Republican Jr Senator (PA); 2012 presidential frontrunner
We need to focus on hard workers who struggle the most
Manufacturing jobs have been lost in this country, 2 million of them. The bottom line is that this president has done more to take jobs away from hard-working people.
And that's the 74 percent of Americans who don't have a college degree. Nobody is focused on the people who are struggling the most in America today.
Source: Fox Business 2016 Republican Undercard debate
, Jan 14, 2016
Over-taxation and over-regulation shut down our economy
The Fed is protecting a president that is over-taxing and over-regulating, shutting down this economy. And they're keeping it up like Atlas, trying to hold up the Earth with ridiculously low interest rates. And it's hurting American seniors,
who are seeing no Social Security. This is hurting the people who have acted responsibly, all in favor of those who are speculators and those on Wall Street. It's not a good deal for the majority of responsible Americans.
They have almost become the most powerful entity in Washington, DC. We need to repeal Dodd-Frank, get away that authority from the Fed and put them under more scrutiny.
2020 Clear Vision: grow economy without adding to deficit
In our plan, the 2020 Clear Vision for America, we increase growth by 1% a year. So we go from 2.3 to 3.3, in repealing ObamaCare, it's another .7. So you're looking at 4% growth rate. And unlike Donald Trump and Bobby Jindal, we don't add
$10 trillion to the deficit. Our plan, while it creates as many jobs and grows the economy as much as theirs does, we are a revenue-neutral plan because I believe that we need to reduce the size of government, yes, but we also need to reduce our deficit.
I'm the one on this stage that has actually gone to Washington, said we would shrink government, said we would shake things up and actually delivered for
the conservative cause, everything from welfare reform, which was the largest, most significant accomplishment in the last 25 years for conservatism.
Spend-o-meter: publicize costs of spending amendments
Rick fought to maintain fiscal sanity in Washington before it was in fashion, fighting for a balanced budget and a line item veto. He bravely proposed reforming entitlements,
cutting spending and even developed a "spendometer" that added up the cost of Democrat amendments to spending bills. This record made him one of the most conservative senators in Pennsylvania's history.
Santorum wants to add an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced budget. He would also cap federal government expenditures at 18 percent of Gross Domestic Product.
To achieve that, the former senator wants to freeze pay for non-defense-related federal employees for four years and decrease the federal workforce by 10 percent.
Source: PBS News Hour "2016 Candidate Stands" series
, May 27, 2015
Great Recession knocked away last struts of American Dream
Is there still a path to prosperity for all Americans? After talking to people across the United States, my sense is that they want to believe in the American Dream, but it's getting harder.
Too many shuttered factories and abandoned homes stand as ghostly reminders of the prosperity and stability that working Americans once enjoyed. Crime, despair, and social breakdown have taken their place.
These are not sudden developments-many of these communities have been in decline for decades-but the Great Recession knocked away their last struts.
Not only were eight million jobs lost, and more than half of all household wealth, but the local manufacturing plants and supporting businesses are not there anymore for young people starting their careers.
I opposed the Wall Street bailouts and the auto bailout
Q: You opposed the auto bailout. What do you say to an auto worker who has that job because of the bailout?
SANTORUM: I would just say to them that I in principle oppose government coming in and bailing out an industry with government dollars and with
government manipulation of that market, which is exactly what happened twice, in 2008 & 2009. The first time was the Wall Street bailout. On principle, I opposed the Wall Street bailout, even though I understand reasonable people could disagree.
I felt that having the government come in in such a major way and have a huge influence over the direction of that industry, that that would be damaging to what I believe is the best way to resolve these types of problems, which lets the market work,
constructive capitalism. And that means pain. I understand that. But it also means limited government and allowing markets to work because we believe they're more efficient over time. I held the same consistent position when it came to the auto bailouts.
2005: Fannie & Freddie should create housing affordability
In his eight years on the Senate Banking Committee, there was one issue where Santorum sought to play a leading role. Santorum, despite his reputation as a conservative stalwart, had a keen interest in providing disadvantaged families greater access to
In 2005, when Banking Committee Republicans were trying to tighten the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Santorum pushed to include language in the legislation that would strengthen their affordable-housing goals. "We're
very concerned about making sure that we do things in working with this legislation to improve the access to affordable housing," Santorum said during a July 2005 hearing. He wanted to orient Fannie and Freddie "toward taking a more active role in
creating housing opportunities for low and moderate income families."
But 6 years later, GOP presidential candidates say Fannie & Freddie should have been far less oriented toward providing affordable housing--not more so, as Santorum was advocating.
