“Out Of Egypt, Into The Red Sea”: Romney’s Cowardly Speech On The Deficit
Another day, another economic speech by Mitt Romney. Romney is constantly trying to refocus the campaign on the economy. After being sidetracked by President Obama’s announcement that he supports gay marriage speech last week, and Romney’s appeal to the religious right at Liberty University on Saturday, Romney is once again on the attack against Obama’s economic record. Romney’s Tuesday afternoon speech in Des Moines, Iowa, was nominally focused on deficit reduction.
There are plenty of reasons to worry about the rate of job growth in the short term and federal debt accumulation in the long term, but unfortunately Romney’s proposals would make both problems worse. Rather than offer specific investments or incentives to hire now and plausible plans to reduce the deficit later, when the economy is strong enough to withstand spending cuts, Romney offers the same austerity measures that have crippled the recovery in much of Europe.
It’s worse than just that. If Romney specified which tax loopholes he would close and spending he would cut, at least we’d get deficit reduction, if nothing else. It would also allow for an honest debate about the American people’s priorities on taxes, spending and deficit reduction. But he stubbornly refuses, out of cowardice. Specific cuts could trigger opposition, so Romney offers only bromides.
Romney compared the rising federal debt to a “prairie fire” sweeping the nation. “The people of Iowa and America have watched President Obama for nearly four years, much of that time with Congress controlled by his own party. And rather than put out the spending fire, he has fed the fire,” said Romney. “He has spent more and borrowed more.”
While technically true, this is a bit misleading. Obama inherited an imbalance between spending and revenue because of tax cuts and wars started by George W. Bush and congressional Republicans. Much of the increase in the deficit since Obama took office can be attributed to increases in mandatory spending such as food stamps and decreases in tax revenue that were caused by the recession he also inherited, rather than any of his policies. While Obama did sign some new spending bills, he also signed the Affordable Care Act, which would reduce the deficit. Romney pledges to repeal the ACA and complains that it cut spending on Medicare.
“The time has come for a president, a leader, who will lead. I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno,” Romney promised. But how? Romney does not say. He wants to extend the Bush tax cuts, then cut taxes an additional 20 percent and raise spending on defense. All of this increases the deficit.
To pay for all of this and then reduce the deficit from current levels would require drastic cuts in domestic programs. But Romney knows that the American people like the idea of cutting domestic spending more than they like cutting actual programs they rely upon. So he avoids offering any specifics. “Move programs to states or to the private sector where they can be run more efficiently and where we can do a better job helping the people who need our help,” said Romney. “Shut down programs that aren’t working. And streamline everything that’s left.” None of this really means anything. No one is for programs that aren’t working or inefficiencies. Unless you say which programs you believe are not working, or which inefficiencies you will remove, you aren’t really saying anything at all. Romney says he will lead on this issue, but he offers no leadership at all.
By: Ben Adler, The Nation, May 15, 2012
“Why We Regulate”: The Arrogance Of Wall Street And The Lessons Of History
One of the characters in the classic 1939 film “Stagecoach” is a banker named Gatewood who lectures his captive audience on the evils of big government, especially bank regulation — “As if we bankers don’t know how to run our own banks!” he exclaims. As the film progresses, we learn that Gatewood is in fact skipping town with a satchel full of embezzled cash.
As far as we know, Jamie Dimon, the chairman and C.E.O. of JPMorgan Chase, isn’t planning anything similar. He has, however, been fond of giving Gatewood-like speeches about how he and his colleagues know what they’re doing, and don’t need the government looking over their shoulders. So there’s a large heap of poetic justice — and a major policy lesson — in JPMorgan’s shock announcement that it somehow managed to lose $2 billion in a failed bit of financial wheeling-dealing.
Just to be clear, businessmen are human — although the lords of finance have a tendency to forget that — and they make money-losing mistakes all the time. That in itself is no reason for the government to get involved. But banks are special, because the risks they take are borne, in large part, by taxpayers and the economy as a whole. And what JPMorgan has just demonstrated is that even supposedly smart bankers must be sharply limited in the kinds of risk they’re allowed to take on.
Why, exactly, are banks special? Because history tells us that banking is and always has been subject to occasional destructive “panics,” which can wreak havoc with the economy as a whole. Current right-wing mythology has it that bad banking is always the result of government intervention, whether from the Federal Reserve or meddling liberals in Congress. In fact, however, Gilded Age America — a land with minimal government and no Fed — was subject to panics roughly once every six years. And some of these panics inflicted major economic losses.
So what can be done? In the 1930s, after the mother of all banking panics, we arrived at a workable solution, involving both guarantees and oversight. On one side, the scope for panic was limited via government-backed deposit insurance; on the other, banks were subject to regulations intended to keep them from abusing the privileged status they derived from deposit insurance, which is in effect a government guarantee of their debts. Most notably, banks with government-guaranteed deposits weren’t allowed to engage in the often risky speculation characteristic of investment banks like Lehman Brothers.
