Tag Archives: President Obama

Positive harbingers for Obama-Biden

Posted on by
Reply

Pre-election, looking warmer

2012 harbingers

Yet another positive harbinger for the election, from a Democratic and democratic perspective: Citigroup’s CEO just abruptly resigned. Wall Street this fall did a little quiet house-cleaning. Doesn’t suggest that insiders see a wildly lenient Romney-Ryan ticket winning. Rep. Paul Ryan doesn’t seem to see that in his crystal ball, either: he is still on the ballot in Wisconsin, running for reelection to Congress just in case things don’t pan out elsewhere.

 

Ryan with budget

Funny how little attention the hand-wringing liberalish cable commentators have paid to that Wisconsin race.

 

WI challenger Rob Zerban

But then a near-hysterical insistence on closeelectioncloseelectioncloseelection offers little political acumen or illumination.

 

Mad man

Close or not, take a look at some of the hard numbers:

  • by all accounts, the advantage in 2012 early voting is heavily Democratic
  • President Obama outraised Mitt Romney in September, $181 million to $170 million
  • retail sales are up in September, unemployment is down, consumer confidence is up, house sales up, housing permits up; etc
  • Dem Senatorial candidate Tim Kaine is outraising George Allen (R) in swing-state Virginia
  • Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren is outraising incumbent Sen. Scott Brown (R) in Massachusetts in spite of a national lobbyist-superPAC campaign against her
  • compilations of polls and polls of polls still show Obama significantly ahead of Romney in electoral college votes
  • Nate Silver’s micro-tuned statistics continue to predict the win Obama

Even as nominally pro-Democratic commentators keep instilling fear, cherry-picking the most negative opinion polls in order to seem influential, RealClearPolitics makes the picture clear.

RCP, be it noted, accords the incumbent Obama-Biden only 201 electoral votes, and 191 to Romney-Ryan. RCP designates the other 146 electoral votes ‘toss-up’.

That toss-up category includes the following states, in alphabetical order:

What these five ‘toss-up’ states have in common is, among other things, that Obama is ahead in all or most polls in all five of them. Not much surprise there; Obama also carried all of them in 2008. All five also have a history of going Democratic in presidential elections for the past quarter-century. Iowa has voted Republican only once (2004) since 1984. Michigan has voted Dem every time since 1988. Ohio has gone Dem in three of five elections since 1988. Pennsylvania has gone Dem every time since 1988. ‘Swing state’ Wisconsin has gone Dem in every election since 1984.

Jobs minus before, jobs plus after

Meanwhile, Michigan and Ohio are also home to industries that Romney-like policies have damaged. Iowa and Ohio tend to be politically tuned in as state electorates–never a blessing to Romney-type policies. Wisconsin has a history of populism, Pennsylvania of religious freedom, all five states are heartland bastions of the large, self-confident working class called middle class in this country’s sociology.

And as mentioned, every recent opinion poll or almost every recent poll, in all five of these swingy swing toss-up states, puts Obama ahead.

I am beginning to think that the mass media effort to drive every national election to ‘closeness’ bears a strong and unsavory resemblance to price-fixing in retail.

 

Bain and Switch

Posted on by
Reply

Bain and switch

No wonder the Romney campaign and helpers have been going on about ‘China’. Bain Capital, Romney’s company, has taken over an Illinois auto-parts company named Sensata Technologies and is closing it down–and shipping the jobs to China. People working at the Freeport, Ill., plant have the unenviable final task of training their Chinese replacements.

 

Sensata Technologies

A sympathetic Steelworkers Union video about the plant closing appears here. Some Sensata employees have set up a mini-camp they name ‘Bainport’, to draw attention to the move. Some of them have also participated in a Bain Workers Bus Tour.

Bainport encampment

No word yet on whether Toyota will number among customers for the sensors and thermal circuit breakers manufactured by Sensata Technologies in Asia.

In hindsight, Romney’s bringing up China at all pinpoints his own ties to China. Of course Mitt Romney would castigate the Obama administration about China. Bain Capital wanted and tried to enter into a $3 billion technology deal with a Chinese company, and the deal fell through only after national security-conscious regulators called a halt. Of course pro-Romney television ads would use ‘China’ as a talking point. A glance at the giant database LexisNexis turns up more than 3,000 hits for ‘China’ [ + ] with ‘Bain Capital’. Admittedly there are other political angles played in Romney’s flogging ‘China’. Former President George H. W. Bush went to China as ambassador. Former GOP candidate Jon Huntsman, more dignified and more plausible as a candidate than Romney himself, served as U.S. ambassador to China. Both Bush and Huntsman fall into the ‘no help’ or ‘little help’ columns, for Romney. U.S. trade with China benefits some of Romney’s business rivals as it benefits him. Still, it has always mystified me that Romney would even bring up ‘jobs’, especially in connection with ‘China’, since no sane person can claim that Romney himself has made a career of protecting other people’s jobs, of broadening the employment base, of opposing mergers and acquisitions that shrink manufacturing largely while expanding certain tiers of management slightly. The whole China talking point illustrates the Karl Rove tactic of attacking the other guy where you’re weakest yourself, the cheesy tactic of pre-emptive strike.

 

Cartoon

Incidentally, when Romney himself appeared in China, he did what his crew would call ‘apologizing for America’: Romney told Beijing university students, quote, that “America makes mistakes.” Yes, Romney the GOP nominee for the White House went to China and, in typically self-deprecating fashion, shared with students at Tsinghua University that his country, the U.S.A., “makes mistakes.” Had the candidate released his tax returns for 2006 and 2007, evidence for the trip would appear as speaker fees, under the category of earned income. The speaker appearance was only scantly reported.

 

Romney speaking engagement, Beijing

Selling one thing and then delivering another is called bait-and-switch, in business. In politics, it’s called flip-flopping–a soft accusation that lets the fraudulent off the hook.

In the 2012 election, we’ve got one candidate who killed Osama bin Laden and saved the U.S. auto industry, and another candidate whose company provably ships jobs abroad, and wrote an opinion piece titled “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt”–and polls show the race as close?

