“Magic Word Gaffes”: So What If A Few Facts Get Bent Or Invented Along The Way
Reading a lot of conservative posts last night and this morning (unfortunately, just part of the gig here), I was mystified at the conviction of so many people that the mangled clips of the president’s “you didn’t build that” quote from Roanoke provided a gigantic, “aha” moment in the campaign that would drive Obama from the White House like a whipped Kenyan dog. The money quote that most of them are tossing around comes from the deep thinker Pat Sajak:
It’s as if President Obama climbed into a tank, put on his helmet, talked about how his foray into Cambodia was seared in his memory, looked at his watch, misspelled “potato” and pardoned Richard Nixon all in the same day.
Really? I mean, even if you buy the twisted, mendacious version of the Obama quote that the Romney campaign is retailing, are Americans really so protective of the tender sensibilities of business owners that they are shocked anyone would suggest that each and every one of them built their businesses strictly on their own? (Aside from from roads and bridges and inheritances, how’s about employees as a significant factor in business success?).
But then Dave Weigel explained it to me:
Call it a magic word gaffe—a statement that reveals not what a politician believes, but what you already feared, in your bone marrow, that a politician believes. Democrats still can’t understand why Obama’s speech is supposed to offend anyone. Republicans know that he’s a closet socialist, and that this sentiment only comes out when his energy is flagging….
A normal gaffe is usually discovered by the “mainstream” press, or by a rival campaign, in real time. Think about the Obama campaign hounding John McCain on his “the fundamentals of the economy are sound” as Lehman collapsed. Think about “the private sector is doing fine” becoming proof, for Romney, that Obama saw no problems in the private sector. The magic word gaffe takes more digging, because the media that mostly covers campaigns aren’t primed to hear what partisans hear.
Barack Obama’s presidency has been full of these moments. If you watched Glenn Beck during his Fox News years, you got endless exposure (more than 100 episodes of it, according to Lexis-Nexis) to an Oct. 30, 2008 quote from an Obama rally in Columbia, Mo. “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” said the candidate.
Bingo. The “magic word gaffe” is sort of the inverse of the “dog whistle” whereby pols use banal language that has a special meaning to ideologues (“constitutional conservative” being one notable example; “respect for life” being another). For our right-wing brothers and sisters, progressive (itself a magic word—maybe even a secret handshake—connoting Marxist convictions) discourse is full of these signifiers. “Equality.” “Fairness.” “Giving something back.” “Shared sacrifice.” Constant vigilance for these magic words is how conservatives have convinced themselves that the blandly pragmatic center-left politician Barack Obama pursuing leftover moderate Republican policies is a villain-figure straight out of Atlas Shrugged or (for the godly) Left Behind, hating success and righteousness.
The problem with this stuff, of course, is that the low-information swing voters who will decide the present election will require an awful lot of education to understand the magic word gaffes. They haven’t marinated their brains with Beckian revisionist history and don’t run around pasting “Breitbart Is Here!” posters on telephone poles. Many of them, in fact, probably don’t own businesses and don’t much think of their own bosses—much less the Mitt Romneys of the world—as heroic figures. So the nastiness aimed at Obama will inevitably get a lot coarser than what we are hearing today. So what if a few facts get bent or invented along the way? America must be protected!
By: Ed Kilgore, Contributing Writer, Washington Monthly Political Animal, July 20, 2012
“Romney’s Cliff Notes Version Of The Ryan Plan”: Your Guide To “Ending Medicare As We Know It”
It’ll be the next argument in the campaign, so it’s a good time to brush up.
Yesterday, President Obama went to Florida and told seniors that Mitt Romney wants to end Medicare as we know it, and it appears that this argument (and some related ones) will be a central feature of the Obama campaign’s message in the coming days. It’s entirely possible, as Jonathan Chait has suggested, that all the Obama campaign’s attacks on Romney’s finances and record at Bain Capital are the first stage of a two-stage strategy that culminates with an attack on the Ryan budget. Since we’ll be talking about this a lot soon, I thought it might be worthwhile to refresh our memories on what this is all about, particularly with regard to Medicare, and how it relates to the current campaign.
