Gay Patriot Header Image

Carly Fiorina’s Plan to Create Jobs: Unshackle the Entrepreneurs

When I first heard Carly Fiorina’s name batted around as a potential candidate to replace our state’s ineffective junior Senator, I was optimistic about her bid.  I believe we need more people from the private sector in government, those who know what it is like to keep an enterprise afloat in an ever-changing marketplace, those who know the cost of innovation and the burdens of government interference, regulations which can stymie that innovation and delay, if not prevent, job-creating expansion.

When I got to talk to her on Monday, I asked her to build on the point she made in her conversation with Greta van Susteren about job creation. In her answer, she offered broad principles for streamlining regulations in order to let small businesses grow and thus help us meet the most pressing need facing the Golden State, where one in eight adults is out of work, create jobs.  Unlike the woman she seeks to replace, Carly opposes vast federal schemes to increase government control over the marketplace and over our lives, knowing such regulation will make it increasingly difficult for businesses to grow while increasing the chances they’ll have to lay off employees just to stay afloat.

She talked about how various government departments have their own sets of regulation, meaning that an entrepreneur has to go through “multiple steps” just to set up a new business.  She wants to simplify this process.

To that end, she wants to review environmental regulations to make sure they’re accomplishing the goals of those who crafted them.  The second area of review would be employer mandates where she finds “lots of overlap.”  Finally, she wants to reduce the tax burden on businesses, fearing that in the current climate in Washington, there are “more [taxes] to come.”

It is Carly’s understanding of the burdens on business that makes me an enthusiastic supporter of her candiacy.   It is entrepreneurs who built the Golden State and entrepreneurs who can bring it back from the brink.   And it is they who, when their energies are unleashed, can expand existing enterprises and create new ones, thus creating the jobs we so desperately need in this one-time land of promise.



  1. It is Carly’s understanding of the burdens on business that makes me an enthusiastic supporter of her candi[d]acy.

    It’s a good start. It makes her night-and-day better than Boxer, for sure.

    Note however that if Fiorina is serious about holding the line on taxes and reducing the burdens of government on productive people, then she must support massive cuts in Federal spending. (The U.S. will not be able to continue multi-trillion deficits for much longer. Though maybe that’s a topic for another time.) What would she cut?

    Or more important, what would she *not* cut? Do the things that she wouldn’t cut add up, mathematically, to her eventually caving on taxes a la Bush 41?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 25, 2009 @ 9:11 am - November 25, 2009

  2. (P.S. My position is, of course, that most Federal spending should be cut except for police, courts and military. We should cut multiple trillions from the Federal budget, including most if not all of Medicare. We should leave welfare to the States and to private charity. Americans are already generous, and the prosperity that would result from Federal downsizing would be unbelievable and make lots of new generosity possible.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 25, 2009 @ 9:15 am - November 25, 2009

  3. fiorina ran HP into the ground. if given a chance, she’ll do the same elsewhere. by backing mccain, she showed she, OBVIOUSLY, has poor judgment.

    voters will reject her en masse.

    Comment by buckeyenutlover — November 25, 2009 @ 4:05 pm - November 25, 2009

  4. is there a follow-up post forthcoming? because it doesn’t seem to me like she has much of a plan at all. “unshackling entrepreneurs”, “streamlining regulations” and “reducing tax burdens”–sounds more like a set of talking points than a “plan”.

    Comment by Chad — November 25, 2009 @ 6:32 pm - November 25, 2009

  5. Chad, well, at least she’s offering a governing philosophy. I once had a ten-minute interview and do hope to get more specifics as the campaign progresses.

    At least, we know that, unlike Ma’am Boxer, Carly finds the solution in the private sector.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 25, 2009 @ 7:33 pm - November 25, 2009

  6. If you are not careful, you are going to turn your readers off “Carly.”. More proof is needed that she is a good candidate. Unless of course we are all operating under the assumption that Devore simply cannot win because he is a white male, which, sad as that is, may be the case. In which case, a bigger battle has been lost. Identity politics have won. On a lighter note, I really do not like looking at “Carly.”. She gives me the heeby jeebies. How to overcome that gut response to her? Not sure that can be surmounted.

    Comment by Chuckie — November 26, 2009 @ 12:33 pm - November 26, 2009

  7. Chuckie, I agree that it was not a good thing for Carly to have said that as a woman she has a better chance of beating DeVore, but DeVore needs to show that he knows how to raise money and take issue with his opponents without misrepresenting their records.

    He’s been at this campaign for almost a year now and still doesn’t have staff capable of doing decent opposition research. Not a good sign.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 27, 2009 @ 12:49 am - November 27, 2009

  8. you should demand more of your preferred candidates. right now, all you’re getting is lip-service, and after the bush administration, you should be skeptical about the claims of fiscal conservatives. otherwise, you’re no different than the “lickspittle,” democratic-supporting gay activists you so often decry.

    Comment by Chad — November 30, 2009 @ 6:59 pm - November 30, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.