“Policy And The Personal”: Standing Up To The Tut-Tutters
A lot of people inside the Beltway are tut-tutting about the recent campaign focus on Mitt Romney’s personal history — his record of profiting even as workers suffered, his mysterious was-he-or-wasn’t-he role at Bain Capital after 1999, his equally mysterious refusal to release any tax returns from before 2010. Some of the tut-tutters are upset at any suggestion that this election is about the rich versus the rest. Others decry the personalization: why can’t we just discuss policy?
And neither group is living in the real world.
First of all, this election really is — in substantive, policy terms — about the rich versus the rest.
The story so far: Former President George W. Bush pushed through big tax cuts heavily tilted toward the highest incomes. As a result, taxes on the very rich are currently the lowest they’ve been in 80 years. President Obama proposes letting those high-end Bush tax cuts expire; Mr. Romney, on the other hand, proposes big further tax cuts for the wealthy.
The impact at the top would be large. According to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the Romney plan would reduce the annual taxes paid by the average member of the top 1 percent by $237,000 compared with the Obama plan; for the top 0.1 percent that number rises to $1.2 million. No wonder Mr. Romney’s fund-raisers in the Hamptons attracted so many eager donors that there were luxury-car traffic jams.
What about everyone else? Again according to the policy center, Mr. Romney’s tax cuts would increase the annual deficit by almost $500 billion. He claims that he would make this up by closing loopholes, in a way that wouldn’t shift the tax burden toward the middle class — but he has refused to give any specifics, and there’s no reason to believe him. Realistically, those big tax cuts for the rich would be offset, sooner or later, with higher taxes and/or lower benefits for the middle class and the poor.
So as I said, this election is, in substantive terms, about the rich versus the rest, and it would be doing voters a disservice to pretend otherwise.
In that case, however, why not run a campaign based on that substance, and leave Mr. Romney’s personal history alone? The short answer is, get real.
Look, voters aren’t policy wonks who pore over Tax Policy Center analyses. And when a politician — say, Mr. Obama — cites actual numbers in a speech, well, there’s always a politician on the other side to contradict him. How are voters supposed to know who’s telling the truth? In fact, earlier this year focus groups given an accurate description of Mr. Romney’s policy proposals refused to believe that any politician would take such a position.
Perhaps in a better world we could count on the news media to sort through the conflicting claims. In this world, however, most voters get their news from short snippets on TV, which almost never contain substantive policy analysis. The print media do offer analysis pieces — but these pieces, out of a desire to seem “balanced,” all too often simply repeat the he-said-she-said of political speeches. Trust me: you will see very few news analyses saying that Mr. Romney proposes huge tax cuts for the rich, with no plausible offset other than big benefit cuts for everyone else — even though this is the simple truth. Instead, you will see pieces reporting that “Democrats say” that this is what Mr. Romney proposes, matched with dueling quotes from Republican sources.
So how can the Obama campaign cut through this political and media fog? By talking about Mr. Romney’s personal history, and the way that history resonates with the realities of his pro-rich, anti-middle-class policy proposals.
Thus the entirely true charge that Mr. Romney wants to slash historically low tax rates on the rich even further dovetails perfectly with his own record of extraordinary tax avoidance — so extraordinary that he’s evidently afraid to let voters see his tax returns from before 2010. The equally true charge that he’s pushing policies that would benefit the rich at the expense of ordinary working Americans meshes with Bain’s record of earning big profits even when workers suffered — a record so stark that Mr. Romney is attempting to distance himself from part of it by insisting that he had nothing to do with Bain’s operations after 1999, even though the company continued to list him as C.E.O. and sole owner until 2002. And so on.
The point is that talking about Mr. Romney’s personal history isn’t a diversion from substantive policy discussion. On the contrary, in a political and media environment strongly biased against substance, talking about Bain and offshore accounts is the only way to bring the real policy issues into focus. And we should applaud, not condemn, the Obama campaign for standing up to the tut-tutters.