This system gave us half a century of relative financial stability. Eventually, however, the lessons of history were forgotten. New forms of banking without government guarantees proliferated, while both conventional and newfangled banks were allowed to take on ever-greater risks. Sure enough, we eventually suffered the 21st-century version of a Gilded Age banking panic, with terrible consequences.
It’s clear, then, that we need to restore the sorts of safeguards that gave us a couple of generations without major banking panics. It’s clear, that is, to everyone except bankers and the politicians they bankroll — for now that they have been bailed out, the bankers would of course like to go back to business as usual. Did I mention that Wall Street is giving vast sums to Mitt Romney, who has promised to repeal recent financial reforms?
Enter Mr. Dimon. JPMorgan, to its — and his — credit, managed to avoid many of the bad investments that brought other banks to their knees. This apparent demonstration of prudence has made Mr. Dimon the point man in Wall Street’s fight to delay, water down and/or repeal financial reform. He has been particularly vocal in his opposition to the so-called Volcker Rule, which would prevent banks with government-guaranteed deposits from engaging in “proprietary trading,” basically speculating with depositors’ money. Just trust us, the JPMorgan chief has in effect been saying; everything’s under control.
Apparently not.
What did JPMorgan actually do? As far as we can tell, it used the market for derivatives — complex financial instruments — to make a huge bet on the safety of corporate debt, something like the bets that the insurer A.I.G. made on housing debt a few years ago. The key point is not that the bet went bad; it is that institutions playing a key role in the financial system have no business making such bets, least of all when those institutions are backed by taxpayer guarantees.
For the moment Mr. Dimon seems chastened, even admitting that maybe the proponents of stronger regulation have a point. It probably won’t last; I expect Wall Street to be back to its usual arrogance within weeks if not days.
But the truth is that we’ve just seen an object demonstration of why Wall Street does, in fact, need to be regulated. Thank you, Mr. Dimon.
By: Paul Krugman, Op-Ed Columnist, The New York Times, May 13, 2012
“Nothing Personal, Just Policy”: Let Me Guess, Mitt Romney Has Gay Friends
George W. Bush has gay friends. So does Sarah Palin. Amazingly, so does Rick Santorum. And let me guess: soon Mitt Romney will, too.
Every Republican politician seems to have at least one gay friend these days. That’s not too difficult: even if you tried, it would be hard to live and work in America without meeting at least one openly gay person you can get along with. But for a right-wing politician having gay friends, shall we say, has benefits. These unnamed, unseen gay friends send a message that an anti-gay politician isn’t a hater. I mean, how can you hate your friends? It’s just policy, nothing personal.
Of course, the problem is that it is personal. Having gay friends doesn’t absolve one of anti-gay prejudice any more than loving one’s wife and daughters absolves one of defunding Planned Parenthood. Even if you’d be happy to have gay people over to dinner, that doesn’t give you a pass to deny them fundamental rights.
The “gay friends” defense is weak, but popular. And Mitt Romney, scrambling to clarify his position on equal rights after President Obama’s endorsement of marriage equality, must be considering it right about now.
Romney has always been careful to stipulate that his various and elusive anti-gay policies have nothing to do with any personal anti-gay animus. This strategy was clear in a 2006 speech to the right-wing Family Research Council, recently unearthed by PFAW’s Right Wing Watch. In it, taking homophobia to a whole new level, the candidate declares that “the price of same-sex marriage is paid by the children” and amazingly asserts that marriage equality is the result of “spreading secular religion and its substitute values.” He then offers a spoon full a sugar with a call for an “outpouring of respect and tolerance for all people” and laughably encourages his listeners to “vigorously protest discrimination and bigotry.”
When President Obama announced last week that he supports marriage equality, Romney responded by repeating his opposition to not only marriage equality but also to civil unions. He then insisted that same-sex couples have the “right” to “have a loving relationship, or even to adopt a child.” The next day, he changed his mind about the adoption part. The day after that, he delivered a commencement address to Liberty University, which bans openly gay students and is allied with some of the most vile anti-gay rhetoric in the Religious Right today.
But none of this wavering matches Romney’s recent, brief hiring of an openly gay staffer, foreign policy spokesman Richard Grenell. A Republican adviser told the New York Times after Grenell was forced out of Romney’s campaign, “It’s not that the campaign cared whether Ric Grenell was gay. They believed this was a nonissue. But they didn’t want to confront the religious right.” Increasingly, when it comes to choosing between basic dignity and futile attempts to appease the far right, the mainstream GOP has been choosing the far right.
Unfortunately for Romney, the Religious Right, the object of his caving, isn’t buying his frantic attempts to pander. The most outspoken critic of Romney’s decision to hire Grenell quickly, the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer, became the most outspoken critic of the decision to fire him. “How is he going to stand up to North Korea if he can be pushed around by a yokel like me?” Fischer demanded.
It has to give at least some Republicans pause that the far right has become so extreme, and Republican leaders have become so subservient to their demands, that it is now not even possible to have any gay people work for a GOP campaign.