 

The Detroit headline

Obama is still ahead, as he has mostly been, pre-election–a point conspicuously not made in reporting by the national political press.

Tonight’s town-hall format debate on CNN may help, although Candy Crowley may be bent on asking President Obama the questions no one could answer, and asking Mitt Romney the questions anyone could answer. One of Crowley’s specialties is false equivalencies between ‘left’ and ‘right’. Her notion of originality probably goes to accusing Romney of being too polite. Up-ending expectations; a reversal of sorts. With luck, she will not pull that old stunt of challenging Obama to reveal national security secrets or crucial strategy–classified information–and then suggesting soft-on-terrorists when he doesn’t. That one has long been a favorite with the If-it-quacks-like-a-duck crowd.

Questions put by ‘undecided’ voters, i.e. by people waiting to vote with the majority, inherently give the advantage to Romney–who is, as Joy Reid said, basically a salesman. In the freedom of privacy, one can ignore or brush off a sales rep. It will be illuminating to see how Romney enters, how he attempts to convey I’m-the-winner-go-with-me. It would be nice to hear Romney answer questions about his campaign-trail blood-and-thunder rhetoric on foreign policy. Then there’s that matter of paying for embassy security when you’re talking about cutting the deficit. The giant LexisNexis database turns up no mentions of ’embassy security’ with Romney’s name before September 2012, by the way.

On a more superficial debate detail–it will be interesting to see whether Romney looks tan as he did in the Republican primary debates back through 2011-2012, or pale as he looked in the first presidential debate with Obama. Change of makeup? Deliberate choice, for contrast? Mere fatigue?

Romney fan t-shirt

Surely CNN cameras will not find t-shirts in the audience saying “Put the white back in the White House.” It’s unlikely that Crowley will quiz Romney on why he doesn’t quell the race-baiting in his party, though. It would be more like her to accuse the president of playing the race card by being African-American–an attitude typical of people who talk about ‘blame’ in regard to the U.S. economy.

Calling it ‘blame’ is obfuscation. The U.S. cannot afford to bury history any more than we can afford to suppress votes. We need to end the policies and practices that brought us to the brink of a second Great Depression. We need to prevent their continuance. We need to develop the financial literacy to see through false slogans about the deficit, etc. It is essential to remind the public that a Republican congress and a highly-funded movement of lobbyists across the country have opposed every positive step taken by the Obama-Biden administration. Calling the reminder ‘blame’ is bogus. Will Romney claim that he as president would have prosecuted the creators of the mortgage-derivatives crisis? He cannot claim that he would have prohibited the credit default swaps. Bain Capital even securitized franchise fees for Dunkin’ Donuts franchisers–speaking of arcane financial products.

Biden wins VP debate, Ryan gulps water

Posted on by
Reply

VP debate: Biden wins, Ryan gulps water

 

C-Span is great. A recommendation for future debate watchers: C-Span is the way to go. Public broadcasting is the way to go. They’re the channels for navigating between the false split-the-dif mindset on the networks, on one hand, and the self-caressing party-time mindset on cable, on the other.

As to last night’s vice presidential debate between Vice President Joe Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan, you can tell that the Democrats won when commentator-propagandists like WashPost’s Dan Balz call it a ‘draw’. It will be interesting to know where Mitt Romney stands on further benefits (styled ‘education reform’, aka standardized testing) to Kaplan Inc., the Washington Post Co. subsidiary so large it has all but subsumed the parent corporation.*

Signs of the times

But enough said on the horse race.

As to my question in yesterday’s post—whether Ryan would say anything clarifying Romney–Ryan gave a couple of answers relating to abortion.

1)      Speaking for a Romney-Ryan administration, Ryan said, “We don’t think that unelected judges should make this decision.” Seems pretty definitive, that Romney would push legislation and regulations–but does not preclude appointing anti-abortion judges, though it does not promise to do so.

2)      Ryan said clearly that a Romney-Ryan administration would oppose all abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is at stake. This one, assuming it’s accurate, is newly definitive—and another shift of position–though it leaves cases of the mother’s health, in any situation short of death’s-door, unresolved.

 

Chart: deductions

Notably, Ryan still did not address the question of the mortgage interest deduction. Even when asked directly by moderator Martha Raddatz whether the budget “loopholes” Ryan referred to several times would include the mortgage interest deduction, the congressman ducked.

Somewhat more clearly, Ryan did attack Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, accusing him of “equivocation.”

Interesting choice of words, given the source. Ryan reassured the public several times that “we” “agreed” with the Obama administration on foreign policy choices—even while criticizing the choices. He also criticized the administration for an alleged lack of clarity in foreign policy, either omitting or indirectly acknowledging that strategy and tactics sometimes demand some tacking.

A lot of GOPers fall into that one. The blood-thirstiest ones never seem to recall that it might be wise not to give potential attackers a road map.

 

President and Mrs. Reagan, 1983

Meanwhile, Ryan’s repeated references to “Marines” re Benghazi were an unhappy reminder of the Marine barracks in Beirut.

Back to that channel-selection guide, up top. A very few minutes’ worth of cable commentary last night was enough to convey that too many commentators a) focused on their notion of ‘style’; b) used ‘style’ as a tool for the usual double-standarding; and c) didn’t bother about accuracy. Biden’s mocking smile was criticized. Ryan’s doing the same thing was not.

Ryan’s smile wasn’t as broad.

Oddly, given the way some of the tea-leaf readers home in on the smallest detail, no one noticed that Congressman Ryan gulped water some ten times in the debate. Or at least that’s my count, according to my notes. The first time was at the beginning; he kept returning to that life-giving fluid at tense moments; and he ceased only when the end was in sight.

Update Friday:

None of the on-air commentary I caught mentioned Ryan’s need for lots of water, but I am not the only person who saw it. So did Bill Maher and others; see thread.

 

*I was the sole journalist in the DC region who reported the Post Co.’s financial stake in GWBush’s ‘education reforms’ under the Bush administration. Neither the ‘left’ nor the ‘right’ picked it up and shared the information with the broader public. Nor did the Washington Post newspaper.