First: Is it fair to tar Mitt Romney with the Ryan plan? No question. While Romney’s own policy proposals are quite a bit more vague than the Ryan plan is, they follow the same contours, and when Romney is asked about the Ryan plan he never hesitates to praise it. When asked about it last month, Romney’s chief strategist Eric Fehrstrom said of his boss, “He’s for the Ryan plan.” Or in Romney’s own words, “I’m very supportive of the Ryan budget plan. It’s a bold and exciting effort on his part and on the part of the Republicans and it’s very much consistent with what I put out earlier.” Enough said.
Next: Does the Ryan plan actually “end Medicare as we know it”? This is the phrase that Democrats have used in the past to describe it, and that Obama will continue to use. Republicans claim the phrase is unfair and demagogic. But while it would be inaccurate to simply say the Ryan plan “ends Medicare,” because if the plan were enacted there would still be a program going by the name of “Medicare,” it is fair to say that Medicare would be a drastically different program, and some of the critical things that make it so successful would no longer exist.
Today’s Medicare is an insurance program. If you’re a senior, you go to your doctor, and your doctor gets paid by Medicare. It is a single-payer program that covers every senior, and though it doesn’t pay for every conceivable procedure, because of Medicare’s universality there are essentially no uninsured seniors in America, no seniors who are subject to the tender mercies of the notoriously unmerciful insurance companies, no seniors who need to worry about their pre-existing conditions or their lifetime limits or any of the other ways those companies find to screw their customers, and almost no seniors who find it impossible to pay their insurance premiums (seniors do contribute premiums to Medicare, but they are quite modest).
The Ryan plan in its initial incarnation eliminated Medicare as an insurance program, and replaced it with “premium support.” There’s an argument about whether premium support can be described accurately as a “voucher,” but that’s nothing more than a silly disagreement about semantics; premium support in practice is no different from any voucher. Under this plan, seniors would have to get their insurance from private companies, and the government would pay part of the cost. If those private premiums go up, then seniors will have to pay more out of their own pockets; indeed, this is a feature, not a bug, of the Ryan plan. The whole point is to limit government spending on Medicare by limiting how much seniors get in their vouchers/premium support.
And those limits could be vicious. The Ryan plan caps the growth of Medicare at GDP growth plus 0.5 percent. If health costs rise faster than that, seniors will have to pick up more and more of the tab. That means that if the Ryan plan were enacted, there would likely be many seniors who couldn’t afford private premiums and would have no health coverage. This feature of the plan eliminates one of the fundamental pillars of Medicare: that it is an entitlement, meaning that if you qualify, you’re entitled to the benefit. If this year’s costs are higher than we’d like, we can make changes to the program for next year, but nobody goes without coverage. Under the Ryan plan, that would no longer be true.
But here’s an important thing to keep in mind: After Ryan released the first version of his plan in 2011 and caught a whole bunch of flak for basically destroying Medicare, he came back with a revised plan earlier this year that has one critical difference: it allows seniors, if they so choose, to stay on traditional Medicare. Mitt Romney’s Medicare plan does the same thing (Romney’s plan, such as it is, is basically a Cliff Notes version of the Ryan plan). In other words, under political pressure they embraced a public option. But since the plan still caps overall spending at GDP+.05, seniors would likely have to pay more and more out of their own pockets, likely thousands of dollars.
At this point, it’s good to remind ourselves that Medicare does a far better job of controlling costs than private insurance does, partly because of the negotiating power it has and partly because it spends just a fraction of what private companies do on overhead (around 98 percent of Medicare’s costs go to paying for care, while private companies often spend 20 percent or more of their costs on administration, marketing, underwriting, and so on). Yet Republican philosophy tells us that no matter what the facts say, this is just impossible. A government program can’t possibly be cheaper and more efficient (and deliver service that its customers love, by the way) than a private sector alternative. So if we introduce private competition, then costs will of course come down.
But there isn’t much reason to believe they will, which means seniors will be left holding the bag, and most importantly, lose the security they have now. Anyhow, to return to the question we started with: Is it fair for the Obama campaign to charge that Mitt Romney wants to end Medicare as we know it? If you define “Medicare as we know it” as an insurance program that provides affordable, efficient, and most importantly secure health coverage for every American senior, then the answer is clearly yes.
By: Paul Waldman, Contributing Editor, The American Prospect, July 20, 2012
“At The Altar Of International Finance”: Romney “Goes For The Gold” In London’s Libor Village
In fairness to Mitt Romney, he did not schedule his $75,000-a-plate money grab at the altar of international finance when he heard that—via the Libor bank-rate scandal—Londoners were practicing his kind of crony capitalism.
