The Consistently Inconsistent Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney, blessed with a series of self-destructing opponents, still needs to come up with a better way to address his history of flip-flops. His current argument boils down to asking voters, “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying ears?” This is not going to fly.
Romney made the jaw-dropping claim to a New Hampshire editorial board that his problem wasn’t flip-flopping — it was being insufficiently robotic. “I’ve been as consistent as human beings can be,” the former Massachusetts governor insisted. “I cannot state every single issue in exactly the same words every single time, and so there are some folks who, obviously, for various political and campaign purposes will try and find some change and draw great attention to something which looks like a change which in fact is entirely consistent.”
Pressed during the CNBC debate Wednesday night, Romney repeated his consistency argument — this time topped off with an ode to his long-lasting marriage and an attack on President Obama.
“I think people understand that I’m a man of steadiness and constancy,” he said. “I don’t think you are going to find somebody who has more of those attributes than I do. I have been married to the same woman . . . for 42 years. I have been in the same church my entire life. I worked at one company, Bain, for 25 years. . . . I think it is outrageous the Obama campaign continues to push this idea, when you have in the Obama administration the most political presidency we have seen in modern history. . . . Let me tell you this, if I’m president of the United States, I will be true to my family, to my faith, and to our country, and I will never apologize for the United States of America.”
In court, this answer would be ruled non-responsive. Romney’s ability to stick to a marriage longer than, say, Newt Gingrich or to keep a job is not what’s at issue. The question, and it’s a legitimate one for anyone who has spent even a glancing amount of time examining Romney’s record, is whether he shifts ideological position with the political winds. Fidelity to one’s marriage or one’s religion says something about a candidate’s character, but it does not deal with the flip-flop question. Neither does a jab, justified or not, at the opposition.
“I will never apologize for the United States of America” does not respond to the question: Why did you change your positions on abortion, gun control, gay rights, climate change, immigration — even on Ronald Reagan?
If I were a Republican voter legitimately worried about Romney’s ideological shape-shifting, I would be insulted by this attempt to change the subject.
Perhaps, given the weakness of the opposing candidates, Romney can still skate by. After Wednesday’s gaffe, Texas Gov. Rick Perry is nearly finished. Voters don’t want to see Mr. Oops — or Mr. Giddy in New Hampshire — negotiating with a foreign leader.
Former Godfather’s Pizza chairman Herman Cain is one data point of corroboration away from imploding. Even if nothing more emerges to bolster the substance of the sexual harassment allegations against him — and two financial settlements plus an on-the-record allegation seems too much to disbelieve — his ham-handed handling of the story is nearly disqualifying on its own.
As to the notion that former House speaker Newt Gingrich could emerge as the anti-Romney — that’s hard to imagine. Gingrich’s attack-the-media-at-the-first-opportunity strategy is not going to get him very far even with Republican primary voters. He makes Romney look like the guy you want to hang out with.
But Romney’s failure to rise in the polls even as his opponents flail suggests that the flip-flop issue isn’t going away. There’s no magic solution to this problem. You can’t give a speech on flip-flopping. But flip-flop denialism isn’t going to work — especially when it is so easy to go to the videotape.
Indeed, Romney has even flip-flopped on whether he’s flip-flopped. In New Hampshire, Romney pointed to gay rights as “one of those areas where I’ve been entirely consistent,” opposed to workplace discrimination but also against same-sex marriage. Yet appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press” four years ago, Romney acknowledged changing his view on whether federal law should prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; he once supported federal protection, then said it should be a state matter.
“If you’re looking for someone who’s never changed any positions on any policies, then I’m not your guy,” Romney said then.
Except, of course, when he is.
By: Ruth Marcus, Opinion Writer, The Washington Post, November 10, 2011
The Ohio Tea Party’s Big “Obamacare” Fail
Ohio tea partiers will finally get their big moment at the ballot box on November 8. That’s when Ohioans vote on Issue 3, a referendum spearheaded by tea party groups that would amend the state constitution to ban any law or rule requiring that citizens buy health insurance. The intent is obvious: to rebuke President Obama by blocking the individual mandate—the part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires Americans to buy health insurance or pay a fine. Issue 3 was also seen as a way to fire up conservative voters in an off-year election when the fate of Gov. John Kasich’s anti-union SB 5 bill is on the line.
