Rick Santorum: Not just for social conservatives

Since his surprise victory in the Iowa caucuses, Rick Santorum has been derided a candidate for the social conservatives. Prominent conservative talk show hosts, such as Atlanta’s Neal Boortz, have declared that social conservatives risk re-electing Obama if they vote for Santorum, assuming that a vote for the former senator is rooted only in a desire to overturn Roe v. Wade and prevent the legalization of same-sex marriage.

In contrast, Santorum seems to be quietly building support among Republicans in states that have yet to vote. His strong performance in recent debates and his status as the only Republican candidate to avoid going negative against his opponents may be what inspires voters to take a closer look at Santorum, but his conservative principles and detailed policy proposals provide a pleasant surprise. His blue collar background and the revelation in one debate that he did his own taxes make Santorum seem sensible and approachable in a way that Romney and Gingrich are not.

In an election that is shaping up as a referendum on Barack Obama’s handling (or mishandling) of the economy, Santorum offers a detailed conservative vision for recovery. On his website, Santorum’s proposal for tax reform is a two-tiered income tax with rates of 10 and 28 percent. He wants to simplify the tax code, but keep or enhance family-friendly deductions and credits. For example, he would triple the personal deduction for each child and eliminate marriage penalties while maintaining the current deductions for charitable giving, home mortgage interest, healthcare, retirement savings, and children.

On the business side, Santorum would cut the U.S. corporate tax rate, the second highest in the world, in half, reducing it from 35 to 17.5 percent. He would reduce the capital gains and dividend taxes to 12 percent. He favors eliminating the alternative minimum (AMT) tax and the death (estate) tax.

To help bring jobs and money back to the U.S., Santorum would like to eliminate the tax on repatriated income that businesses bring into the U.S. to invest in new manufacturing equipment. Other repatriated income would be taxed at a reduced rate of 5.25 percent. He opposes the onerous regulations written by the Obama Administration and promises to repeal Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, and all other Obama-era regulations with an economic impact of over $100 million.

Out of control federal spending and a mounting federal debt is also a hot-button issue for 2012. Santorum would commit to $5 trillion in spending cuts over five years and would immediately reduce non-defense discretionary spending to 2008 levels. Defense spending and social programs would be frozen at current levels for five years. He would cut the federal work force by 10 percent and freeze pay for non-defense related employees for four years.

Santorum supports the Paul Ryan plan for saving Medicare and believes that Social Security and other entitlement programs must be reformed and placed on a sustainable path. The number of programs that he would cut is long, but includes energy subsidies, agriculture subsidies, Planned Parenthood, and halving the number of USAID employees and funding for the UN. He would use Senator Tom Coburn’s March 2011 GAO report that found a potential $100 billion in savings from eliminating 34 wasteful and duplicative programs and the Simpson-Bowles debt reduction plan that was commissioned – then ignored – by President Obama.

With gas prices rising and forecast to increase to record levels before the election, energy is likely to become an issue as well. Santorum would remove all subsidies and tax credits for energy companies. He would remove bans on drilling for oil and natural gas in an effort to decrease prices by increasing supply. Santorum would approve the Keystone XL pipeline, recently rejected by President Obama, in order to create jobs and increase the supply of oil. He would also roll back the new EPA carbon rules and other harmful regulations.

With respect to economic policy, Rick Santorum’s platform is similar to those of the other candidates. His foreign policy is close to that of Romney and Gingrich (Ron Paul is the outlier on foreign policy). What makes Rick Santorum unique among the Republican candidates is his realization that America’s economic woes are tied to our national moral and ethical failings. In many circles it is fashionable to call for economic reform, but then proclaim the belief that the government has no business trying to influence anyone’s life choices. The reality is that without responsibility, both to oneself and one’s country, there can be no freedom. As John Adams wrote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Breakpoint.org quotes Santorum at an Iowa town hall meeting as saying ““Yes, [the election is] about growth and the economy, [but] it’s also about what is at the core of our country . . . faith and family. You can’t have a strong economy, you can’t have limited government if the family is breaking down and we don’t live good, moral, and decent lives.” Politifact backs up Santorum’s point that single-parent families have a much higher poverty rate than two-parent families.

The reason that taxpayers are burdened with increasingly large amounts of entitlement spending is that society and the government has given people incentives to make disastrous life choices. After the introduction of the Great Society in the 1960s, the number of children in single-family households increased exponentially due to increases in both divorce and out-of-wedlock births. This means that many of these children grow up in poor households and receive government financial support. Today according to KIDS COUNT, 38 percent of children in Georgia are part of single-parent families.

