Santorum's economics: A poor record
The entreaties of the desperate are getting embarrassing when it comes to Rick Santorum's doomed quest for the Republican nomination for president. One conservative commentator actually claims "the media is hiding the fact that Rick is a champion of economic freedom."
But Mr. Santorum has a poor record on economic freedom.
As the Club for Growth notes, Santorum supported the massive new Medicare drug entitlement "that now costs taxpayers over $60 billion a year and has almost $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities."
In the 2003-04 session of Congress, Santorum sponsored or co-sponsored 51 bills to raise spending but not one spending-cut proposal. In the next session of Congress, "he had one of the biggest spending agendas of any Republican," says the pro-growth group.
And Santorum was downright "duplicitous" regarding the jobs-killing minimum wage. As the Club for Growth documents, "on the same day he voted no in 2005, he sponsored an amendment that would increase the minimum wage," then boasted about it in a piece of campaign literature the next year.
"Economic freedom" through wealth redistribution and increased government spending• Better living through greater conscription of your money?
Hardly. That's a record of promotion of the dependent state.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.