Romney A Viable GOP Candidate

Many conservatives believe that former Governor Mitt Romney (R-Massachusetts) is not a viable Republican candidate for the 2012 Presidential Election. They cite Romneycare, a 2006 set of healthcare reform programs signed into law by Romney in Massachusetts which forced many residents to buy insurance, forced college students to drop out of school, and actually lead to increased healthcare costs in the state.

Despite the mistake of Romneycare, Mitt Romney is still a viable candidate for the Republican nomination. Romney recently came out well ahead of other potential Republican candidates in a New Hampshire poll. Regarded as a more moderate Republican, Romney has potential to secure independent votes and even the votes of Democrats. Additionally, he is able to present a stronger family values image than other candidates, such as Newt Gingrich and Donald Trump, who have had multiple divorces and even affairs. When it comes to healthcare, Romney has advocated keeping the federal government out, using free markets to keep costs down, and giving people more choice in healthcare. Romney has learned from his mistakes, and in a speech today and an op-ed in the USA Today, Romney outlined how he would handle Obamacare if elected President in 2012:

If I am elected president, I will issue on my first day in office an executive order paving the way for waivers from ObamaCare for all 50 states. Subsequently, I will call on Congress to fully repeal ObamaCare.

While repealing all of Obamacare may not be necessary, as some portions of the bill such as the new young adult coverage provisions and the disallowance of "pre-existing condition" denials are good for the American people, one path to proper healthcare reform in the United States would be be to fully repeal Obamacare and start over from scratch ensuring that new reform doesn't include the higher taxes, unconstitutional individual mandates, and increased costs that Obamacare had.

Should Cigarette Taxes Be Lowered?

Recently the New York Times reported about a proposal in New Hampshire to lower cigarette taxes. Opponents of the tax claim that it will hurt revenues and encourage new smokers. They're wrong on the first claim, but might be right on the second claim -- which is actually good for the country.

It has been proven time after time that when taxes are reduced, increased volume will make up for the lower tax rate. If the opponents of a lower cigarette tax in New Hampshire are correct about a lower tax encouraging new smokers, then it means that these new smokers will buy cigarettes and increase the volume of cigarette sales, leading to increased government revenue in the long-run.

Greater sales numbers of cigarettes helps companies that make cigarettes. Companies like the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Philip Morris, and the Lorillard Tobacco company employ thousands of Americans. More sales could give these companies a need to expand production, and a need to hire more employes creating jobs. With 8.9% unemployment, the country could use these these jobs.

To give American companies an advantage, an idea that states should look to is to keep taxes the same on imported/foreign cigarettes, and reduce the tax on American cigarettes. This would provide an incentive for smokers to switch brands from foreign to American, and incentivize new smokers to go with American-made cigarettes instead of foreign made ones, helping the economy.