Even before the Bain capitalist knew that bankers in London were lying to regulators and fixing interest rates in order to run up their profits—engaging in activities that the governor of the Bank of England said “meet my definition of fraud”—Romney was excited about getting a piece of the London bankster action.
But Romney campaign has has gone to Olympian lengths to make their candidate’s British sojourn seem to be about something other than the looting of London.
The Republican presidential contender’s international fundraising operation—and, yes, he does have an international fundraising operation—scheduled two major events to coincide with the opening of the Olympic Games. As a candidate who is having trouble touting his business experience (Bain Vulture Capital) and his governing experience (RomneyCare), the presumptive Republican presidential nominee calculated that it might be a good idea to take a trip across the pond to highlight his (somewhat less controversial) management of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.
The Olympics are being held this year in east London, just beyond the fabled “City” precincts which are, along with New York’s Wall Street, the nerve center of global banking and financial dealmaking. And Romney is using his London sojourn to skim off some cash—make that a lot of cash—for his campaign accounts.
Or, as London’s Independent headlines the story: “Romney Goes for the Gold in London.”
Romney Victory Inc., the incredibly complex fundraising structure the candidate has developed to funnel money into his many campaign operations, has scheduled two London events for July 26:
1. A meet-and-greet where the price of admission is $2,500 per person.
2. A dinner where the places at the tables go for as much as $75,000 per person.
Both the Romney and Obama campaigns have raised money overseas from American expatriates (who, along with Green Card holders, are allowed to donate to US campaigns even if they do not reside in the United States or work for US-based banks or corporations). Obama’s had the upper hand in the global fundraising race by a $3.1 million to $1.4 million margin. But that will change after Romney collects his London haul.
Why? Because Romney is getting together with with The City’s wealthiest, and most scandal-plagued, banksters.
Or, at least, most of them.
Bob Diamond, the former Barclay’s banking empire chief executive who was forced to resign after it was revealed that his bank manipulated the Libor (London InterBank Offered Rate) with false reports about interest rates, was supposed to be at the head of the table. But with his busy schedule of testimony before parliamentary committees and investigators of the biggest banking scandal in recent years, the American expatriate has been forced to absent himself from the festivities.
“Mr. Diamond decided to step aside as a co-host for the upcoming London reception to focus all his attention on Barclays,” the Romney camp announced. “We respect his decision.”
Why shouldn’t they? One of Diamond’s closest lieutenants at Barclays—which just paid $453 million in fines stemming from the Libor scandal—is still co-chairing Romney’s big-ticket event in London.
Barclay’s lobbyist Patrick Durkin’s name is right there at the top of the invite to “a private dinner with Governor Mitt Romney at a central London location.”
Also on the list of forty-seven co-chairs of Romney’s London fundraisers are the names of top players in other banks that have been targets of the interest-rate manipulation scandal, including:
* Bank of Credit Suisse chief executive Eric Varvel (Varvel has already donated $100,000 to Romney’s “Restore Our Future” Super PAC.)
* Deutsche Bank managing director Raj Bhattacharyya
* HSBC managing director Whitfield Hines
Executives from Goldman Sachs, Blackstone and Wells Fargo Securities—and, of course, Bain Capital Europe—are also on the list.
Why would these Americans associated with international banks be giving maximum money to this particular presidential candidate? Gee, could it have anything to do with the fact that there are calls for criminal prosecution of the bankers who were involved in interest rate manipulations that effectively rigged the rates that helped to determine who consumers in the United States and other countries obtained mortgages and paid on credit cards?
“Much more needs to be done,” Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and Jack Reed( D-RI) and ten of their colleagues wrote in a mid-July letter to financial regulators and Attorney General Eric Holder. “Banks and their employees found to have broken the law should face appropriate criminal prosecution and civil action.”
Electing a friendly president, who might put the brakes on those prosecutions, just became a very high priority for the men who pull the financial strings not just on Wall Street but in London.
Approached by Britain’s Telegraph, one invitee hailed Romney’s “American understanding of capitalism. A prominent lawyer who will be attending one of Romney’s London bashes explained that the Republican candidate understands “very important things [that] people here in the UK also understand.”
That sort of “understanding” is worth a lot to embattled bankers. Certainly, the $75,000 it will cost for what the Independent describes as a “chance to whisper some of their own policy preferences into the ear of the man who may—or may not—be US president.”