Candidate Romney on YouTube

Posted on by
Reply

YouTube, we are here

Some 2012 unforgettable Romney YouTube moments

We may live in an age of information overload. But overload or no, surely the string of special moments loosed like chemical by-products by the Romney campaign will not soon be forgotten.

Just for fun, if nothing else–here they are, courtesy of YouTube, with slight annotation.

Hearing Romney out on the campaign trail, one sees why he has spent so much time touring mainly among fundraisers. Anyway, here he is, introducing running mate Paul Ryan as the next president: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th93Kko9ySE 

Romney with Ryan

Uncle Sigmund, call your office. Of course, everyone makes the occasional slip of the tongue. Here’s one where Romney tries unsuccessfully to accuse Obama of raising taxes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAYz6ilQ6aU&feature=relmfu

He keeps having problems with Ryan, too. Here’s the one where Romney tries to get a crowd to chant his name along with Ryan’s. It makes even Joe Scarborough cringe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SclDiN-lcYE

Then there are the deeper problems than tongue-twisting, like when he gets caught out in a misstatement. Here is Romney on money in politics, and on not hiring lobbyists:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_pgfWK3sxw&feature=related

 

Romney advisor Ron Kaufman

Some of the same moments again, in a flat-footed misstatement on his lobbyist-strategist (Ron Kaufman):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVA2Tr_GTlk&feature=related

Out on the campaign trail in New Hampshire, Romney puts his foot in it with a gay Viet vet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H9FKfECKDk&feature=related

In related vein–Romney, queried for comment when a gay soldier is booed, waffles:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZU5-2rdAfG8&feature=related

Equally sensitive, here is Mitt “I don’t think I’ve ever hired an illegal in my life” Romney:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpD8yb5JR7Y

 

Perry, Romney

I envy Rick Perry. He brought out the best in Romney, in a sense. Here’s the $10K bet moment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTpgTKAL_4k 

To be fair, there’s also an embarrassment of riches when Perry tries to get Romney on flip-flopping. His heart’s in the right place, tongue not so much:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47kZofrFwQ0

But if you wanted Romney clarified, the go-to guy is his own strategist. The strategy? Etch-a-Sketch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6NArPUFLRI 

Simple greatness. Even Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum fielded that one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlhmzzfU8G4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fvQbQysfdU&feature=related

 

Building on the great Etch-a-Sketch reveal, human history gets the infamous “47%” video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnB0NZzl5HA 

Romney attempted to explain away his “47%” comments the night they were revealed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhfmvuPHkZI

But move over, Mother Jones. Nobody beat up on Romney as well as Ron Paul’s people. Take this segment on the size of Romney’s typical audiences on the campaign trail:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GkR4dIHKKE&feature=related

 

Romney event

Romney’s own take on why he stumbled so many times in the campaign? “I think it’s about envy”:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qudG6xS1M5o 

As Romney reminds us, “those people who’ve been most successful will be in the one percent.”

But charitably overlooking the man’s immense wealth gets a little hard when the candidate himself single-handedly produces a whole album of out-of-touch moments. Here are the top ten:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFUUDrh9wNg&feature=related 

 

Compilations of Romney gaffes are fun, and convenient. Here, a trio:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIjcF4DgFy8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU0MVdq_ioQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SH–Y0ZjBS0&feature=relmfu

 

And to wind up, here is a nice compilation of Romney misstatements about the Obama administration, with video rebuttal:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_925350&feature=iv&src_vid=EQwrB1vu74c&v=Bg6S1HOo0j8

 

Enjoy your weekend–and remember where it came from, the not-Romneys of the world.

Debating against an Etch-A-Sketch

Posted on by
Reply

Debating against an Etch-A-Sketch

How could cutting federal programs and cutting taxes ‘grow the economy’?

It was Gov. Mitt Romney who said, last night, that he would not reduce taxes for high-income individuals. It was Romney who said, “I’m not looking for a $5 trillion tax cut.” Romney repeatedly said he does not favor a tax cut for the rich. It was Romney who first said, “We have to have regulation” in the financial sector, adding that we can’t have people opening up a bank in their garage. Romney said, “I’m not going to cut education funding.” It was Romney who repeated–shades of George H. W. Bush’s “read my lips”–that he would not, underscore not, pursue any tax cut that raises the deficit. Romney’s own words: “My plan is not to put in place any tax cut that will add to the deficit.”

Romney, before first debate

Let’s set aside for a moment any questions about the truth content of the statements. The immediate observation for me last night–watching the televised debate, with estimable moderator Jim Lehrer, on C-Span–was Romney’s acute defensiveness.

He’s right to be defensive, of course. Romney and Paul Ryan, his running mate, have between them produced hundreds of utterances exactly the reverse of the foregoing. A quick run-down, quickly pulled off the top from a mountain of examples:

  • Ryan’s tax plan as originally published supports eliminating the capital gains tax entirely–along with all taxes on interest, dividends, and inheritance
  • Romney’s own tax plan, updated under fire, retains the George W. Bush tax cuts for the wealthy
  • Romney’s tax plan additionally cuts individual income tax rates in yet-unspecified ways
  • Romney’s tax plan, like Ryan’s, also eliminates taxes on investment income, eliminates any taxes raising revenue in the health reform legislation, and eliminates the estate (inheritance) tax–a provision that benefits himself greatly
  • Romney and Ryan have both repeatedly proposed lowering the corporate income tax rate, claiming that U.S. corporations pay higher taxes even when news reports and other analysis show top companies paying no income tax in a given year
  • as to education, both Romney and Ryan want to repeal the American Opportunity tax credit for higher education
  • Romney’s tax plan calls for repealing the refundability of the child tax credit and for repealing the expansion of the earned income tax credit (EITC)
  • in another sop to private companies making money off students and parents, Romney supports allowing students receiving federal aid, such as students with disabilities, to use their aid to pay for private schools (“school choice”)

 

Romney

The truth content of any statement by Romney on the campaign trail is up for grabs. The bigger the audience, the more up for grabs.