As children grow up in broken homes, they are at a far greater risk for a multitude of bad things, from being more likely to live in poverty to being more likely to be abused to being more likely to become involved in violent crime, drug abuse, and premarital sex according to the National Fatherhood Initiative. The cycle repeats and deepens as children of broken homes grow up to have their own children and the dependency on government entitlement programs becomes more pronounced. The federal budget grows and the debt gets larger. Solving the debt crisis will ultimately mean breaking the cycle of poverty and government dependency. This will mean giving Americans the tools and knowledge to make better choices… and allowing them to fail when they don’t.

For Republican primary voters dissatisfied with Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum provides solid conservative economic principles and a strong foreign policy with pro-life and pro-family values. The Real Clear Politics index of polls shows Santorum gaining slowly but steadily on Romney and Gingrich. Strong showings in yesterday’s primaries in Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado will likely help to revive his campaign. If voters back Rick Santorum on Super Tuesday, when 10 states including Georgia hold primaries, he may be able to supplant Newt Gingrich as Mitt Romney’s chief rival for the nomination.

This article was first published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/rick-santorum-not-just-for-social-conservatives

Should Ga. Dems secede from national party? asks Governor candidate

Carl Camon (courtesy of Carl Camon)

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Carl Camon has previously been critical of the Democratic Party for its platform planks on moral issues.  Mr. Camon is a devoted Christian and Democrat, who finds it hard to support the Democratic Party’s anything-goes stance on social issues and thinks that it might be necessary for the Georgia Democratic Party to disassociate itself with the national Democrats in order to refocus.

I agree with him that Democrats have lost their way morally.  I can remember the days when Republican candidates could not get elected in most of Georgia.  This year we came full circle with a Republican sweep of statewide offices.  I have to believe that part of the desertion of Democrats over the years is due to the national Democratic positions on issues such as abortion, where public opinion has been trending pro-life, and gay marriage, which has never been legalized democratically in the US.

Even though social issues did not play a prominent role in this year’s election, I also agree with Mr. Camon that the Republicans do not have a monopoly on morality.  Too often Republicans have talked one way and walked another.  The escapades of Mark Foley, David Vitter, and Larry Craig are only dim memories.  More recently, the Tea Parties and the Contract from America largely ignored social issues.

It is time for social conservatives, defenders of traditional marriage, pro-lifers, and those who seek ethical and honest behavior from our elected representatives to demand respect from both parties.  This is an area where the Religious Right and the Religious Left can agree.

Now, reprinted below in its entirety, is Mr. Carl Camon’s article, “Seceding to Preserve Morality.”

Seceding To Preserve Morality

The thought of the State of Georgia seceding from the Union undermines the strength of the Union itself. However, the thought of the State of Georgia's Democratic Party seceding from the National Democratic Party might strengthen our party and our state. Instead of the National Democratic Party defining what its mission is, it has been defined by its association with characters and ideals of immorality, that has subsequently led to its ineffectiveness and decline. The Democratic Party has seeming become the "poster child" for do what you want to do, it's alright, rather than standing up for moral principles; the very ones that this country was founded upon. President George Washington said, "Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." That great patriotic and noble General knew what would happen if our country strayed away from morality.

I am not insinuating that the Democratic Party is the only party that has all but denounced morality, but I am making it very clear that it has not held up the torch for it. As a result of this direction, the party has lost and continues to lose its base of support. As an Educator, I have learned that any time you get rid of an undesirable behavior, you are to replace it with a desirable one. Our party's undesirable behavior has led some to sever their affiliation with the Democratic Party all together, therefore leading them to defect to other parties; those that are more aligned with their values and beliefs. The key words here are "more aligned", because no one party has a monopoly on religion, morality or values, however, some take pride in being more aligned and have the commonsense and respect to at least acknowledge that those tried and true elements are crucial to our state and our nation's successful existence.


There are grassroots movements such as the Tea Party, which in the past few years have taken a stand against big government and the degradation of the moral principles by those elected officials who are sworn to uphold them. Their solution seems to be packaged in the form of preserving "States Rights". I support the idea of States Rights, when viewed in the scope of morality and applied without prejudice to all Americans. It's hard to do, but I am even willing to partially dismiss the notion that the sudden rise in the Tea Party's popularity is due to the election of President Barack Obama, but is rather attributed to the culmination of many years of political corruption and failure to adhere to the wishes of the people. I hope and pray that this is their true motive.


