Mitt Romney has not effectively communicated with the American public over the past few weeks. A private meeting with several big Florida supporters turned into an unmitigated disaster. However, not everyone at this chit-chat session was a supporter, as one person recorded his comments and shared them with the press. Since then, the opposition has deceitfully distorted the comments.
Romney really needs some help in his efforts to challenge the president. Unfortunately, his advisers have been unable to craft effective speeches that truly delineate his positions and his vision. I decided to write an economic speech for Romney that I believe accurately reflects his perspectives and one that I would support.
My fellow Americans,
Our country is a crossroads. You have an opportunity to make a change in November and end the failed economic policies of my opponent. You should not let this historic moment pass without action, as another four years of rule by this administration will result in even more economic hardship.
For months, my critics have stated continually that no one knows the real Mitt Romney or what I stand for economically. In response, I will review my agenda to improve the economy in this speech so there will be no more misunderstandings. I want to clarify the differences between my opponent and me. Hopefully, my opponent and his supporters will not twist my words. This is probably wishful thinking, given the partisan environment in which we live. But I can dream of more comity, can't I.
Let me first say that I want every American to have a job, immediately. If elected president, I will instruct the Congress and the appropriate agencies in our federal and state governments to create four million new positions and to fill them with men and women who are currently unemployed.
It may sound great, but there's a catch to this proposal. Able-bodied Americans will no longer be able to apply for assistance unless they are working in one of the aforementioned programs. The choice will be simple, either work and collect a salary from the government, or stay at home and receive nothing.
There are several reasons why I expect unemployed Americans will wholeheartedly endorse this initiative. First, I will ensure that compensation for their work will be 10% more than one receives from welfare. Second, they will be able to break the shackles that enslave them to government assistance by earning a wage and taking care of themselves and their loved ones. Third, they will regain their dignity when they become part of the workforce. Fourth, they will have opportunities to improve themselves with training that will be incorporated into work programs. This will enable them to find higher paying private industry jobs when they are qualified and the jobs become available.
What’s in it for America and all those who have jobs and pay their taxes? In the medium term, welfare will be eliminated in its current form for everyone except those who cannot care for themselves including children and the infirmed. I anticipate that the cost of work programs will be high at the outset, but one that will be enthusiastically supported by the taxpayers. After a relatively short time, it will be far less expensive than the current welfare system. This investment by the taxpayers will afford America huge economic social benefits over time.
Our government needs to pay down its debt and decrease taxes for all Americans. A first step in this direction will be to reform the tax code. I will simplify it and establish a new, and lower ceiling on federal income taxes that will be staged over a five-year period as our economy begins to accelerate. The new rate will be 30% for those who earn the most money and scale down for lower income levels.
At the same time, I will eliminate certain expensive loopholes immediately. These loopholes are specifically aimed at the affluent; I expect they will be substantially more than the loss of revenues resulting from the lower tax ceiling.
The loopholes I’ve targeted include, but are not be limited to, an increase in the capital gains tax rate from 15% to 25%, income taxes on healthcare benefits provided by employers to all taxpayers earning more than $250, 000, capping mortgage interest deductions at $25,000 annually and limiting deductions for charitable contributions to $100,000 annually. Additionally, real estate plus school tax deductions will be capped at $25,000, and tax-free bond interest will be capped at $100,000.
I believe those Americans who use more than their fair share of energy should pay a surcharge. So, I will call for a new tax on Americans who have homes that are greater than a yet to be determined square footage. In the same vein, I will call for a corresponding tax on all cars that have miles per gallon usage less than an increasing MPG scale, yet to be determined. The beauty of these programs is that bigger houses and bigger cars will still be available to those that want them, but the larger energy requirements will be assessed.
These initiatives will have a dramatic impact on our economy, and they will neutralize the lower income tax ceiling. And yet, I expect the net revenues to the Treasury to be substantially greater.
Recently, some comments I made at a private meeting were recorded and made public by someone in attendance. I regret that so many people have misinterpreted what I said. It really doesn’t come as any surprise to me that this happened; the viciousness that has emanated from my opponent and his surrogates is unfortunate. It is this type of behavior that has contributed to the ultra-partisanship that exists in Washington over the past four years.
I’d like to provide some clarification. Many people who do not pay income taxes in America are more likely to vote for the other candidate. Frankly, his vision of America includes a big government that is highly sensitive to this group of Americans. In fact, this hypersensitivity has become a huge burden on our economy over the past two or three decades, as taxpayers are still funding many old and inefficient programs. Our government is expert in appropriating money, but it is incompetent at eliminating programs that are no longer needed.
I believe with my heart that needy Americans deserve to receive aid if they cannot care for themselves. However, this entitlement should have a work element for those that can work, as I mentioned earlier.
It would be foolish for me to turn my back on 47% of the population for many reasons. The most important one is that this tactic would make it much more difficult for me to be elected. Additionally, this group includes many who are supportive of my candidacy. Why would I disavow people who want Mitt Romney to be president? It makes no sense.
I made a regretful comment about the 47% indicating that I would not be able to convince them to meet their responsibilities. This was a misstatement on my part that I want to rectify. I’m positive that those who do not pay income taxes because they are out of work can be brought back into the workforce. I’m positive that almost all of these people would work if good jobs were available. I will do everything in my power to convince these Americans that work will set them free. And, I will instruct federal and state agencies to provide these jobs with support of the federal government.
God bless America.
October 3 in Denver, Colorado: Domestic policy