A reasoned assessment of candidate Romney’s statements as harbingers of future policy under a Romney-Ryan administration might note some of the things Romney did not say.

  • Although Romney said last night (defensively) that he would close loopholes in the tax code, as President Obama pointed out, Romney did not clarify what loopholes or deductions he might close. Romney implied that he would close loopholes or eliminate deductions that benefit the wealthy but did not say which.
  • Romney did not mention George W. Bush. Romney’s repeated assertion that he will not “cut” taxes for the wealthy leaves in place the previous cuts passed under the Bush administration.
  • Romney said that he would “replace” Dodd-Frank but did not say how he would replace the legislation or with what.
  • Romney did not mention congressional Republicans, by name or by specific policy. This was politic. Candidate Romney cannot castigate the president for ‘slow’ economic recovery from the worst economic event since the Great Depression, if people remember that everything the Obama administration has tried has been opposed by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.).
  • Come to think of it, Romney did not mention by name any top Republicans now running for office or for reelection. He did not mention even his own running mate, Paul Ryan–also running for Congress–until the president mentioned him in connection with Ryan’s Medicare proposals. Possibly Romney less than pleased with some of Ryan’s recent criticisms of his gaffes.

Ryan and Medicare

As said, more than a trifle defensive, and understandably so. By all accounts, Romney came into last night’s debate pretty much on his own–though he will benefit from the predictable spin by the right-wing echo chamber, always ready to scare the timorous. (A glance at headlines shows they’re already double-standarding the president on defensiveness.)

Diagram of weather vane

Back to the debate–before leaving this quick sketch of not-mentioned’s, one final item.

On reducing the deficit, candidate Romney said, “I have my own plan.”

From the transcript:

LEHRER: Governor, what about Simpson-Bowles? Do you support Simpson-Bowles?

ROMNEY: Simpson-Bowles, the president should have grabbed that.

LEHRER: No, I mean, do you support Simpson-Bowles?

ROMNEY: I have my own plan. It’s not the same as Simpson- Bowles. But in my view, the president should have grabbed it. If you wanted to make some adjustments to it, take it, go to Congress, fight for it.

OBAMA: That’s what we’ve done, made some adjustments to it, and we’re putting it forward before Congress right now, a $4 trillion plan . . .

ROMNEY: But you’ve been — but you’ve been president four years…

(CROSSTALK)

This is a perfect example of (some of) the most infuriating GOP tactics. It’s Romney’s kind of syllogism. One, the president should have supported Simpson-Bowles. Two, I am not supporting Simpson-Bowles and am not saying how I differ. Three, the president should have supported Simpson-Bowles.

No mention, no mention whatsoever, of congressional Republicans’ obstruction of every social and fiscal proposal for the last four years. No mention of their stated determination to keep Obama from doing anything to improve the economy or to reduce the deficit–since that would enhance his chances of reelection.

Mitch McConnell

It is a relief, in a sense, to turn from Romney’s omissions and outright lies to some moments of clarity. Here are a few:

Romney stated repeatedly that he will support “no tax cut that adds to the deficit.” He also referred repeatedly to balancing the budget. “My plan is not to put in place any tax cut that will add to the deficit. That’s point one.”

When Obama said, “Romney has ruled out revenue” in deficit reduction, and Lehrer asked Romney to respond to the statement, Romney agreed.

Romney repeatedly referred to shifting federal programs to the states. Romney stuck with the idea of turning even Medicaid over to states, even when Obama rightly criticized it.

Fifty fiscal cliffs?

Obviously, if you push the costs of federal programs on to the states by turning over federal programs to states, you–so to speak–reduce the federal deficit. You also produce a 50-state version of the fiscal cliff. I am hoping no sane person anywhere to the left of Louis XVI goes along with this. Romney’s idea, in case anyone missed it, amounts to turning health care over to the states, turning veterans’ benefits over to the states, turning Medicaid over to the states. Does anyone envision the state of Alabama, or South Carolina, getting insurance companies to provide actual health care coverage–either for poor people or for anyone else? How about the state legislatures of Tennessee or Kentucky? Have they made the insurance industry play ball? When? Are they provided with the laws-with-teeth it takes to exact sizable fines from large companies committing fraud, including insurance companies that defraud? Do they even have the resources to prosecute multi-state fraudsters?

On Medicare, another moment of clarity. From the transcript:

LEHRER: All right. Can we—can the two of you agree that the voters have a choice—a clear choice between the two . . .

ROMNEY: Absolutely.

LEHRER: . . . of you on Medicare?

ROMNEY: Absolutely.

OBAMA: Absolutely.

Explaining

Now to some clearer statements from Romney.

From the transcript:

“I don’t want to cost jobs. My priority is jobs. And so what I do is I bring down the tax rates, lower deductions and exemptions, the same idea behind Bowles-Simpson, by the way, get the rates down, lower deductions and exemptions, to create more jobs, because there’s nothing better for getting us to a balanced budget than having more people working, earning more money, paying more taxes. That’s by far the most effective and efficient way to get this budget balanced.”

From the transcript:

“So how do we deal with it? Well, mathematically, there are three ways that you can cut a deficit. One, of course, is to raise taxes. Number two is to cut spending. And number [three] is to grow the economy, because if more people work in a growing economy, they’re paying taxes, and you can get the job done that way.

The presidents would—president would prefer raising taxes. I understand. The problem with raising taxes is that it slows down the rate of growth. And you could never quite get the job done. I want to lower spending and encourage economic growth at the same time.

What things would I cut from spending? Well, first of all, I will eliminate all programs by this test, if they don’t pass it: Is the program so critical it’s worth borrowing money from China to pay for it? And if not, I’ll get rid of it. Obamacare’s on my list.”

For my money, this is the place to arrive, for anyone who wants to evaluate the somewhat slippery Romney’s vision for the future. The statements just quoted come as close as anything can to Romney’s core principles.

