Club for Growth Presidential Whitepapers; a Roundup - Granite Grok

Club for Growth Presidential Whitepapers; a Roundup

Over the past few months, we’ve presented the CFG Presidential Whitepapers as they became available, and it seems timely to repost the links and update the comments as we go into the final stretch for the primary.

These exceprts and comments are meant to give a flavor of each candidate’s report – Click on any picture to read or download the complete whitepaper for a candidate:

CFG writes: “As a historical figure, it is undeniable that Newt Gingrich has played leading roles in some of the most important battles on behalf of economic growth and limited government in the last quarter century.
His opposition and momentary defeat of the 1990 Bush tax increase, his leadership of the 1994 Republican Revolution, and his spearheading of the provisions of the Contract With America are major league achievements.  His consistent support for pro-growth tax reform, free trade, Social Security reform, tort reform, and political free speech also evidence a clear and impressive understanding of the fundamentals that underlie the free enterprise system that has made America prosperous.


Unfortunately, the problems in Speaker Gingrich’s record are frequent enough and serious enough to give pause.  On two of the most important recent issues that confronted limited government conservatives (creating the new budget busting Medicare drug entitlement, and the Wall Street bailout), Gingrich was on the wrong side.  His advocacy of an individual health care mandate is problematic.  His penchant for tinkering with rewards for favored industries and outcomes shows a troubling willingness to use federal power to coerce taxpayers into his preferred direction.  And his occasional hostility toward conservatives who do not share his desire to support liberal Republicans or to compromise on matters of principle is worrisome.
The totality leads one to be rather unsure what kind of president Newt Gingrich would be.  Past is often prologue, and in Gingrich’s case there is an enormous volume of past on which to base a judgment.  One could reasonably expect a President Gingrich to lead America in a pro-growth and limited government direction generally, possibly with flashes of real brilliance and accomplishment, but also likely with some serious disappointments and unevenness.

CFG gave Romney a mixed review, especially noting his tendency to be a technocratic manager: “Because of his long tenure in public life, especially his presidential run in 2008, Mitt Romney is considered a well-vetted candidate by now.  Perhaps to his consternation, he has developed an unshakeable reputation as a flip-flopper. He has changed his position on several economic issues, including taxes, education, political free speech, and climate change.  And yet the one issue that he doesn’t flip on – RomneyCare – is the one that is causing him the most problems with conservative voters.  Nevertheless, he labels himself as a pro-growth fiscal conservative, and we have no doubt that Romney would move the country in a pro-growth direction.  He would promote the unwinding of Obama’s bad economic policies, but we also think that Romney is somewhat of a technocrat. After a career in business, quickly finding a “solution” seems to be his goal, even if it means more government intrusion as a means to an end. To this day, Romney supports big government solutions to health care and opposes pro-growth tax code reform – positions that are simply opposite to those supported by true economic conservatives.  How much Romney’s philosophy of governance will affect his policy goals if elected, we leave for the voters to decide.”

This is CFG’s summary on Santorum: “On the whole, Rick Santorum’s record on economic issues in the U.S. Senate was above average.  More precisely, it was quite strong in some areas and quite weak in others.  He has a strong record on taxes, and his leadership on welfare reform and Social Security was exemplary.  But his record also contains several very weak spots, including his active support of wasteful spending earmarks, his penchant for trade protectionism, and his willingness to support large government expansions like the Medicare prescription drug bill and the 2005 Highway Bill.
As president, Santorum would most likely lead the country in a pro-growth direction, but his record contains more than a few weak spots that make us question if he would resist political expediency when it comes to economic issues.”