By: Paul Krugman, Op-Ed Columnist, The New York Times, July 15, 2012
“Pathological Dishonesty”: On The Campaign Trail With Mitt Romney
Paul Krugman argued today that Mitt Romney “is running a campaign of almost pathological dishonesty.” That need not be considered hyperbole.
Indeed, Greg Sargent added this morning that Romney’s “falsehoods and all around dissembling” may be designed to “simply wear reporters and commentators down by trafficking in them so heavily that they throw up their hands and give up on trying to track or debunk them.”
But I remain undeterred. A couple of months ago, I launched a Friday afternoon feature, highlighting the most offensive Mitt Romney falsehoods of the week. It moved to Maddow Blog a few weeks ago, so let’s keep this going with another installment.
1. Romney told an audience in Arizona this week, in reference to President Obama, “He said he’d cut the deficit in half. He’s doubled it. He’s doubled it.”
For an alleged numbers guy, Romney is either lying or he’s bad at arithmetic. When Obama took office, the deficit was about $1.3 trillion. Last year, it was $1.29 trillion. This year, it’s on track to be about $1.1 trillion. Does Romney not know what “double” means?
2. On health care, Romney argued, “Our bill [Romneycare] was 70 pages; his bill [Obamacare] is 2,700 pages.”
This not just a dumb argument, it’s also not true.
3. On foreign policy, Romney said, “[T]his president should have put in place crippling sanctions against Iran, he did not.”
Actually, he did.
4. Romney claimed that Syria is Iran’s “route to the sea.”
Iran has 1,520 miles of its own coastline — and doesn’t share a border with Syria.
5. Romney boasted, “I also served in the Olympics, balanced a budget there.”
Well, that’s not entirely right. He hired lobbyists to get a taxpayer bailout for the Olympics and then balanced the budget.
6. Romney claimed, “You can’t be, I don’t believe, anything but a fiscal conservative and run a business, because if you don’t balance your budget, you go out of business.”
That’s both untrue and ridiculous. Businesses operate in the red all the time, and take out loans for capital improvements, expansions, acquisitions, etc. If Romney’s background is in the private sector, how could he not know this?
7. On contraception access, Romney argued, “I don’t think we’ve seen in the history of this country the kind of attack on religious conscience, religious freedom, religious tolerance that we’ve seen under Barack Obama.”
That’s so ridiculous, even Romney couldn’t actually mean that.
8. Also on contraception access, Romney said, “[The Obama administration is] requiring the Catholic Church to provide for its employees and its various enterprises health care insurance that would include birth control, sterilization and the morning-after pill. Unbelievable.”
Yes, it’s literally unbelievable, because he’s lying: churches are exempt. (He’s also contradicting his own previous position.)
9. On the Affordable Care Act, Romney said, “I will repeal Obamacare for a lot of reasons. One, I don’t want to spend another trillion dollars… Number two, I don’t believe the federal government should cut Medicare by some $500 billion.”
One, the ACA saves money and reduces the deficit. Number two, the Medicare claim continues to be wildly misleading.
10. On Pentagon spending, Romney claimed, “This is a president who is … cutting our military budget by roughly a trillion dollars.”
That’s not even close to being true.
11. On international affairs, Romney argued about the president, “He decided to give Russia their number one foreign policy objective — removal of our missile defense sites from Eastern Europe — and got nothing in return.”
That’s just not what happened.
12. Romney’s new attack ad says Rick Santorum voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Santorum left the Senate in 2006 — three years before Sotomayor’s confirmation. [Update: It looks like the Romney camp played fast and loose on this one, showing Sotomayor with President Obama in 2009 when she was nominated for the Supreme Court, but counting Santorum’s vote when Sotomayor was a lower-court nominee. The implication for viewers is that Santorum backed Sotomayor for the high court, which is not true, when he and other Republicans did support her confirmation to a lower court.]