They also amount to a Get-out-of-jail-free card for candidate Romney. You see, it’s number [three], ‘growing the economy’, that works the magic. Growing the economy will produce jobs; more jobs will mean more taxes paid by working people–we just recently heard Veep nominee and congressional candidate Ryan expressing concern about that; and more taxes from working people will mean reducing the deficit.

And how will Romney ‘grow the economy’? We’ve heard it before. He will cut taxes and cut federal programs.

This is the game plan. Forget repetitions of the potent word ‘jobs’. Forget touching anecdotes about a few individuals. Forget claims of supporting the middle class. Cutting taxes and cutting federal programs will grow the economy, and that will take care of all our other problems.

And what if it doesn’t work?

[Update]

Romney’s debate performance is spawning numerous fact-based rebuttals. This one  from Daily Kos is representative.

[          ]

 

More in the Romney tax returns

Posted on by
1

More on those tax returns

Following up on those Friday-release Romney tax returns, a few quick observations

Mitt and Ann Romney’s IRS tax return for 2011 is posted here.

For the record, what has not been revealed by Romney is more interesting than what has been. Still, there are some items of interest in the limited and partial two-year disclosure the Romney team has vouchsafed.

From the top:

The headliner, of course, is the large amount of money involved.

Total adjusted gross income reported:   $13,696,951.

Largest single income source is from capital gains:            $6,810,176.

Next largest income source is dividends:                               $3,649,567.

Next largest income source is interest, including as previously written U.S. government interest:              $3,012,775.

The next thing one notes is the meticulous craftsmanship of Romney’s tax preparers, PriceWaterhouseCoopers.

PriceWaterhouseCoopers

The meticulousness is noticeable in regard to whatever reduces Romney’s tax liability. Pages to indicate losses, expenses and deductions are filled out copiously. Numerous tax credits are claimed, large and small. Two dollars ($2) in tax credits is claimed for example under Part III, General Business Credits or Eligible Small Business Credits, for “Increasing research activities (form 6765)”. Box checked: “General Business Credit From a Passive Activity.” Another twenty-five dollars ($25) for increasing research is claimed on another page, indicating a different pass-through entity.

Capital gains seem also to be meticulously included. For example, a $39 gain is declared for “Casualty or Theft of Property Held More Than One Year.” Cryptic.

Capital losses, on the other hand, apparently total $484,913.

Note:

‘Capital loss’ seems to wiggle up or down a little, depending on which page you’re on. This is probably the key on how Romney in person addresses questions, audiences, and fora on the campaign trail. Other people are thinking in terms of ‘flip-flopping’ or issues or the like. Romney is thinking in terms of long-term gain/loss.

Romney on air

Speaking of losses and write-offs, our tax code offers among numerous other deductions an Investment Interest Expense Deduction. This deduction might well have been intended to encourage investment in, say, factories and equipment. But evidently it can also be applied to capital-gains-type ‘investment’, such as in pass-through entities in the Caymans, Germany, and Ireland.

Romney’s net investment income reported:       $2,403,311.

Investment interest expense reported:                $640,876.

His deduction:   Ditto.

So just managing the investment income costs that? Or the part of the managing expenses that can be deducted?

On another matter, the Household Employment Tax and Social Security pages are left blank. Instead, a statement: “Beginning in 2011, the payroll tax returns and all applicable taxes for personal employees were remitted on a monthly basis and reported quarterly on Form 941.” Form 941 is not included in the releases. Protecting employees’ privacy is a good. The omissions leave PriceWaterhouseCoopers on the hook for seeing to it that there’s no funny business about employees’ Social Security.

Can, meet worms.

  • Chris Hayes on MSNBC has already pointed out that the trustee named on Romney’s blind trusts is also Romney’s own attorney. Here is the posted statement from Romney’s guy.
  • As stated, Romney actually chose to pay more taxes than he had to for 2011, by claiming less in charitable contributions than the handsome amount he gave. This filing decision was made, according to Romney’s guys, in order to make Romney’s taxes conform to his previous (July) statement on his usual tax rate.
  • Tax expert David Cay Johnston has also pointed out the careful wording in this statement, particularly re ‘owed’ versus ‘paid’. Nowhere does Romney’s statement on his taxes claim that Romney paid what he owed in the given tax year.
  • Numerous commentators have also noted that this year, for example, Romney can if he chooses go back and file an amended return, i.e. after the election, and claim the rest of his charitable deductions.

Worms, meet can.

One last sub-topic, in this dry matter of tax returns.

Many, many pages of the Romney tax returns: “Information Return by a Shareholder of a Passive Foreign Investment Company or Qualified Electing Fund” (Form 8621). Romney’s filing is particularly sensitive to the possible impression made by the category of foreign holdings, it would seem. Passive Foreign Investment Company (PFIC) holdings  in the Grand Caymans, etc., are repeatedly said to be held indirectly through Goldman Sachs (hint hint). The number of shares is always “unknown.” The dollar amounts appear to be minuscule. The large number of Form 8621’s included, demonstrating small amounts in holdings overseas, contrasts to the omission of that form about employee Social Security.

Interestingly, PFIC shares or amounts held in the Netherlands or in the Grand Caymans, etc., are UP in 2011 from 2010. Looks as if Romney was convinced in 2010 that he wouldn’t face much of a problem about them in the 2012 race. Could that have been an impression left by the 2010 elections?

Some shares in PFICs were purchased in (late) November 2010, in fact, and in December of the same year.

Narrowing down further to specifics, page after page of the tax returns indicate date acquired for PFICs as “12/14/2010.” Here, just for fun, is a Wall Street Journal article headline for that exact date: “Dems Sweat ObamaCare Ruling.”

An earlier bunch of Romney’s PFIC holdings had been acquired 9/16/2010. Sample headline for that date: “Poll: Climate grows rockier for Dems, Obama.”

Moving on–

Although the vastest sums in Romney’s wealth are capital gains, dividends and interest–unearned income–there is also a (relatively) small category of earned income. For author/speaking fees, American Talent Group LLC paid Romney $178,500. For director’s fees, Marriott International paid him $260,390.

