A real straight talker.

Priscilla on February 9, 2008 at 1:41 PM

Because we vote for them when they DON’T talk like this also is why we have McCain “the forked tongues express”

TOPV on February 9, 2008 at 1:45 PM

Mitt Romney did talk like this. In his I QUIT speech.

McCain/DeMint’08

HotAirExpert on February 9, 2008 at 1:47 PM

Why is it Congress’s job to “create a good business environment”?

Rove has won. Here we are praising a conservative who says that Congress should legislate the economy. I’m in favor of the tax cuts of course, but the premise is disconcerting.

Spirit of 1776 on February 9, 2008 at 1:48 PM

I wonder if I can get an internship in DeMint’s office. I’m sure they have programs like that for us college students.

Side note: How does a state like SC elect a stalwart conservative like this, yet somehow pull the lever for McCain in the primary? A peculiar thing, politics is…

HYTEAndy on February 9, 2008 at 1:50 PM

Spirit of 1776 on February 9, 2008 at 1:48 PM

In reality, given his stated desired end state, he would be pushing to repeal much legislation that already dictates, through taxation, how much of American business operates.

Spc Steve on February 9, 2008 at 1:51 PM

Spirit of 1776 on February 9, 2008 at 1:48 PM

They’re not “legislating the economy,” as if they own any sector of it. They’re legislating the tax rates. DeMint is arguing for permanent, low taxes, which are competitive with the world market.

HYTEAndy on February 9, 2008 at 1:52 PM

Spirit of 1776 on February 9, 2008 at 1:48 PM

Well, it’s congress’s job to create and collect taxes for the funding of the federal government. In doing so it should be their goal to do as little harm to the economy as possible.

So, yes, it is their job to foster a good business environment.

Jeff_McAwesome on February 9, 2008 at 1:54 PM

Mitt Romney did talk like this. In his I QUIT speech.

McCain/DeMint’08

HotAirExpert on February 9, 2008 at 1:47 PM

Umm….here ya go…

Why is it Congress’s job to “create a good business environment”?

Lower taxes and reduced restriction is the job of the Congress…at least from a conservative point of view. The libs would argue that is it Congress’ job to protect the “enviornment” or give everybody financial security. It’s not. It is the job of the Congress to create the best possible business enviornment for the free market to thrive. This is done through what I stated above–less restriction and lower taxes.

malan89 on February 9, 2008 at 1:58 PM

I’m not sure of his point:

If Congress isn’t going to create a good business environment anyways; then giving people their money back isn’t going to not make it happen more quickly.

If congress is going to make crappy policy; make crappy policy but give me my tax dollars back. I won’t turn it down.

Of course what he says makes sense; but any time money is taken out of washington and given back to payers, I’m fine with that. Checks should be sent to people who actually -paid- taxes, though.

lorien1973 on February 9, 2008 at 2:00 PM

Well, it’s congress’s job to create and collect taxes for the funding of the federal government. In doing so it should be their goal to do as little harm to the economy as possible.

So, yes, it is their job to foster a good business environment.

Jeff_McAwesome on February 9, 2008 at 1:54 PM

It’s not their job. Their job is to legislate and serve as part of a checks and balances system. The authority for funding is given to them, but it is not their prime directive. ‘Do no harm’ and ‘foster’ are not the same either. Regardless, this is what passes for conservative these days.

Spirit of 1776 on February 9, 2008 at 2:00 PM

Like Neal Boortz said, “Business tax is the government’s way of telling the American people ‘We’re raising your taxes,’ and having the American people thank them for it.”

Spc Steve on February 9, 2008 at 2:00 PM

Same thing happens when large corporations get fined for wrong doing, the fines go into government coffers, and the corporation regains the penalty by passing it on to the consumer.

a capella on February 9, 2008 at 2:08 PM

Support for this claim?

Spirit of 1776 on February 9, 2008 at 2:03 PM

So, if its not Congress’ job to create a better business enviornment by cutting taxes and scrapping regulation…then I can safely assume you support this beauty of legislation.

“Oh, but I don’t like that! It would get rid of 300,000 American jobs!”

Yes, it would. But its not Congress’ job to create a better business enviornment. In turn, they shouldn’t care.

malan89 on February 9, 2008 at 2:10 PM

How does a state like SC elect a stalwart conservative like this, yet somehow pull the lever for McCain in the primary?

A little lady called Miss Information.

You interpret as “New legislation to stimulate American business.” I hear it as “Getting rid of old legislation that kills American business.”

Thank You! I don’t think he was catching the drift of what DeMint was saying.

malan89 on February 9, 2008 at 2:18 PM

Spc Steve on February 9, 2008 at 2:00 PM

Fair enough, the meat in the middle is great. I’m not hearing “new legislation”, what I am hearing him say is that it is the government’s job to create the environment. Check out that phrase beginning at 3:08 though. It’s the answer to his proposition at the 0:25 mark. Which is to say government creating (note he says make permanent so must have government oversight, though in fairness with the rest of the context of his speech perhaps he is alluding to making tax cuts permanent) the economic system. He says is that we are doing one thing when we should be doing another.