The Republican Party is not comprised of all ballerinas and altar boys either, but even in the midst of the infighting they have somehow managed to sway voters because of their stand on religious principles. This doesn't necessarily mean that they are all religious, but I commend the party for taking a stand. Until the Democratic Party concedes and admits the errors of its ways, we will continue to experience this great falling away of once diehard supporters. Many democrats may disagree with me and that's perfectly okay, but they can't deny the fact that I am a democrat talking about the Democratic Party, not a Republican talking about the Democratic Party. They can, as we say in South Georgia, "pitch a fit", if they want to, but they were not the only ones who stood in frigid cold weather for hours, in Washington D.C., as President Obama was sworn in. I was there, just a few hundred feet away. I have served on the local, state, and national levels in various capacities, and have worn the democratic badge proudly, so I think I should be able to voice my opinions, even if they seem to be critical. I have served my country in the United States Military to preserve these very freedoms and I will not rest until the beliefs that our country was founded upon are restored. I can only hope and pray that President Barack Obama has the audacity to refocus his efforts on shoring up our country's moral principles, and not allow Gay Rights Groups, Pro-Abortion Groups, and acts Greed manifested in the form of Corporate Interests, to define his Presidency. If the head of our country is distracted by these issues, what kind of message are we sending to the rest of the world? These restoration efforts need to come quickly, especially if I am expected to cast my vote for him in 2012. We can no longer be bound by party descriptions, but we have to be led by our own moral convictions.


We can't rely on ourselves to make it happen, because we are too busy fighting each other. We have to become that nation that was once known as the "In God We Trust" nation. We even have that phrase printed on our money, but it's sad that many no longer have that trust. If we don't hurry up and find it, we'll end up fulfilling just what President George Washington said, "Mankind, when left to themselves, are unfit for their own government." My message is first to the Democratic Party of Georgia, and that is, if our party has to secede from the National Democratic Party to preserve our morality and restore our rightful place in our state, then so be it. Secondly, my message to all parties is, it's time that we ensure that the voices of all the people are heard at the highest level of government, and that government be brought back home to the people, where it belongs.



By Carl Camon, Ed.S



Former Democratic Primary Candidate for Governor of Georgia - 2010

Morality and the Law

We live in a society where morality has been defined downward for years. Many people, elected officials included, believe that the law only applies to others. For example, Republican Senator David Vitter and Democratic New York Governor Eliot Spitzer were both implicated in prostitution scandals. Various other elected officials and businessmen have been implicated in everything from sexual harassment to bribery to tax evasion.

In truth, society is held together by morality. When morality fails, it is necessary to pass laws to resolve issues that good ethics would have prevented. The finance industry is currently in a state of chaos at least in part because mortgage companies loaned money to people who could not pay and then sold the bundled mortgages to other companies. Other companies have normal business practices that include denying legitimate claims, submitting false billing, and the old fashioned bait and switch.

The law is a good place to start in determining morality. It has been said that morality cannot be legislated, but nothing is further from the truth. Our laws reflect our national morals. When we pass laws against murder it is because we, as a republic, have respect for the sanctity of life and believe that it is wrong to deprive another of their life. When we pass laws against robbery, burglary and theft, it is because property rights are strongly ingrained in the American morality. If a limit on carbon emissions is enacted, it will be because we, as a republic, have decided that we believe that it is wrong, immoral, to allow unrestricted emissions of carbon.

What is legal and what is moral are not always the same, however. Some things are legal, but not moral. Others are not immoral, yet are still illegal.

It would be a stretch to argue that driving 56 miles per hour is immoral, but doing so in a 55 MPH zone is illegal. A law in Georgia made it illegal to buy alcoholic beverages by mail order. A similar law made it illegal to buy a car over the internet without involving a local dealer. Neither of these laws is grounded in morality or ethics, instead they were passed to benefit specific industries.

Similarly, what is legal is not always moral or ethical. One of the best examples of this is Nazi Germany. In the 1930s, Hitler’s government passed laws stripping Jews of their rights and property. These laws, which resulted in the deaths of millions of Jews, were both immoral and unethical, even though they were totally legal under existing German law.

Slavery is another example. Keeping human beings in life long, involuntary servitude was once the norm around the world, including the United States. Doing so was legal under national and international law of the times. A growing number of people around the world became convinced of the immorality of slavery and eventually eradicated it in most countries.

Today, there are several moral issues that face the United States and the world. Among these are abortion, gay marriage, pollution, terrorism, and genocide. We must decide what we believe is the moral answer to these issues and then determine what action should be taken, if any.

To lead the way, we need leaders who share our morals. Our leaders should be held to a higher standard of behavior and not given a pass based on the office they hold or which party they belong to. These leaders should set a positive example for the rest of society and initiate a return to ethical behavior from the boardroom to the classroom and beyond.

If we do not return to a moral and ethical society, the very foundations of our country will continue to erode as politicians pad their pockets at the expense of taxpayers and corporate executives sell out their employees and stockholders. The race will not be to create wealth, but to find someone from whom to take it. The resulting morass of legislation will eventually strangle more and more of our freedoms.