Still, those amounts–which would be substantial for almost anyone else–are dwarfed by the capital gains category.

Short-term capital losses:             $2,292,120. Hefty write-off.

Long-term capital gain:  $9,033,933.

This over-all is the dominant pattern characterizing Romney’s tax posture: some short-term loss, far more than compensated by long-germ gain. A more precise way to interpret the facts might be, some short-term loss as a means to long-term gain. Some short-term loss paving the way to long-term gain.

It’s like buying a company, assuming costly debt/leverage, then treating the loss as another receivable–from the U.S. Treasury, in the form of tax adjustments–when subsequently selling the company.

Dade Behring is one illustration. As the New York Times reported in November 2011,

“Bain settled on a common tactic in private equity: In April 1999, it pushed Dade to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars to buy half of Bain’s shares in the company—and half of those of its investment partners.

Bain pocketed the $242 million. Goldman received $121 million. Top Dade executives got $55 million, records show. The total payout to shareholders reached $420 million—nearly as much as the purchase price for Dade.”

Dade declared bankruptcy and was later bought by a German company.

Romney: “These are people who pay no income tax”

Posted on by
Reply

Romney: “These are people who pay no income tax”

Where did this Mitt Romney come from?

Let’s be clear, up top. Romney’s remarks at a Boca Raton fundraiser did not just link unworthy people, Obama voters, and the number ’47 percent’. Romney linked unworthy people, Obama voters, ’47 percent’, and “people who pay no income tax.”

 

Romney anti-tax button

Who spoke those words?

Why, Mitt Romney, the GOP nominee for the White House:

“There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement … And they will vote for this president no matter what … These are people who pay no income tax … My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

Did Romney miss his entire campaign over the past two years? Since when did he of all people equate paying federal income tax with personal responsibility?

(Note: I do, to some extent. Not he.)

Watching the tape, I found the casual they-pay-no-income-tax comment more jaw-dropping than the rest. (Had Romney just learned that he had to write a check to the IRS for 2011?) The candidate’s unbecoming dismissal of half the population is hardly news–aside from its exposure–nor is his dismissal of peace in the Middle East. This is basically the corporate GOP mindset. These are the same people, after all, who have abortions in their own families if they so choose but who are perfectly willing to subscribe to party platforms illegalizing the procedure if it will help them consolidate policy on matters dearer to them. That those policies do not benefit the overwhelming majority of the population is a point about which most GOP officeholders, or future lobbyists, have repeatedly shown themselves to be indifferent.

But elevating paying your income tax to a moral standard?

Who is this man?

Bob Hope must be spinning in his grave.

Retreating to common sense–it is a truism that no one likes to pay taxes. That’s one reason why this country, with its ideal of widespread literacy, still relies so heavily on ‘hidden’ taxes that are destructively recessive, such as sales taxes and ‘user fees’, etc. No one likes to pay income tax, although some people are patriotically proud of how much they contribute. Anti-IRS jokes have been a staple of a certain kind of humor at least since Bob Hope. Hope’s delivery and diction tended to be mild-mannered, not Tabasco, but could not have been confused with pro-tax. Like Romney’s candidacy early on, they went over well with the white-shoes-white-belt crowd that are Romney’s traditional base.

 

bleahh

Romney himself has acknowledged a lack of fondness for taxes. To do him justice, Romney has said openly–even on the campaign trail–that he himself uses every available mechanism to reduce his taxes:

“ROMNEY: Let me also say categorically, I have paid taxes every year, and a lot of taxes.

My view is I have paid all the taxes required by law. I don’t pay more than are legally due.”

More broadly, the notion that paying taxes is bad is hardly a subtext in this year’s Republican campaign.

The evidence on this point, in fact, gives new meaning to the old phrase ’embarrassment of riches’. See among numerous examples romney’s public remarks on Aug 24:

“In calling for a broader, simplified tax code, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Friday that bigger businesses, in knowing how to utilize loopholes in the tax code, are “doing fine in many places” compared to small businesses.

“We’ve got to make it easier for small businesses,” Romney told a crowd of about 300 people at a high-dollar fundraiser in Minnesota. “Big business is doing fine in many place- -they get the loans they need, they can deal with all the regulation. They know how to find ways to get through the tax code, save money by putting various things in the places where there are low tax havens around the world for their businesses. But small business is getting crushed.””

One looks in vain for criticism in Romney’s comments about big businesses not pulling their weight, feeling entitled, etc., in connection with paying no income tax. It’s no wonder the biggest guns in the GOP, especially some rightwing media personalities, are jumping all over Romney for all of a sudden getting religion about paying your income tax. I don’t remember the last time George Will, Charles Krauthammer or Bill Kristol stepped forward to support same.

Then we have Romney’s choice of a running mate, Paul Ryan (who is also running for Congress in Wisconsin, and has a strong challenger, Rob Zerban).

The Zerbans, Wisconsin

The same day that Romney made his “big businesses are doing fine” comment, Ryan said much the same thing:

“By plugging loopholes, which are uniquely enjoyed by higher income individuals, you’re reducing their ability to shelter their income from taxation . . .”

Needless to say, the Romney-Ryan campaign has not included specifics on what ‘loopholes’ would be cut MORTGAGE INTEREST DEDUCTION.  The Romney-Ryan insistence on extending all Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest, eliminating even the remaining U.S. inheritance tax, and lowering the income tax for corporations does not suggest that the loopholes would be only those enjoyed by the wealthiest among us MORTGAGE INTEREST DEDUCTION.

 

To return to that “they pay no income tax” line–

The problem with Romney’s comments is not only that they were impolitic, inaccurate and mean-spirited. They were also confused. You cannot at one and the same time campaign against taxes, and elevate paying your fair share of taxes as a moral standard. You cannot openly acknowledge that the tax code already favors the wealthy and big businesses–as both Romney and Ryan have done–and then successfully claim that it’s the poorer citizens who are getting away with something.

Except when you’re talking privately to a cluster of wealthy individuals who already tell themselves that.

Orwell lives.