Source: Kevin Wack in "American Banker", "Santorum Runs from Record"
, Jan 9, 2012
Newt Gingrich's economic stances compared to Santorum's
Do Santorum & Gingrich agree on Freddie and Fannie? (No, Santorum supports low-income mortgages and Gingrich would abolish the whole program). How do Santorum & Gingrich differ on the
Death Tax? (They both would limit the estate tax, but with different justifications). We cite details from Santorum's books and speeches, and Gingrich's, so you can compare them, side-by-side, on issues like these:
Rick Santorum vs. Newt Gingrich on Economic Issues
Spend-o-meter: track spending on all Senate amendments
PAUL: [to Santorum]: I believe Congress should designate how money should be spent. I always voted against spending. You're a big spender; that's all there is to it. You're a big-government conservative. So to say you're a conservative,
I think, is a stretch. But you've convinced a lot of people of it, so somebody has to point out your record.
SANTORUM: I've convinced a lot of people of it because my record is actually pretty darn good.
I supported and voted for a balanced budget amendment, the line-item veto. In fact, I used to keep track when I was in the Senate of all the amendments that increased spending.
I put them on something called a spend-o-meter. If you look at my spending record and you take all the "spending groups," I was rated at the top or near the top every single year, particularly in defense.
TARP was biggest government intrusion into private sector
I opposed the single biggest government intrusion into the private sector, the Wall Street bailout, the TARP program. I opposed it because it violated the principles of our Constitution, the spirit of our Constitution, because the experience
I had, that if you open up the door of government involvement in the private sector, some president will, and in fact did, drive a truck through it and explode the size of the federal government and constrict our freedom.
The four people on this panel that actually supported TARP at the time of its passage are the people who say that they are the anti-Washington candidates, that they are the business candidates, and they're the four on this program that supported the
Washington bailout, giving Washington--naively, I would say--tools to constrict our freedom.
The four people were Governor Huntsman, Governor Perry, Herman Cain and Governor Romney all supported TARP.
Q: The deficit cutting super committee is now getting to work. Democrats will demand that savings come from a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, maybe $3 in cuts for every $1 in higher taxes. Is there any ratio of cuts to taxes that you would
accept? Three to one? Or even 10 to one?
A: No. The answer is no, because that's not the problem. The problem is that we have spending that has exploded. Government has averaged 18% of GDP as a percentage of the overall economy that government eats up.
And we're now at almost 25%. So if you look at where the problem is, it is in spending, not taxes. And we'll get those taxes up if we grow the economy. I put forward the plan to grow the economy and I've provided leadership in the past to get bipartisan
Q: But just confirming, Senator, you would not negotiate on raising taxes?
A: Absolutely not, because it's not the problem. We need to get the economy growing. That doesn't mean taking more money out of it.
Q: You said that you were "the Tea Party before there was a Tea Party." But a top Tea Party goal, particularly in Iowa, is to revert back to the gold standard, something you oppose.
SANTORUM: Well, first off, I didn't say that, the Washington
Post said it. I simply commented on what they said. I don't take the claim, the Tea Party organization is flat and it should stay that way. It should support ideas, not candidates. And people who stand up and say they lead it, well, I think most of the
Tea Party people think their leadership is among the people, not anybody who is a member of congress or anywhere else. I think there's some reforms we can do at the Fed. And I agree we need to audit the Fed. I disagree with most of what Ron Paul said.
Just because he's mostly wrong, doesn't mean he's always wrong. I appreciate his contribution in that regard.
Stopping debt ceiling increase is showmanship not leadership
Q: [to Bachmann]: You voted against the debt ceiling increase deal. Why?
BACHMANN: Consider what happened by raising the debt ceiling: The Congress gave Barack Obama a blank check for $2.4 trillion. Instead, we should have cut government spending.
SANTORUM: Rep. Paul and Rep. Bachmann had an opportunity to lead. But they couldn't lead the Congress to do something responsible in making sure that we didn't have the fiasco that we have in place now. We should have balanced the budget.
The balanced budget amendment should have been the focus from the beginning. To suggest that we never need to raise the debt ceiling, that is showmanship, not leadership. Of course we have to raise the debt ceiling at some point. We're borrowing
42 cents of every dollar. You're going to cut 42 cents of every dollar? Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, defense, and interest on the debt is 60%. That means cut everything else and something of those. That's showmanship, not leadership.
Voted YES on $40B in reduced federal overall spending.
Vote to pass a bill that reduces federal spending by $40 billion over five years by decreasing the amount of funds spent on Medicaid, Medicare, agriculture, employee pensions, conservation, and student loans. The bill also provides a down-payment toward hurricane recovery and reconstruction costs.
Reference: Work, Marriage, and Family Promotion Reconciliation Act;
Bill S. 1932
; vote number 2005-363
on Dec 21, 2005
Voted YES on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts.
Vote to table [kill] an amendment that would increase the amount of the budget that would be used to reduce the national debt by $75 billion over 5 year. The debt reduction would be offset by reducing the tax cut in the budget framework from $150 billion