According to the Club for Growth (CG) free trade is a vital policy necessary for maximizing economic growth. I believe this to be true to a certain point as recent events have shown the undercutting of our labor force and theft of technology. CG says before assessing Santorum’s votes against free trade, it should be noted that he cast several pro-trade votes, including the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Oman, Morocco, Australia, Chile, Singapore, Dominican Republic-Central America (CAFTA), Trade Promotion Authority, and extension of normal trade relations with China. But beyond those pro-trade actions, Santorum has some real duds. In perhaps the most important free trade vote during his career in Congress, Santorum voted against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993. Days before the vote, he said, “NAFTA will produce pockets of winners and losers across the country. Our area is unfortunately one of the losers." That analysis, while arguably correct with regard to a small number of industries in Pennsylvania, ignores the fact that every single consumer in Pennsylvania benefited tremendously from NAFTA, as well as did many more affected industries. As a member of the Senate Steel Caucus, Santorum voted for and co-sponsored a bill to slap tariffs on imported steel in 1999. In 2005, Santorum voted in support of an amendment that would impose a massive, job-killing 27.5% tariff on all Chinese imports if China didn’t readjust their currency upward. In 1997, Santorum sponsored a proposal that would impose a one-cent tax on imported honey with the proceeds going to the National Honey Board to aid in their research, a special interest giveaway.
Per CG Santorum has a mixed record on regulation. He opposed card check and the over-reaching Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. He also voted NO on a cap and trade scheme brought to the Senate back in 2003 and YES on opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. He voted YES to get rid of the Clinton ergonomic rules in early 2001. He voted NO on raising the minimum wage in 1995 and 2005 but on the same day he voted NO in 2005, he sponsored an amendment that would increase the minimum wage. He displayed similar duplicity on ethanol. In early 2011, Santorum said, “Prior to 9/11, I was not a big fan of ethanol subsidies, but 2001 change[d] my mind on a lot of things, and one of them was trying to support domestic energy and this is part of it." Evidence does show that Santorum was opposed to ethanol before 9/11 - in 1997 and 1998 as he voted to end ethanol subsidies. The evidence also shows that, at times, he was supportive of an ethanol mandate after 9/11 but in 2005 Santorum voted to end the ethanol mandate. If the original flip-flop was a principled stand taken by Santorum because of national security concerns, we’re at a loss to explain this flip-flop-flip-again vote. In Santorum’s 2006 campaign brochure he boasts about sponsoring a bill to regulate “price gouging and unfair pricing by the big oil companies.” This contradicts his opposition to a “windfall profits tax” that Democrats tried to impose on oil companies in 2005. He also voted YES on Sarbanes-Oxley, which was an overreaching bill that tried to tighten accounting regulations following the Enron scandal. I’m not getting into my point on any of these.
CG says Santorum flip-flopped on government’s role in the housing market. In late 2000, Santorum wrote a document encouraging more home ownership, particularly for low-income families, with the help of government assistance, whether it was through the Federal Housing Administration, or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. However, he changed his tune in 2005, when he urged reform of Fannie and Freddie. Along with 24 of his colleagues, he signed a letter that read, “If effective regulatory reform legislation ... is not enacted this year, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole.” Unfortunately, Congress did not heed this warning and the America public knows all too well what the consequences were.
Per CG on Social Security (SS), Santorum has been very outspoken in favor of pro-growth reforms; when SS was considered the “third rail” in politics, Santorum was advocating personal savings accounts as a way to strengthen the program while giving taxpayers ownership over their retirements. In 1998, he did a town hall meeting with President Clinton advocating for personal savings accounts. In 2005, Santorum led the charge to adopt personal accounts on behalf of President Bush; he also co-sponsored a bill that would “stop the raid” on the SS Trust Fund and in 2006 he voted YES on a similar piece of legislation.
Santorum is opposed to Obama Care and advocates its full repeal. In a recent interview, he said that if he were president, the second thing he would do once in office after repeal, would be to end Medicaid as a federal entitlement. “We need to give a block of money to the states. We need to pare back some of these strings attached to this money, and let the states devise their own program”. Santorum supports allowing people to buy health insurance across state lines and open up tax free health savings accounts but Santorum supported the expensive Medicare prescription drug program in 2003.
No comments:
Post a Comment