Speaking of impolitic remarks, there was a slideslip into accuracy in Romney’s “big businesses are doing fine” comments, which is one reason they were so widely quoted. Analyses, including this one by CNBC, have corroborated the finding that, indeed, the one percenters are doing fine using available tax breaks. The New York Times summarized some of the ways Aug. 10, the Journal Tribune Aug. 25. Plenty of further information is available.

Not that the one percenters are the only ones, of course. The question of who is not liable for federal income tax under the current tax code is now getting some clarification it has long deserved, thanks to Romney. Here among others is a good run-down by the Christian Science Monitor.

In fact, on why Romney’s conflating non-income-tax payers with 1) Obama voters and 2) unworthy people is as inaccurate as it is ugly, let’s take a leaf from Elizabeth Barrett Browning, and count the ways.

Non- federal income tax payers, by state percentages

Factor Number One: Region or State

The nonpartisan Tax Foundation published a report in 2010 showing that paying federal income tax varies widely by state. The ten states with the largest percentage of non-payers? They include nine states–Idaho, Texas, and southeastern states including Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia–likely to go for Romney. Of the ten, all but one–Florida–is conventionally designated a ‘red state’, and Florida has a Republican governor and legislature.

Factor Number Two: Age

Florida also has a sizable retired population. As this fuller breakdown by the Tax Policy Center reminds us, one cohort paying less federal income tax is the elderly. Senior citizens on Social Security benefit from tax expenditures that Romney and Ryan have claimed, on the campaign trail, to support. The oldest voters, be it noted, are the only age group of voters among whom Romney bests President Obama.

Factor Number Three: Low Income

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports that the main reason people don’t pay federal income tax, when they don’t, is that their incomes are too low for them to be tax liable. Here Romney is on firmer ground, so to speak. True enough, many of the poorest households do not support him–except when they are also seniors, or Southern whites. A number of them, including households with elderly members or Southern whites, also receive Social Security Supplemental Security Income (SSI), disability aid, Medicaid, WIC, unemployment benefits or some other form of public assistance. So presumably a Romney-Ryan tax plan will try to catch more of the nation’s poorest households in a higher tax bracket. Those are the indications so far, both from Ryan himself and from the 2012 GOP platform.

Factor Number Four: Military Service

Federal income tax on compensation for serving in the military is offset in several ways. Compensation received for service in a combat zone, for example, is not subject to federal income tax. There are also state income-tax exclusions for military pay in various states. By the way, the states with the best exclusions are not necessarily red states. Cash-strapped red states are at least as likely as any other states to limit the income tax exclusions.

Factor Number Five: High-Net-Worth Individuals and Corporations

On not paying taxes at the upper end, you can find copious information in various glossy sources. A quick hint here, but really Romney and Ryan’s own comments–and the scant information so far released in Romney’s own tax returns–give the picture. If you want to have more fun, and enjoy scenic views of golden beaches and sun, you can read up on off-shore tax havens. And of course numerous top corporations make tax avoidance part of their ongoing strategy. They generally poor-mouth while doing it, too. Where are Romney and Ryan on these entities, perennially ready to portray themselves as victims?

Sad to say, some of the households and individuals characterized by Governor Romney as takers will vote for him anyway. Their local newspapers and television news channels may fail to clarify his remarks or to correct the tax arithmetic. Their willingness to believe it’s different when you accept government aid while simultaneously being white will undoubtedly be catered to by the campaign. That these are some of the same households hurt worst by Romney-Ryan policy won’t change their votes.

But the fact remains that the real one-way-streeters comprise those responsible for the mortgage-derivatives debacle, those who benefit financially from it, and those who oppose any process that would lead to retribution or reimbursement. Only racial politics could make the GOP imagine that any large proportion of the country can be made to forget who was responsible for our biggest crash since the Great Depression.

Where did Mitt Romney get his 43 percent figure?

Posted on by
Reply

Where did Mitt Romney get his 43 percent figure?

Move over, Goldilocks. Mitt Romney has fine-tooled your metrics.

As revealed yesterday by Mother Jones, Romney was videotaped at a May 17 fundraiser in Boca Raton giving affluent donors his assessment of the campaign with unbecoming clarity. He was particularly unbecoming about people who don’t vote for him. We’ll get to some of those candid remarks later.

 

Video capture of Boca Raton fundraiser for Romney

For now, it’s Romney’s take on the numbers that intrigues:

“There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them,” Romney said in a hidden-camera video of his remarks at a private fundraiser earlier this year posted on Monday on the left-wing Mother Jones magazine’s website.

“My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents,” he said in remarks convincing donors to write checks for his campaign.”

Most commentary so far has focused on Romney’s ’47 percent’ number, and rightly so; see later. But Romney’s horse-race assessment reveals as much as his version of sociology. Going on to that ‘center’=’independents’ comment that follows, you get more than the inflammatory dismissal of 47 percent of voters. Use Romney’s arithmetic: 47 percent ‘pay no income tax’ etc; 5 to 10 percent are ‘independents’; that leaves 43 percent. Subtracting 47 percent from 100, then 10 percent (of ‘independents’) from 53–thus Obama 47 percent; Romney 43 percent.

Romney clearly thinks he has 43 percent, and only 43 percent, in the bag. Why? Who are the 43 percent? Where did he get that number? –Recent polls? Tax brackets? Income brackets? White voters? GOP registration?

Looks like not.

Where did Romney get his figures? CBS News had put out a recent widely reported opinion poll on the presidential race as of May 17. But it gave Romney the lead, and almost reverses Romney’s numbers:

“According to the survey, conducted May 11-13, 46 percent of registered voters say they would vote for Romney, while 43 percent say they would opt for Mr. Obama. Romney’s slight advantage remains within the poll’s margin of error, which is plus or minus four percentage points.”

The CBS poll, furthermore, was in line with much or most election 2012 polling in the time frame. As this wiki overview of election tracking polls and opinion polls shows, Romney was running fairly often behind and in the forties–but so was Obama. The poll closest to Romney’s numbers came out late April to early May, an Investor’s Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor/TIPP poll giving Obama 46 percent to Romney’s 43–with a helpful breakdown of voter demographics that would tend to jibe with Romney’s sociology.

