Find a back issue

Ross Perot Endorses Mitt Romney

From the big story on Ross Perot earlier this month in USA Today:

He’s still avoiding one thing: an endorsement in this year’s campaign. Though members of his family have donated almost exclusively to Republicans in recent years, Perot is an equal-opportunity critic, unimpressed with both Obama and Romney when it comes to addressing the nation’s red ink.

“We’re on the edge of the cliff, and we have got to start fixing it now. Otherwise, we’re leaving a disaster to our children’s and our grandchildren’s future,” he says in the East Texas twang that spiced up the presidential debates 20 years ago. “Nobody that’s running really talks about it, about what we have to do and why we have to do it. They would prefer not to have it discussed.”

From the op-ed Perot wrote today in the Des Moines Register:

Our country faces a momentous choice. The fact is the United States is on an unsustainable course. At stake is nothing less than our position in the world, our standard of living at home and our constitutional freedoms.

That is why I am endorsing Mitt Romney for president. We can’t afford four more years in which debt mushrooms out of control, our government grows and our military is weakened.

10 comments on “Ross Perot Endorses Mitt Romney

  1. @Vseslav Botkin: For once, you’re right. Check the record of John F. Kennedy, who proposed massive tax cuts including for the rich, resulting in documented increased tax revenue for the federal government. He started from a base of higher rates but the principle is the same. In JFK’s words:

    “[It] is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country’s own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

  2. @Glenn: For once, you’re right (and so was JFK). A top marginal rate of 90% is too high.

  3. I have yet to read a credible case study where a rich owner of a company hired more employees simply because their taxes were cut. Guess where the tax savings usually go? Into their pockets. You know what “job creators” say when asked about why they created jobs? They say that the demand for their product was so great that they had to hire more people.

  4. ” He started from a base of higher rates but the principle is the same. ”

    That’s a bit like saying I could have done what Felix did on Sunday since I once jumped out of a high branch in a tree and greased the landing. Sure he started out higher, but the principle is the same, right?

    We currently have the lowest rates in over 50 years. If lowering rates helped we would already be out of the woods. We have tried absurdly low rates for too long it is time to get back to sanity, not double down on the crazy.

  5. @Glenn – Is it not true that over the past 40 years, the deficit has increased under Republican presidents and decreased under Democratic presidents (including Obama)?

    Is it not true that the deficit has actually DECREASED each year under Obama.

    The deficit has actually decreased the most at the quickest rate under Clinton and Obama.

    It’s a total fallacy that our country’s finances improve under Republican presidents.

    No matter what people might think about “makers and takers” and “the 47%”, it’s a simple fact that as far as the deficit is concerned, Democratic presidents do better than Republicans.

  6. @Edward: You’re right that the deficit has decreased under Obama. At the end of his first fiscal year it was $1.4 trillion. In both 2010 and 2011 it was about $1.3 trillion, and projections for 2012 are about $1.1 trillion. Still, he came into office promising to cut it in half. Meantime the national debt has hit the stratosphere under Obama, going from $10.6 trillion when W left office to $16.1 trillion now.

  7. When looking at deficits, it is often just as illuminating, if not more so, to look at which party controlled Congress, and specifically the House of Representatives, when determining which party is more responsible, relatively speaking.