Foreign Policy columnist Michael Cohen noted yesterday that he understands that “politicians mislead and occasionally fib,” but added, “[H]onestly, I’ve never seen anyone do it as brazenly as Mitt Romney.”
With each passing week, I find it harder to disagree with such a sentiment.
By: Steve Benen, The Maddow Blog, February 24, 2012
“Pay-For-Delay”: Ending Drug Companies’ Deals
An upcoming report by the Federal Trade Commission shows that brand-name pharmaceutical makers continue to cut questionable deals with generic manufacturers that delay the introduction of cheaper drugs onto the market.
Such pay-for-delay arrangements hurt consumers and increase costs for federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, according to the report, a copy of which was obtained by the editorial board. These deals are not illegal, but they should be.
Pharmaceutical companies rightly enjoy strong protections for products that often take years and billions of dollars to develop. These protections were so strong at one point that they discouraged would-be competitors from jumping in. The Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984 meant to address this problem by allowing generics to market “bio-equivalent” drugs as long as they did not infringe on the brand-name drug’s patent; the generic could also proceed if it proved the brand-name patent was invalid. The goal was to enhance competition and lower drug prices. That goal is thwarted when brand-name manufacturers engage in the popular practice of paying generic-drug makers to keep their products off the market.
In 2004, the FTC did not identify a single settlement in a patent litigation matter involving drug makers that raised pay-for-delay concerns. In its new report, the agency points to 28 cases that bear the telltale signs of pay-for-delay, including “compensation to the generic manufacturer and a restriction on the generic manufacturer’s ability to market its product.”
Sens. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) have introduced the Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act to close the pay-for-delay loophole. The bill would make such schemes presumptively illegal and empower the FTC to challenge suspicious arrangements in federal court. The most recent version gives companies a chance to preserve certain deals if “clear and convincing evidence” proves that their “pro-competitive benefits outweigh the anti-competitive harms.” The Obama administration estimates that eliminating pay-for-delay could save the government $8.8 billion over 10 years; the Congressional Budget Office offers a dramatically more conservative savings estimate of roughly $3 billion over the same period.
The legislation should appeal to the deficit-reduction “supercommittee,” which has been tasked with identifying ways to cut the federal deficit.
By: Editorial Board Opinion, The Washington Post, October 24, 2011
Mr. Speaker: What Comes After No?
The Republicans have vowed to “repeal and replace” President Obama’s historic health care reform law. Now that House Republicans have muscled through a symbolic repeal bill, they will have to deliver their own alternative plan. Don’t expect much.
By: New York Times- Editorial, The Opinion Pages, January 24, 2011
There are many more slogans than details. But it is already clear that their approach would do almost nothing to control skyrocketing health care costs and would provide little help to the 50 million uninsured Americans.
When Republican leaders talk of reducing medical costs they really mean reducing insurance premiums for some people, primarily by letting the young and healthy buy insurance in states that allow the sale of skimpy policies. That won’t help older and less healthy people and would probably drive up their premiums as they flock to states whose regulations guarantee them coverage.
The Republicans have offered no coherent plan for slowing the rapid rise in medical costs that is driving up insurance premiums, Medicare and Medicaid costs, and the federal deficit. The reform law, by contrast, has multiple provisions for changing the delivery of health care in ways that should reduce costs.
As for the Republicans’ calls to reduce waste and fraud in Medicare, reform the medical malpractice system, and expand high-risk pools to cover people with pre-existing conditions, most of these ideas are already in the reform law. They could surely be strengthened if both parties worked together.
Even as it denounces reform at every turn, the Republican leadership has figured out that many Americans want the many consumer protections that come with the new law. So, once reform is repealed, the leaders are vowing to reinstate such provisions as letting young people stay on their parents’ plans until age 26, preventing insurers from canceling policies after people become sick, and barring insurers from placing caps on what they will pay.