Only one poll around then has Romney’s exact numbers: an NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll dated May 16-20 gives Obama 47 percent, Romney 43.

The catch is that the NBC-WSJ poll was not out yet, or not publicly.

Republicans, be it noted, tend to emphasize We’re-ahead! slogans when asking donors for money. So if Romney’s buddies in the corporate media shared a foretaste of recent polling with him, Romney knew in Boca Raton that he had some numbers to get out in front of. (Dems tend to use scare tactics–We’re going to lose!–for the same purpose.)

 

Back to a somewhat larger perspective, it’s interesting how closely Romney’s breakdown of the electorate into 1) takers, 2) his own voters, and 3) ‘independents’=’center’ tracks with the punditry most often put out by the larger media outlets (and by Fox News).

Romney’s amateur punditry also tracks closely with the pros on the question of what, exactly, constitutes an ‘independent’:

“What I have to do is to convince the five to ten percent in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not.”

Independent=center. Thoughtful=emotion. Emotion=”whether they like the guy or not.” Orwell could not have said it better.

Eric Arthur Blair, pseud. George Orwell

Mr. Romney has been called many things, but he is truly typified by Aldous Huxley’s model of the affluent businessman who, when he opens up, turns out to be filled with comfortable hogwash.

more to come

Update Sep 20:

Speaking of the Wall Street Journal, Media Matters now has this piece on Romney campaigners who write op-eds for WSJ–without having their connection to the Romney campaign clarified.

Looks like a two-way street.

Akin, Ryan still in their respective races

Posted on by
Reply

On eve of GOP convention, Todd Akin, Paul Ryan still running for Congress

The long-awaited Republican National Convention has opened in Tampa in attenuated fashion, and not much is new. Missouri senate nominee Todd Akin is still in the race, dousing recently aroused hope that he would take himself out with some increasingly defiant pronouncements over the weekend.

Akin

Top GOP operative Mary Matalin has not yet retracted or back-pedaled on her equally firm announcement yesterday that Republicans will fund a write-in candidate against Akin–and, of course, against Sen. Claire McCaskill. As previously written, this kind of thing can change like the vectors of a tropical storm Isaac. For now, however, Rep. Akin’s senate race remains consigned to the GOP establishment dustbin, and according to Matalin, Ann Wagner is “going to be our candidate.”

 

Matalin

Also in recently unchanged news, Rick Warren’s presidential forum remains cancelled.

 

Ditto in ditto, the question whether Rep. Paul Ryan will run for re-election to the House remains unanswered. Communication with Ryan’s Capitol Hill office elicits the information that his press secretary is unavailable. Call-backs, not yet.

 

Ryan

Ryan, unlike Akin, faces at present no prospect of a fellow Republican entering his contest back home. Ryan was unopposed in his own primary.

 

Looking at broader information, staying in his House race might seem a smart move for Ryan. Trying to assess exactly how much damage Rep. Akin’s individual comments–i.e. Akin’s open and explicit statements, clearly aligned with the Republican party platform–have done may be beside the point. Predictions are obviously impossible at this point, but every poll-of-polls that takes the Electoral College into account puts President Obama ahead of Mitt Romney for 2012. Neither party likes this fact pointed out; Democrats are loath to give up fear tactics to generate fund-raising, and Republicans are equally loath to give up gloating about ‘winning’ for the same purpose.

Mary Matalin says GOP will fund a write-in against Todd Akin in Missouri

Posted on by
2

Election 2012: Mary Matalin says GOP will fund a write-in against Todd Akin in Missouri

Admittedly this is the kind of thing that could change in another hour. As of now, however, GOP top strategist Mary Matalin is saying something pretty crisp about Rep. Todd Akin’s senate race. After dismissing Akin’s chances of getting funding from the Republican party, Matalin went on to say, flatly, “Wagner’s going to be our candidate.”

 

Matalin and Carville

The reference is to Ann Wagner, the Missouri GOP chair now running for Akin’s House seat.

Wagner

 

Speaking in ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos panel discussion, Matalin went on to say “We have the money to do it”–i.e. fund a statewide write-in campaign for the U.S. Senate–and added that they’ve done it before. Presumably that last refers to Sen. Lisa Murkowski in Alaska. Matalin–New Orleans resident, wife of Dem strategist James Carville, and former diehard George W. Bush operative–is one of the nation’s most prominent pro-right discoursers on party politics and party policy.

The odds on a win for the hypothetical Wagner write-in in Missouri would be hard to calculate; in all likelihood the party would be counting on Akin to drop out, maybe at the last minute, in the face of a well-funded and serious write-in campaign from his own party.

 

Akin

The clear take-away from this Sunday morning’s talk shows confirms that the GOP establishment is indeed against Akin, as he says. Mitt Romney spent a few minutes of his lengthy one-on-one with Chris Wallace at Fox distancing himself from Akin, again, and calling attention to the fact that he is doing so. Former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist came out in favor of President Obama. Even Gov. Bob ‘vaginal probe’ McDonnell of Virginia mealy-mouthed around the rape-exception issue, saying, “The [national GOP] party didn’t make any judgment on that.”

With even fellow frothers like McDonnell bailing on him, Akin does indeed seem to face a tough rowing job. He is not completely alone, of course. Mike Huckabee is supporting him, front-pew, as are a number of Christian right organizations.

Outgoing Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, on CNN with Candy Crowley, broadened the discussion a bit. Hutchison said firmly–speaking about abortion–that “We shouldn’t put a party around an issue that’s so personal, and also religion-based.”

Hutchison, like all the GOP and pro-GOP voices on the air waves, went on to use the line that ‘the economy’–‘jobs’–should be the issue in the election.

Mitt Romney

You know the GOP is hurting in an election when it starts talking about jobs, the domestic economy, or hardships faced by ordinary people. It’s really hurting when it tries to switch the discussion to those topics, in preference to others.

 

To be continued