But soon Mitt Romney will tell us that he has gay friends.
By: MIchael B. Keegan, The Huffington Post, may 15, 2012
“Right Wing Social Engineering”: What Romney’s Medicare Plan Actually Does
DC journos have spent much of the 2012 election trying to answer the question of how exactly a President Romney would govern. On one side, there are the skeptics who never bought into Romney’s rhetoric during the Republican nomination. They argue Romney is, at heart, still a moderate northeastern governor, a businessman unsuited for the extremism that has come to dominate his party. Others are equally convinced that Romney must be taken at face value. Sure he might have positioned himself in the middle while he governed a state dominated by Democrats, but he has spent the past five years running for president full-time, aligning himself with every right-wing whim over the course of his two campaigns. He’s the Republican who sought the endorsement of Ted Nugent, discarded a gay spokesman, and calls corporations people. Lest we forget, it was Romney who was poised to run as the right-wing challenger to John McCain and Rudy Giuliani in 2008 before Mike Huckabee swooped in to steal the evangelical vote.
The best measure to get at the real Romney is to read his actual proposals and ignore the standard posturing at campaign stops or TV interviews. These are the documents directed primarily at the obsessive political class, barely noticed by your average voter, thus freeing Romney to be closer to his true self. They’re probably the most important piece of evidence for any politician before an election. As Jonathan Bernstein has convincingly argued, presidential pledges should be taken at face value, as newly elected presidents are almost always constrained by the commitments they made during the campaign.
When weighed by this measure, Romney is undoubtably aligned with the far right-wing vision of his policy, particularly on budgetary and fiscal matters. He’s advocated not only for the extension of the Bush tax cuts, but has suggested even further reductions in the U.S. tax rate that would heavily benefit the wealthy. He’s endorsed the Paul Ryan budget wholesale, an Ayn Randian vision of the limited government that even Newt Gingrich termed “right wing social engineering” when it was initially introduced.
One of the key elements of the Ryan/Romney overlapping vision is how the government should handle the exploding costs of Medicare. The New York Times delved into Romney’s proposals in contrast with Obama’s in an article Tuesday. The piece unfortunately falls into the pitfalls of equivocating newspaper journalism, weighing both plans largely by the attacks poised by the opponent rather than independent descriptions of what each candidate is suggesting. Romney’s plan is introduced as “ending Medicare as we know it” in Obama’s words, while the article introduces the Affordable Care Act as such:
The president’s 2010 health care law, Mr. Romney says, “could lead to the rationing or denial of care for seniors,” as it will squeeze nearly a half-trillion dollars from the growth of Medicare over 10 years while putting the program’s future “in the hands of 15 unelected bureaucrats.”
Either side of the political divide can agree that Medicare is on a perilous path. Health care expenditures as a whole are eating up an increasingly large share of the country’s GDP, and the number of Medicare enrollees is set to jump as the Baby Boomers start to retire. The government has projected that by 2024 the Medicare fund will no longer be able to match the full cost of expected benefits.
This concern is one of the primary reasons Obama pushed health care reform early in his administration. Alongside the measures that make it easier for low and middle income Americans to purchase health insurance, the Affordable Care Act takes a first stab at tackling the looming problem. The bill included a variety of measures to incentivize cheaper, more effective health care to bring down costs throughout the health care market, along with a medical advisory board that will suggest best practices to keep the tab lower on Medicare.
Meanwhile, Romney and Ryan’s strategy is to largely ignore the general growing cost of health care, instead focusing on Medicare itself. They would turn Medicare into a premium support plan—essentially a voucher program that would shift the burden of health spending off the government ledger by forcing future retirees to spend far more of their own funds on health services. These vouchers would initially meet the value of buying insurance on the private market, but they would soon fall behind the actual cost for consumers if the general price of health care continues to rise unabated.
Romney has not yet released a proposal with all of the details, but it is safe to assume that his premium support plan would largely follow the model set forth by Ryan. Under that plan—which has already passed the Republican controlled House before it was blocked by Democrats in the Senate—all Medicare enrollees who enter the program beginning in 2023 would have to enter the voucher program, and, as the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has highlighted, by 2050 Medicare expenditures would be 35 to 42 percent lower for each participant, primarily by shifting the cost burden onto enrollees rather than lowering the overall cost of the care they consume.
Yes, Medicare expenditures would be lowered—but on enrollees’ dime.
By: Patrick Caldwell, The American Prospect, May 15, 2012
Share This Blog
mykeystrokes.com- “The Unrelenting Hostility Of Washington’s Courtier Press”: The Media’s Crusade Of Scandals Against Hillary Clinton July 28, 2016
- “Endorsing This Philistine”: The Christian Right Has Surrendered To Trump July 24, 2016
- “Cop Killers Serve No Cause”: It’s Getting To The Point Where No Lives Matter July 24, 2016
mykeystrokes.com 