I’m all for productive business environment, ie low taxes etc, but we have higher then necessary taxes because of the overextension of government policy. Ie tax to pay for entitlements mainly. Remove the government from where it shouldn’t be, and the environment takes care of itself - that’s the conservative view, imo, - not lower taxes TO stimulate business - that’s government for business, which the government has no mandate for.

Nichevo on February 9, 2008 at 2:09 PM

That is certainly part of what he is saying. I like that part, obviously.

Spirit of 1776 on February 9, 2008 at 2:23 PM

I hear that a lot of people who don’t even pay taxes will be elligible for the rebate. If Best Buy is giving rebates to people who buy plasma TV’s can those same people get those rebates too even if they don’t buy the TV?

pappy on February 9, 2008 at 2:39 PM

A side benefit is a healthy business environment, not a prime directive.

I hear what you’re saying. To me, the motive isn’t as important as the action. It shouldn’t matter WHY someone is advocating cutting taxes and scrapping regulation, just the fact that they are doing it is important. In an ideal world with no gov’t interference in the market, what you’re saying makes sense. But in the current state of affairs, creating a better business enviornment seems as good a motive as any for cutting taxes.

malan89 on February 9, 2008 at 2:40 PM

I hear that a lot of people who don’t even pay taxes will be elligible for the rebate. If Best Buy is giving rebates to people who buy plasma TV’s can those same people get those rebates too even if they don’t buy the TV?

pappy on February 9, 2008 at 2:39 PM

Of course not. Only the U.S. government is stupid enough to give “rebates” to millions of people who never forked over any money in the first place.

Jim DeMint for President.

AZCoyote on February 9, 2008 at 2:51 PM

I just want to say that this magnificent bastard backed Romney.

So we had our chance to have him as our Treasury Sec, or maybe even Veep, and we blew it.

tlclark on February 9, 2008 at 2:56 PM

full circle on February 9, 2008 at 2:50 PM

I’m not really trying to argue. :) I was attempting to point out that the premise that DeMint is working off of is that Congress has the responsibility to create a favorable business environment. As Malan illustrates, the principle is less important then the result to most (hence my ref to Rove).

Of course I think there is some irony that people praise this and simultaneously praise the ’suck it up’ posts here on the economy. One (suck it up) says the consumer should bite the bullet without governmental interference and the other says that the government should intervene in the economy to make the conditions favorable to business. Irony indeed.

Spirit of 1776 on February 9, 2008 at 3:03 PM

LOL

Good Lt on February 9, 2008 at 3:05 PM

DeMint is having quite a week, isn’t he? More power to him.

Captain Scarlet on February 9, 2008 at 3:43 PM

One of my liberal friends told me he’s taking a second look at the republicans because they’re sending out a check, whereas the democrats are just offering a woman and a black guy for president.

The phrase, “What have you done for me lately” comes to mind.

So little vision.

Kini on February 9, 2008 at 4:33 PM

malan89 on February 9, 2008 at 4:39 PM

The difference being that they are two sides of the same coin. One the government intervenes for the consumer, the other the government intervenes for the provider, ie business.

Either way it’s government intervention, so to hold one of the positions and not both (or neither) is irony and reflects not a conservative view, but a pro-business view. I just prefer to label it for what it is.

Spirit of 1776 on February 9, 2008 at 4:54 PM

Any South Carolinians around? I want McCain to pick Sanford for VP (Pat Toomey made the case well in that WSJ op-ed) mainly because I want DeMint, Coburn, Sessions, and (to a lesser extent) Cornyn to keep doing their thing in the Senate.

Is there anybody else on the scene in South Carolina that the governor could appoint if McCain did choose DeMint who would be even close to as good as a US Senator?

funky chicken on February 9, 2008 at 5:41 PM

DeMint 2012

SoulGlo on February 9, 2008 at 8:05 PM

Aw, Good Lt already beat me to it.

shick on February 9, 2008 at 8:33 PM

I’m so proud Jim DeMint represents my home state of SC!

SouthernGent on February 9, 2008 at 9:46 PM

Just cut all gasoline/heating oil/diesel fueltaxes and forget about the phoney “rebates”.

It’ll do more because: A) people would suddenly have all that extra money not going up in fumes, and B) will also cut government spending by billions, simultaneously.

Smaller government; more money in your pocket.

Win-win.

profitsbeard on February 9, 2008 at 11:22 PM

What did you think Congress’ job was?

Kafir on February 9, 2008 at 9:51 PM

Sorry. Missed the question portion of your answer. Contained in Article 1, most of the “job” is in section 8. Here you go:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;–And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Spirit of 1776 on February 10, 2008 at 2:02 AM

Again, anybody who chooses to punish our military in a fit of political pique is unhinged.

funky chicken on February 9, 2008 at 5:33 PM

Again, disgusting smear tactic of anyone not supporting your candidate. How about trying a new and rational argument rather than a “you hate the military” track?

jwp1964 on February 10, 2008 at 12:28 PM

Don’t you dare take men like this out of the Senate! Get some of those other losers out.

Mitt Romney did talk like this. In his I QUIT speech.

McCain/DeMint’08

HotAirExpert on February 9, 2008 at 1:47 PM

Levinite on February 10, 2008 at 9:59 PM