.”

CAIN: State’s decision.

PAWLENTY: I support a constitutional amendment to define marriage between a man and woman. I was the co-author of the state — a law in Minnesota to define it and now we have courts jumping over this.

PAUL: The federal government shouldn’t be involved. I wouldn’t support an amendment. But let me suggest — one of the ways to solve this ongoing debate about marriage, look up in the dictionary. We know what marriage is all about. But then, get the government out of it. Why doesn’t it go to the church? And why doesn’t it to go to the individuals? I don’t think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church.

ROMNEY: Constitutional.

GINGRICH: Well, I helped author the Defense of Marriage Act which the Obama administration should be frankly protecting in court. I think if that fails, at that point, you have no choice except to (ph) constitutional amendment.

SANTORUM: Constitutional amendment. Look, the constitutional amendment includes the states. Three-quarters of the states have to — have to ratify it. So the states will be involved in this process. We should have one law in the country with respect to marriage. There needs to be consistency on something as foundational as what marriage is.

BACHMANN: John, I do support a constitutional amendment on — on marriage between a man and a woman, but I would not be going into the states to overturn their state law.

Eminent Domain

R. Paul: “No. We — we shouldn’t have that power given to the government where they can take private land and transfer it to a private industry. The eminent domain laws are going to vary in different states, but we have the national eminent domain laws. It was never meant to take it from some people, private owners, and then take it and give it to a corporation because it’s going to help that locality. And this goes back to the basic understanding of property rights. Property and free society should be owned by the people, and it shouldn’t be regulated to death by the governments, whether it’s Washington, D.C., or local governments. Right now, we really don’t own our land. We just pay rent on our land and we listen to all these regulations. So I would say that courts should get out of the way, too. They should not have this right to take land from individuals to provide privileges for another group.”

ROMNEY: “Well, I don’t believe that land should be taken — the power of government to give to a private corporation. And so the right of eminent domain is a right which is used to foster a public purpose and public ownership for a road, highways, and so forth. And so my view is, if land is going to be taken for purposes of a private enterprise, that’s the wrong way to go.”

Ethanol

SANTORUM: Yeah, I actually had proposed that we can phase out the ethanol subsidy, which is the blender’s credit, over a five-year period of time. I also proposed, as part of helping him in that transition — one other thing. I also phase out the tariff on ethanol coming into this country over that five-year period of time. One of the issues for the ethanol industry is distribution networks. So I would take half of that credit every year, 4.5 cents, and use it to help expand distribution for E-85 in other areas of the country. And that all would be shut down in five years. And I say that because I think the ethanol industry — I voted against ethanol subsidies my entire time in Congress. But I will tell you, the ethanol industry has matured greatly, and I think they are actually capable of surviving and doing quite well going forward under that — under that plan.

And it keeps going onto Afghanistan, Libya, etc. I skipped some topics, look at the transcript. Whew!

 

CNN Republican Debate: Part 1

Debate, the back and forth on ideas. Unless its a primary, then you have a line of people and not enough time to get much beyond talking points and short quotes. Then its a hybrid debate/press conference. Here is the debate transcript here.

Lets look at some quotes from it. Answers to different subjects, and I will be picking and choosing for space’s sake. Read the transcript for the full story.

Job Creation:

Herman Cain: “The thing we need to do is to get this economy boosted. This economy is stalled. It’s like a train on the tracks with no engine. And the administration has simply been putting all of this money in the caboose.
We need an engine called the private sector. That means lower taxes, lower the capital gains tax rate to zero, suspend taxes on repatriated profits, then make them permanent. Uncertainty is killing this economy. This is the only way we’re going to get this economy moving, and that’s to put the right fuel in the engine, which is the private sector.”

Tim Pawlenty: “And I don’t accept this notion that we’re going to be average or anemic. So my proposal has a 5 percent growth target. It cuts taxes, but it also dramatically cuts spending. We need to fix regulation. We need to have a pro-American energy policy. We need to fix health care policy. And if you do those things, as I’ve proposed, including cut spending, you’ll get this economy moving and growing the private economy by shrinking government.”

Ron Paul: “We’re trying to unwind a Keynesian bubble that’s been going on for 70 years, and you’re not going to touch this problem until you liquidate the bad debt and the mal-investment, go back to work. But you have to have sound money, and you have to recognize how we got in the trouble.”

Repealing ObamaCare

All want to repeal it and cite different reasons how.

How do they plan to make the centrist Republicans happy

Rick Santorum: ” I think the Tea Party is a great backstop for America. I love it when people hold up this Constitution and say we have to live by what our founders laid out for this country. It is absolutely essential that we have that backbone to the Republican Party going into this election.”

Michelle Bachmann: “…the Tea Party is really made up of disaffected Democrats, independents, people who’ve never been political a day in their life.
People who are libertarians, Republicans. It’s a wide swath of America coming together. I think that’s why the left fears it so much. Because they’re people who simply want to take the country back. They want the country to work again.”