But the measure backfired. Not only won’t it block the ACA’s individual mandate, but it’s so vague, legal experts say, that it could have the damaging, unintended effect of undermining key public services and regulations in Ohio, including blocking the state’s ability to collect crucial data on infectious diseases. If passed, it could also spark a wave of costly lawsuits, with taxpayers likely footing the bill. “It’s extremely sloppy and extremely overbroad,” says Jessie Hill, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law. “I hesitate to say whether these potentially extremely troubling consequences were intended or whether the amendment was just misguided.” And if you trust the polls, Issue 3 isn’t even energizing Ohio conservatives.
Issue 3 is the brainchild of the Ohio Liberty Council, a coalition of tea party chapters, 912 groups, and other liberty-loving activists. The Council tried to put Issue 3—which it calls the “Healthcare Freedom Amendment”—on the ballot in November 2010, but fell short in the signature-gathering process. This year, the group redoubled its efforts and managed to gather nearly 427,000 signatures, enough to put the issue before voters. (The Liberty Council did not respond to multiple requests for comment.)
The amendment, endorsed by Ohio Right to Life and Republican state Sen. Bob Peterson, was pitched as a direct response to Obama’s Affordable Care Act. An early pamphlet (PDF) created by the Ohio Project, the grassroots group created to promote the amendment, focuses entirely on defusing “the new federal health care measure passed by Congress.”
But if Issue 3 passes, it won’t affect the Affordable Care Act. Richard Saphire, a professor at the University of Dayton Law School, says passage of Issue 3 might deliver a symbolic rejection of the individual mandate, but legally it would have zero effect, because Article VI of the US Constitution says that federal law trumps state law. “It’s very defective,” he says. “Folks that come out and vote for it, probably most of them are going to think they’re going to accomplish something that they’re not going to accomplish, which is prevent federal law from going into effect.”
Issue 3 supporters now concede this. But they insist the measure will still prevent a Massachusetts-style, state-based individual mandate from becoming law in Ohio and will set the stage for individual Ohioans to challenge the Affordable Care Act in court. Ohioans could say “you are fundamentally restricting our liberty and property here, and there was no due process,” Chris Littleton, a cofounder of the Ohio Liberty Council, said at an Issue 3 debate in late October.
While Issue 3 won’t derail “Obamacare,” it would have potentially “massive and disastrous impacts” on health care delivery and public health regulation in Ohio, says Case Western’s Hill.
A report (PDF) cowritten by Hill and released by Innovation Ohio, a liberal public policy group that opposes Issue 3, found that the amendment’s overbroad language could undermine a slew of programs that include some form of mandate. The amendment reads, in part:
No federal, state, or local law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in a health care system.
Although the amendment would exempt laws in place before 2010, any new reforms to, say, workers’ compensation, which requires employers to buy insurance in case of workplace injuries, would violate the measure. State law also requires that public schools pay to immunize students whose families can’t afford it; reforms of that program would be blocked under Issue 3 because the immunization requirement is a type of mandate, according to the Innovation Ohio report. The amendment, the report noted, would likely render unconstitutional a key reporting element in a state law to regulate so-called pill mills, because it compels “participation” in a “health care system.” And Issue 3 would handcuff the state’s ability to gather data on infectious diseases including HIV and influenza for the same reason.
Hill and Saphire both say Issue 3’s passage would likely set off a wave of litigation aimed at discovering the true meaning and reach of the amendment. And it would be Ohioans, Hill says, footing the bill for those lawsuits.
Issue 3 isn’t getting much love from Ohio opinion makers, liberal or conservative. Despite its opposition to the “deeply flawed” Affordable Care Act, the conservative editorial board of the Columbus Dispatch, the state’s largest newspaper, urged a “no” vote on the measure. Arguing that state constitutions should not be subject to “short-term political gamesmanship,” the Dispatch wrote that “trying to counter the federal law with an ineffective amendment to the Ohio Constitution is a bad idea. This is not where that battle should be fought.” Every major newspaper editorial board in Ohio that’s taken a position on Issue 3 has opposed it.
If recent polls are any judge, Issue 3 hasn’t done much to mobilize conservative voters, either. An October 28 survey by the University of Akron Bliss Institute of Applied Politics found that 34 percent of respondents favor Issue 3 and 18 percent oppose it. The remaining 48 percent remained undecided less than two weeks before the vote. More importantly, the Akron survey found much more enthusiasm around Issue 2—which polls suggest will be defeated, repealing Kasich’s SB 5 bill—than around Issue 3, which polls suggest will pass.