The problem is that such requirements will drive up the cost of insurance unless they are paired with a mandate (or comparable prod) requiring that everyone buy insurance so that healthy people offset the costs of less healthy beneficiaries. Yes, that’s the same mandate the Republicans have vowed to overturn.
Many Republicans have also vowed to restore more than $130 billion worth of unjustified subsidies to private Medicare Advantage plans that is needed to help pay for the expansion of coverage under health care reform.
In coming weeks, expect to see a lot more posturing on issues that might energize the party’s conservative base or poll well with people made skittish by months of Republican exaggerations about the new reform law. They have already introduced bills making it even harder for insurance policies in new insurance exchanges to cover abortions, never mind that the law already has incredibly strict provisions.
The Party of No will also try to use its new control of the House to block implementation of reform by withholding money needed to hire people to write necessary regulations. The House Republican Study Committee has proposed legislation that would prohibit using money in the annual budget to carry out any provision of the law or to defend it in court.
The Republicans need to explain how they plan to address the problems of covering the uninsured, wrestling down medical costs and controlling the deficit. Just saying no isn’t enough.
Charles Krauthammer Is the Fraud
Charles Krauthammer says that Obama has conned Republicans into agreeing to a second stimulus even bigger than the first. Democrats are too stupid to see this (and Republicans are even more stupid, presumably, since they are the victims).
Barack Obama won the great tax-cut showdown of 2010 – and House Democrats don’t have a clue that he did. In the deal struck this week, the president negotiated the biggest stimulus in American history, larger than his $814 billion 2009 stimulus package. It will pump a trillion borrowed Chinese dollars into the U.S. economy over the next two years – which just happen to be the two years of the run-up to the next presidential election. This is a defeat?
He’s right about the Democrats’ stupidity, but this is not Krauthammer at his most lucid.
Yes, Democrats are fools to tear their hair out over this deal, which gives them most of what they wanted: the middle-class tax rates, unemployment benefit extension, payroll-tax cut, and so on. They compound the idiocy by advertising higher taxes on the rich as their core objective. Forget relieving poverty, widening access to health care, improving opportunities for the disadvantaged. What matters more than any of that is sticking it to “millionaires and billionaires” (two-earner households making more than $250,000). You bet, the Democrats are acting like fools.But this stimulus is not bigger than the first, not even close. Two-thirds of its “cost” is keeping tax rates where they currently are. There is no new stimulus in failing to put taxes up–in forgoing a drastic fiscal tightening that nobody wanted and nobody expected. Unlike Krauthammer, I think further short-term stimulus makes sense, so I welcome the $300 billion (over two years) or so of extra stimulus in the deal. Oppose this if you like, but please don’t call it a bigger stimulus than the first.
In any event, the key question is this: does Krauthammer oppose the deal? Having declared Obama guilty of a massive swindle, and recalling that he is opposed to all of Obama’s sinister purposes, Krauthammer is obliged by his own logic to say what a bad thing the agreement must be. So what exactly did he want to happen? Presumably, raise everybody’s taxes next month, with an especially steep rise for $250,000+ households. Has he previously advocated this policy? Maybe he has, and I missed it; if so, I apologize. But if he agrees it makes sense for now to keep taxes where they are, which has been the Republicans’ defensible position, what is so bad about what just happened? Krauthammer is left opposing it because Obama was in favour. It is not every day that Krauthammer is backed into an absurd and dishonest position by his own logic.
What about the long-term deficit? This deal, if temporary, has little effect on that either way, and could easily be deficit-reducing if it avoids a second dip (as Krauthammer seems to concede it might). Obviously, the long-term deficit remains a huge concern. Tackling that requires prolonged Bowles-Simpson-type efforts that were not on the agenda for this deal. They should have been, but they weren’t. Was that a reason for rejecting the deal and letting taxes rise next month? I think not. Again, if that is the outcome Krauthammer wanted, then all right. But if that is not his position, then he is the fraud.
Read David Brooks instead.
BY: Clive Crook, Senior Editor of The Atlantic-December 11, 2010
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 