By: John Nichols, The Nation, July 20, 2012
“Just A Private Family Matter”: Mitt Romney Outsources Questions About Finances
We have no way of knowing just yet whether Ann Romney’s explanation in an interview of her husband’s refusal to release tax returns was just her own effort to get past a difficult question, or represents the Final Word from the campaign. If it’s the latter, you gotta admit it’s pretty damn bold, suggesting that Mitt’s finances—not just his tax returns, but his wealth generally—are a private family matter on which the news media and the American people are strictly on a need-to-know basis. And all they need to know is that the Romneys tithe (and no tither has ever, ever been dishonest about money, right?) and that Mitt turned down a governor’s salary in Massachusetts that probably represented a rounding error in his investment income.
This talking-point would barely pass the smell-test even if Mitt had always resolutely treated his “success” (as measured by his fabulous wealth) as irrelevant to the presidential campaign, instead of being the primary reason Americans should entrust him with the presidency, even if he won’t much talk about what he would do in that office beyond killing ObamaCare and inspiring confidence in every direction.
You have to wonder if in the future Mitt is going to “outsource” all questions about his finances to his wife, and then object that anyone who complains about it is engaging in personal attacks on his family. That tactic would certainly be consistent with his general habit of expressing outrage when critics look at his biography or his tax-and-budget plans and suggest things just don’t add up.
By: Ed Kilgore, Contributing Writer, Washington Monthly Political Animal, July 19, 2012
“The Prevailing Order”: The Rich Really Are Different
In the last couple of years, we’ve occasionally seen stories where Wall Street types justify their enormous compensation packages by saying they work really, really hard. They stay late, they work weekends, they just keep their noses to the grindstone, and that’s why they get paid what they do. Sure, $30 million a year is a lot of money. But the hedge fund manager who made it probably worked 1,000 times harder than the electrician who made $30,000. Right?
I thought of those Wall Streeters and their rhetoric about hard work when considering the question of Mitt Romney’s tax returns. One of the things we’ve found out in the whole when-did-Romney-leave-Bain controversy is that even after he retired/went on a leave of absence, he was being paid at least $100,000 a year for doing what he swears was absolutely nothing. That’s a lot of money for doing nothing, at least to people like you and me, but remember that to Mitt Romney, it’s peanuts. According to the information he has released, he made over $42 million in 2010 and 2011 without doing any actual work. He hasn’t held a job in five and a half years, since he left the Massachusetts governor’s office. Tens of millions of dollars just keep pouring into his many bank accounts, without him lifting a finger. And of course, he pays a far lower tax rate on all that income than people who work for a living.
But it really seems that Romney has a hard time understanding why that would rankle people. The entire system is set up to allow people like him to play by a set of rules that was established by the wealthy, for the wealthy; but when you’re the beneficiary, it seems like the prevailing order is a just order. And what Romney wants is to make income from investments and inheritances taxed at an even lower rate. You probably haven’t heard, since there hasn’t been much discussion about it, but Barack Obama’s official position (even if he’s not going to do much about it) is that investment income should be taxed at the same rate as wage income; in other words, money you work for shouldn’t be taxed more (as it is now) than money you make when your money makes you more money. I’m sure that if somebody asked Mitt Romney about taxing all income at the same rate, he’d think the idea was nothing short of insane.
It’s not impossible for someone to benefit greatly from that system and still manage to wrap their heads around the fact that it’s unfair. There are plenty of rich people who do (Warren Buffett is the most visible example). I keep returning to Mitt’s repeated comments that of course he took advantage of every tax loophole he could find to make sure he paid as little as possible. We could argue about whether that’s unpatriotic, but the thing is that for most people who do a job and get paid a salary, there just aren’t those kinds of loopholes available. Not only can’t they afford to hire a team of accountants and tax lawyers; even if they could, there wouldn’t be much those people could do for them.
There is obviously something in Mitt Romney’s pre-2010 tax returns that he really, really doesn’t want people to see. Just how awful it is, we have no way of knowing; it could be something truly shocking, or just more of the offshore accounts and low tax rates we already know about from his 2010 return. But whatever it is, revealing it would no doubt have the effect of reminding people just how different the rules people like Mitt Romney play by really are. And if he’s afraid of that, maybe he’s more self-aware than I’m giving him credit for.
By: Paul Waldman, Contributing Editor, The American Prospect, July 19, 2012
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 