If Issue 3 becomes law, it wouldn’t be the first time voters approved an amendment to a state constitution that didn’t serve its intended purpose, Saphire says. After the US Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional, a handful of states passed symbolic amendments expressing opposition to the Brown decision. The Supreme Court is expected to decide the fate of the ACA’s individual mandate in its upcoming term. If the high court decides to uphold the law, Ohio tea partiers—Issue 3 or no—will have to buy health insurance or pay a fine.
By: Andy Kroll, Mother Jones, November 3, 2011
Soaring Inequality: “It’s Time To Take The Crony Out Of Capitalism”
Whenever I write about Occupy Wall Street, some readers ask me if the protesters really are half-naked Communists aiming to bring down the American economic system when they’re not doing drugs or having sex in public.
The answer is no. That alarmist view of the movement is a credit to the (prurient) imagination of its critics, and voyeurs of Occupy Wall Street will be disappointed. More important, while alarmists seem to think that the movement is a “mob” trying to overthrow capitalism, one can make a case that, on the contrary, it highlights the need to restore basic capitalist principles like accountability.
To put it another way, this is a chance to save capitalism from crony capitalists.
I’m as passionate a believer in capitalism as anyone. My Krzysztofowicz cousins (who didn’t shorten the family name) lived in Poland, and their experience with Communism taught me that the way to raise living standards is capitalism.
But, in recent years, some financiers have chosen to live in a government-backed featherbed. Their platform seems to be socialism for tycoons and capitalism for the rest of us. They’re not evil at all. But when the system allows you more than your fair share, it’s human to grab. That’s what explains featherbedding by both unions and tycoons, and both are impediments to a well-functioning market economy.
When I lived in Asia and covered the financial crisis there in the late 1990s, American government officials spoke scathingly about “crony capitalism” in the region. As Lawrence Summers, then a deputy Treasury secretary, put it in a speech in August 1998: “In Asia, the problems related to ‘crony capitalism’ are at the heart of this crisis, and that is why structural reforms must be a major part” of the International Monetary Fund’s solution.
The American critique of the Asian crisis was correct. The countries involved were nominally capitalist but needed major reforms to create accountability and competitive markets.
Something similar is true today of the United States.
So I’d like to invite the finance ministers of Thailand, South Korea and Indonesia — whom I and other Americans deemed emblems of crony capitalism in the 1990s — to stand up and denounce American crony capitalism today.
Capitalism is so successful an economic system partly because of an internal discipline that allows for loss and even bankruptcy. It’s the possibility of failure that creates the opportunity for triumph. Yet many of America’s major banks are too big to fail, so they can privatize profits while socializing risk.
The upshot is that financial institutions boost leverage in search of supersize profits and bonuses. Banks pretend that risk is eliminated because it’s securitized. Rating agencies accept money to issue an imprimatur that turns out to be meaningless. The system teeters, and then the taxpayer rushes in to bail bankers out. Where’s the accountability?
It’s not just rabble-rousers at Occupy Wall Street who are seeking to put America’s capitalists on a more capitalist footing. “Structural change is necessary,” Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, said in an important speech last month that discussed many of these themes. He called for more curbs on big banks, possibly including trimming their size, and he warned that otherwise we’re on a path of “increasingly frequent, complex and dangerous financial breakdowns.”
Likewise, Mohamed El-Erian, another pillar of the financial world who is the chief executive of Pimco, one of the world’s largest money managers, is sympathetic to aspects of the Occupy movement. He told me that the economic system needs to move toward “inclusive capitalism” and embrace broad-based job creation while curbing excessive inequality.
“You cannot be a good house in a rapidly deteriorating neighborhood,” he told me. “The credibility and the fair functioning of the neighborhood matter a great deal. Without that, the integrity of the capitalist system will weaken further.”
Lawrence Katz, a Harvard economist, adds that some inequality is necessary to create incentives in a capitalist economy but that “too much inequality can harm the efficient operation of the economy.” In particular, he says, excessive inequality can have two perverse consequences: first, the very wealthy lobby for favors, contracts and bailouts that distort markets; and, second, growing inequality undermines the ability of the poorest to invest in their own education.
“These factors mean that high inequality can generate further high inequality and eventually poor economic growth,” Professor Katz said.
Does that ring a bell?
So, yes, we face a threat to our capitalist system. But it’s not coming from half-naked anarchists manning the barricades at Occupy Wall Street protests. Rather, it comes from pinstriped apologists for a financial system that glides along without enough of the discipline of failure and that produces soaring inequality, socialist bank bailouts and unaccountable executives.
It’s time to take the crony out of capitalism, right here at home.
By: Nicholas D. Kristof, Op-Ed Columnist, The New York Times, October 26, 2011
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 