CFG has praise for Ron Paul’s principles, but has concerns about a few contrarian votes on earmarks, education, and free trade – essentially, they believe that he allows the great to be the enemy of the good: “When it comes to limited government, there are few champions as steadfast and principled as Representative Ron Paul.  In the House of Representatives, he plays a very useful role constantly challenging the status quo and reminding his colleagues, despite their frequent indifference, that our Constitution was meant to limit the power of government.  On taxes, regulation, and political free speech his record is outstanding.  While his recent pork votes are troubling, the vast majority of his anti-spending votes reflect a longstanding desire to cut government down to size…….[BUT]…..Ron Paul is, undoubtedly, ideologically committed to pro-growth, limited government policies.  But his insistence on opposing all but the perfect means that under a Ron Paul presidency we might never get a chance to pursue the good too.

Club for Growth has cautious praise for Perry, especially for holding the line on spending, and for his tort reform, but notes a number of inconsistencies, including tax increases early in his career, and crony capitalism. Here is their summary: “The Texas tax and regulatory climate Governor Rick Perry inherited from Governor George W. Bush was already among the best in the nation.  Further, during Perry’s entire long tenure as governor, the Texas Legislature has had conservative Republican majorities.  So the bar for judging Perry’s performance should be set high.
It is quite clear that Perry did not move his state in reverse, or on the wrong course.  In many instances, he merely maintained a positive status quo.  In others, such as tort reform and regulations, he improved the Texas economic climate.
Still, his support for taxpayer-subsidized funds to lure jobs away from other states shows he has at times an interventionist streak rather than consistent free-market principles.  His semi-apology for the big government interventions of President Bush suggests a similar inclination.
Should Rick Perry become President, he will inherent a far worse economic climate than he has in Texas, as well as a less hospitable Congress than he has in the Texas Legislature.  It is quite likely that Perry would seek to move the country in a much more pro-growth direction.  Almost any movement in the direction of the Texas approach would be welcomed.  However, given some actions in his record, it is questionable whether Perry will maintain his steadfast fiscal approach when faced with a less favorably inclined legislature than he is accustomed to.”

According to CATO’s 2006 report card, Huntsman received an overall grade of ‘B’, but this is misleading.  He received the top score – an ‘A’ – on tax policy, but he received an abysmal ‘F’ on spending policy.  For 2008, the results were similar.
And these snippets from CFG’s summary: “Governor Huntsman is often a frustrating political figure. He pushed for and passed significant pro-growth tax policies, but promoted and passed large increases in state spending. He’s demonstrated a clear understanding of the benefits of global free markets, but is lukewarm on school choice. Governor Huntsman also supported a bigger stimulus bill, TARP, and was a leading advocate of cap-and-trade…..
In addition, we find Governor Huntsman’s statement that ‘health care is a right’ to be simply flabbergasting. We’re not sure what part of the United States Constitution Governor Huntsman was referring to when he made that statement, but he certainly needs to explain what he was thinking.
In the end, it is Governor Huntsman’s spending record that is inexcusable. There is now widespread recognition that the next President must address the enormous threat posed by federal spending that threatens national bankruptcy. Huntsman’s failing grades on controlling state spending raise serious questions about whether he would be equal to that task.”

CFG has high praise for Bachmann, but notes a small number of inconsistencies – worth reading the whole report. Here is their summary: “Congresswoman Bachmann received a 100% score in the Club for Growth’s 2010 scorecard and has a lifetime score of 94%. The average house Republican score from 2007-2010 was 78%.  With very few exceptions, Congresswoman Bachmann has supported pro-growth policies throughout her career. She especially deserves praise for her consistent defense of school choice. After reviewing her record, [CFG is] confident that Congresswoman Bachmann would be a pro-growth President.

CFG is one of my favorite organizations, because they rank politicians according to fiscal conservatism, and support worthy candidates in congressional and senatorial races. Their past president, Pat Toomey is now senator from PA, and many of their candidates made it into the house and senate in 2010. When the efforts of this group are combined with Jim DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund, the total effect is awe inspiring, and the statists are worried. Consider joining CFG, chip in, and help to rank the congresscritters by adding your vote to their ranking system.

Check their website for more information:

>