Hedge fund managers should pay taxes the same as others
Q: You have proposed a tax on hedge fund managers. Conservatives wonder if this would undercut your projection of 4 percent economic growth annually.
BUSH: Of course, not.
Private equity people and hedge fund folks that are, right now getting capital gains treatment for the income they earn, should pay ordinary income tax like everybody else. What we need is to reform the tax code to simplify rates.
Source: 2016 CBS Republican primary debate in South Carolina
, Feb 13, 2016
We need to lower rates for small business AND big business
My plan gives the middle class the greatest break: $2,000 per family. And if you make $40,000 a year, a family of four, you don't pay any income tax at all. Simplifying the code and lowering rates, both for corporations and personal rates,
is exactly what we need to do. You think about the regulatory cost and the tax cost--that's why small businesses are closing, rather than being formed in our country right now. The big corporations have the scale to deal with all of this.
Jeb Bush's governance style and free-market, pro-development, pro-growth philosophy, became the blueprint for the newly emerging
Republican Party in FL and Republican governors across the U.S.
Source: Conservative Hurricane, by Matthew T. Corrigan, Introduction
, Oct 28, 2014
Stop rewarding portfolio Americans over paycheck Americans
In order to spur the economy, Bush said ObamaCare needs to be repealed. "Our current policy rewards portfolio Americans at the expense of paycheck America while enabling the greatest sustained deficits in American history,"
Bush said. "Conservatives need to advance economic freedom by working to repeal ObamaCare and replacing it with a system that is consumer-directed, less coercive and significantly less costly."
Source: Tal Kopan on Politico.com, "Crony Capitalism"
, Oct 29, 2013
Champion enterprise zones and business deregulation
The past 4 years have not been kind to small businesses. Republicans should bring their message of low taxes and moderate regulatory policies to Hispanic communities whose economic future depends on such policies.
In particular, licensing regulations often disproportionately hamper Hispanic businesses that tend to operate informally.
Republicans should champion enterprise zones, deregulation of entry into occupations and businesses that require few skills and little capital, and lower business taxes. More important, they should engage Hispanic business and community leaders in
identifying & eradicating barriers to enterprise. As Democrats continue compounding the inherent risks of small businesses by piling on taxes & regulations at every level of government, Republicans should be seen as ardent defenders of small businesses.
Auto bailout was government intervening; bank bailout was ok
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush was invited to speak to the House Budget Committee by the committee's chairman, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., author of a federal budget despised by Democrats in part for its proposed changes to the Medicare program for seniors.
Bush's remarks focused on removing barriers to free enterprise, but throughout the hearing, he was free with his opinions on all sorts of other policy matters.
Bush said that until the hearing, he hadn't been asked his opinion on the automotive bailout
or the bank bailouts. He told the committee he didn't support the auto bailout--what he describes as "a form of capitalism where the government intervenes in a very muscular kind of way." The positions puts him in line with Romney. Bush did say, however,
say that he thought some aspects of the bank bailout were necessary. Bush worked as a consultant for Lehman Brothers before its collapse, and currently serves as a senior adviser to Barclays Capital.
Source: Tampa Bay Times, "Jeb Bush cools VP chatter"
, Jun 1, 2012
Touchdown Jacksonville: Bring pro football to Florida
Jacksonville friend and political supporter let Jeb in on the group seeking an NFL franchise for that city. Tom Petway in 1989 got Jeb to join the "Touchdown Jacksonville" investors to bring football to the northeast
Florida city with the dismal self-esteem problem. Jeb borrowed the $450,000 for his 1% and later sold it for a $58,000 profit.
But the more interesting story here was the $121 million that Jacksonville taxpayers agreed to put up to prettify the old
Gator Bowl so as to help Jeb's rich friends get even richer. Jeb, so offended by welfare for poor people, evidently had no trouble with welfare of the corporate kind.
$310M in stimulus money to start Scripps biotech facility
Jeb suggested "economic stimulus" money in 2003. Jeb thought big: $310 million. Some in the legislature suggested that such an amount going to a single location was excessive, that the money was to benefit all Floridians, and should therefore have been
allocated to various "economic development" projects around the state. But in the grand scheme, Jeb was probably correct that there was more real benefit to spending it all on a single big project, with potentially huge rewards, than on dozens of smaller
There was also a more general criticism of giving the money to an already successful entity like Scripps. The goal was not just the 500 jobs Scripps itself would create, but several thousand more generated by bio-tech firms that would
want to locate in a science village Scripps would anchor.
In October 2003, he proclaimed: "Scripps is the brand name for biomedical research, and its decision to build a sister research facility in Florida is a seminal moment in our state's history."
The biggest tax cut of Jeb's time in office, the intangibles tax, had diminished the state treasury by $1 billion a year. An analysis of that policy starts with two fundamental questions.
Given Florida's poor rankings in various quality-of-life
measures--the health and welfare of its children, the care of its elderly, the quality of its schools and colleges, etc.--were large tax cuts appropriate public policy?
Once you have decided that tax cuts were appropriate, was the intangibles tax the
most appropriate one to cut?
On the 1st question, Jeb is part of the wing of the Republican Party that believes as a fundamental truth that taxes are too high. Period. The 2nd question: if you cut taxes on the rich, everyone benefits. There, in a
nutshell, is the Bush Family Economic Theory, boiled down to 9 words.
The emphasis is not to cut taxes for everybody--[but to] cut proportionately more for the wealthy--or, in Bush parlance, the investor class, the risk takers, the job creators.
How about Jeb Bush, the President's kid brother who invested in Enron before he became Florida governor and turned a profit on his personal $91,000 investment?
Under his leadership as governor, the state's pension fund lost more than $300 million on Enron stock--that was the most any public pension fund in the country lost on Enron stock, and Florida, under Jeb, had to work at it.
Even after the SEC had already announced in 2001 that Enron was under investigation, Florida--incredibly--kept investing in Enron.
Jeb was in effect the head of the 3-person state Board of Administration trustees who oversaw the pension fund and appointed its members. That made it Jeb's responsibility to protect that pension money, but he had other priorities.
House Bill 1911 includes repeal of the mandatory helmet law for motorcyclists over the age of 21. I signed the bill [because] I believe government oversteps its legitimate role when it excessively interferes with personal freedom.
That interference includes regulating an adultís decisions about his or her well-being if such decisions do not endanger the life or safety of others. Reasonable adults should be trusted to make reasonable decisions.
For example, we have no laws requiring an individual to exercise, to eat a healthy diet, to get regular check-ups, or to avoid excess exposure to the sun - even though failure to comply with these habits reflects known health risks, and potential public
health costs. Of course, we could significantly reduce deaths, injuries or health risks in Florida through a mandate that all individuals exercise, wear sunscreen, stop smoking, and learn how to swim, yet we impose no such requirements.
Source: Approval notification on House Bill 1911
, Jun 1, 2000
Fight corporate welfare: snouts out of public trough
Responsibility and self-government [also apply to] programs that are considered by many to be corporate welfare. Limited government does not mean limited for only one portion of society, one economic class. We cannot ask government to do less for the
many while doing more for the few. Limited government is about the fair distribution of limited resources, meaning that as we criticize social spending for being no solution to our social problems, we should also criticize unnecessary corporate
entitlements as no cure for our competitiveness problems. Creating barriers to competition and sanctuaries for profit is no answer. Many industries realize that they profit from a bigger, more involved government. Yet a return to limited self-government
would not be complete without pushing these corporate snouts out of the public trough. Limiting the role of government must be a process that is rational, equitable, and principled.