H. Cain: “And so if the other party disagrees but the American people embrace those common sense solutions, that’s how we get things done. So those experiences in the business world, managing large organizations with a very diverse constituency are the same skills that can help get the people involved and not exclude the people like this administration has done.”

How to bring Manufacturing Jobs back to America

R. Paul: ” Pretty important because everything we’ve done in the last 20 or 30 years we’ve exported our jobs. And when you have a reserve currency of the world and you abuse it, you export money. That becomes the main export so it goes with the money.
You have to invite capital. The way you get capital into a country, you have to have a strong currency, not a weak currency. Today it’s a deliberate job of the Federal Reserve to weaken the currency. We should invite capital back.
First thing is, we have trillions of dollars, at least over a trillion dollars of U.S. money made overseas, but it stays over there because if you bring it home, they get taxed. If you want to, we need to get the Fed to quit printing the money and if you want capital, you have to entice those individuals to repatriate their money and take the taxes office, set up a financial system, deregulate and de-tax to invite people to go back to work again.
But as long as we run a program of deliberately weakening our currency, our jobs will go overseas, and that is what’s happened for a good many years, especially in the last decade.”

T. Pawlenty: “I’m for a fair and open trade but I’m not for being stupid and I’m not for being a chump. And we have individuals and organizations and countries around this world who are not following the rules when it comes to fair trade. We need a stronger president and somebody who’s going to take on those issues.
Number two, we need to make the costs and burdens of manufacturing in this country lower. We’re asking them to climb the mountain with a big backsack full of rocks on their back. We have to take the rocks out.”

M. Bachmann: “What we need to do is today the United States has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. I’m a former federal tax lawyer. I’ve seen the devastation. We’ve got to bring that tax rate down substantially so that we’re among the lowest in the industrialized world.
Here’s the other thing. Every time the liberals get into office, they pass an omnibus bill of big spending projects. What we need to do is pass the mother of all repeal bills, but it’s the repeal bill that will get a job killing regulations. And I would begin with the EPA, because there is no other agency like the EPA. It should really be renamed the job-killing organization of America.”

Right-To-Work

T. Pawlenty: “We live in the United States of America and people shouldn’t be forced to belong or be a member in any organization. And the government has no business telling you what group to be a member of or not. I support strongly right-to-work legislation.”

Newt Gingrich: “And I think, Kevin (ph), that if you believe in the 10th Amendment, we ought to — let the states learn from each other. And the right-to-work states are creating a lot more jobs today that they heavily unionized states.”

Subsidies

R. Paul: “There shouldn’t be any government assistance to private enterprise. It’s not morally correct, it’s legal, it’s bad economics. It’s not part of the constitution. If you allow an economy to thrive, they’ll decide how R&D works or where they invest their monies.
But when the politicians get in and direct things, you get the malinvestment. They do the dumb things. They might build too many houses. And they might not direct their research to the right places. So no, it’s a fallacy to think that government and politicians and bureaucrats are smart enough to manage the economy, so it shouldn’t happen.”

H. Cain: ” I studied the financial meltdown and concluded on my own that we needed to do something drastic, yes. When the concept of TARP was first presented to the public, I was willing to go along with it. But then when the administration started to implement it on a discretionary basis, picking winners and losers and also directing funds to General Motors and others that had nothing to do with the financial system, that’s where I totally disagreed.
We should — the government should not be selecting winners and losers, and I don’t believe in this concept of too big to fail. If they fail, the free market will figure out who’s going to pick the up the pieces.”

M. Romney: “The bailout program was not a success because the bailout program wasted a lot of money. About $17 billion was used unnecessarily.
When the CEOs of the auto companies went to Washington asking for money from Washington, I wrote an op-ed, and I said, look, the right process for these companies is not a bailout, not a big check from Washington, but instead letting these enterprises go through bankruptcy, re-emerge, getting rid of the unnecessary costs that they had, the excessive debt, re-emerge, and that would be the preferred way for them to be able to get on their feet again.
Instead, the Bush administration and the Obama administration wrote checks to the auto industry. Ultimately, they went through the very bankruptcy process that I suggested from the beginning.”

R. Santorum: “we should not have had a TARP. We should not have had the auto bailout. Governor Romney’s right. They could have gone through a structured bankruptcy without the federal government.
All the federal government did was basically tip to the cronies, tip to the unions, gave the unions the company. If they’d have gone through the orderly bankruptcy process, gone through a structured bankruptcy, they’d have come out in the same place, only we would have kept the integrity of the bankruptcy process without the government putting its fingers into it.”

M. Bachmann: ” John, I was in the middle of this debate. I was behind closed doors with Secretary Paulson when he came and made the extraordinary, never-before-made request to Congress: Give us a $700 billion blank check with no strings attached.
And I fought behind closed doors against my own party on TARP. It was a wrong vote then. It’s continued to be a wrong vote since then. Sometimes that’s what you have to do. You have to take principle over your party.”

To be continued tomorrow. It was a long debate.