Is Mitt Romney The Candidate Of The “One Percent”?
A number of people are pointing to this scorching quote from Joe McQuaid, the publisher of the New Hampshire Union Leader, explaining the paper’s decision to endorse Newt Gingrich over Mitt Romney:
“I think — and this is crazy, but so are we — that Gingrich is going to have a better time in the general election than Mitt Romney,” publisher Joe McQuaid told FOX News. “I think it’s going to be Obama’s 99% versus the 1%, and Romney sort of represents the 1%.”
Aside from the obvious humor value here, this actually gets at something serious: The possibility that Mitt Romney’s tax rates, and not just his corporate past and support for cutting taxes on the wealthy and corporations, amount to an unexplored vulnerability in a general election. Because he gets income from investments, Romney would have paid roughly 14 percent of his income in taxes in 2010, according to the Citizens for Tax Justice — lower than the rate paid by many middle class taxpayers.
Wait, there’s more. According to Bloomberg News, Romney is now benefitting from the fundraising of Stephen Schwarzman, the chairman of the world’s largest private equity firm, who is also soliciting help for Romney from colleagues. Bloomberg presents this as a sign that Romney is “closing the sale with Wall Street’s wealthiest donors.”
But there’s more to it than this. As Pat Garofalo notes, Schwarzman is also well known as a warrior against efforts to close loopholes that benefit private equity firms. Indeed, this new Romney supporter has even compared his battle against such efforts to World War Two:
“It’s a war,” Schwarzman said of the struggle with the administration over increasing taxes on private-equity firms. “It’s like when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939.”
Obviously, people like Schwarzman will back the GOP nominee, whoever he is, and Dems will likely highlight this kind of thing to paint the eventual GOP nominee, whoever he is, as in the pocket of Wall Street. But the fact that Romney himself personally benefits from aspects of the tax code that Obama wants to change makes him a less-than-ideal messenger to deliver criticism of Obama’s push for tax fairness, and will likely make Dem attacks along these lines more potent. After all, Dems can argue that not only do the Schwarzmans of the world prefer Romney’s policies, but on top of that, Romney himself is actually one of them. You can’t say that about Newt.
This general election vulnerability is being obscured right now, because for obvious reasons, it isn’t an issue in the GOP primary. But the Obama team has taken note of this weakness — and Obama surrogates are likely going to work very hard to exploit it — even if it isn’t getting much attention right now. It seems like Republicans who are evaluating Romney’s strengths and weaknesses as a general election candidate might want to consider how this will play next year, particularly if resurgent populism continues to help shape the political environment, as many expect it to do.
By: Greg Sargent, The Washington Post, The Plum Line, November 28, 2011
Mitt Romney On Foreclosurers: ‘Any Owners Who Lose Their Homes Are Getting What They Deserve’
Since the housing bubble began to burst six years ago, prices nationwide have fallen by a third. Nearly $7 trillion of home equity has been wiped out. Currently, some 14.7 million homeowners owe $700 billion more on their mortgages than their homes are worth. Going forward, prices are likely to fall further as banks put a backlog of foreclosed properties on the market. As home prices fall and more homeowners sink underwater, there will be more foreclosures and more price declines.
So what is Mitt Romney’s response? Bring it on.
In interviews and in the Republican presidential debates, Mr. Romney has said that the cure for foreclosures is for the government to get out of the way and let the process run its course. Once prices hit bottom, investors and want-to-be homeowners would presumably swoop in and prices would stabilize.
The argument might have some red-meat appeal, playing off the notion that any owners who lose their homes are getting what they deserve. It is wrong on several counts:
Efficiency.
Mass foreclosures are a rotten way to stabilize the market. They impose huge costs on neighbors, communities and local governments, and on the broader economy, as falling prices erode equity, depress consumer spending and mire the housing market in a deep hole.
Logic.
Who does Mr. Romney think will buy up millions of foreclosed properties? Borrowers who lose their homes to foreclosure or who sell their homes for less than the balance on their mortgages can be denied credit for years; many will never be homeowners again.
Many college graduates, unable to find jobs, are moving in with their parents, not starting careers, not starting families and not becoming first-time home buyers. High school graduates are despairing of any economic toehold. Investors are inclined to buy distressed properties only if they believe home values will rise, a confidence that is hard to come by in a market that is threatened by more foreclosures and renewed price declines.
Danger.
With the economy still weak and vulnerable to shocks, more foreclosures and the resulting price declines would only weaken the economy further.
Fairness.
The let-it-crash argument conveniently ignores that the housing bubble was the result not only of overborrowing but of reckless lending too. When the bubble burst, the banks were bailed out, while speculators and uncreditworthy borrowers — whom lenders had aggressively pursued during the boom — quickly began to lose their properties. But the economic damage went far beyond the “bad” borrowers, as evidenced by deep recession, ensuing slow growth, high unemployment and crashing home values — all of which has now harmed millions of homeowners who never went near a subprime mortgage. They are the collateral damage of the banks’ binge and bailout. They deserve help, not scorn.
That is not to say that every troubled borrower can be saved. Of the estimated 14.7 million underwater borrowers, 1.6 million are lost causes, according to Moody’s Analytics. Many have already abandoned their homes, leaving them vacant, or are hopelessly behind on their payments, often because of long-term unemployment. This group needs policies to help convert homes to rentals.
Another 1.6 million underwater borrowers have missed payments because of a setback, like job loss, that may prove temporary. They could be helped with forbearance, allowed to make no or reduced payments for a time, and make up the difference later, or with loan modifications that result in meaningfully smaller payments.
The remaining 11.5 million underwater homeowners are current in their payments, but are at high risk of default, since they have no equity to cushion a financial setback and no incentive to keep paying, especially if prices go down again.
Loan modifications that reduce principal balances are the best solution, because they restore equity and reduce monthly payments. The banks would take a hit on principal write-downs. So be it. Refinancings, which the Obama administration is in the process of expanding, also help, because a new loan with a lower rate makes staying in the home more affordable. Mr. Romney has said refinancing is “worth further consideration.” Investors in mortgage-backed securities will take a hit on refinancings. So be it.
At a recent debate, Mr. Romney was asked why he was willing to risk further huge losses in home equity by pushing foreclosures. “What would you do instead?” he replied. “Have the federal government go out and buy all the homes in America?”
No one is suggesting that. What is needed is a set of policies — rentals, forbearance, principal write-downs and refinancings — on a scale that tackles the problem.
By: The New York Times, Editorial, November 26, 2011
“What’s His Name” Romney Still Waiting For The GOP Love
Moderator Wolf Blitzer opened Tuesday’s Republican debate by introducing himself and adding, for some reason, “Yes, that’s my real name.” A few moments later, the party’s most plausible nominee for president said the following: “I’m Mitt Romney, and yes, Wolf, that’s also my first name.”
But it’s not. Mitt is the candidate’s middle name. His first name is Willard.
And people wonder why this guy has an authenticity problem?
The debate, held at Washington’s historic DAR Constitution Hall, was focused on foreign policy. The subject matter seemed to offer Newt Gingrich, a former speaker of the House, the opportunity to highlight his experience and perhaps begin consolidating his sudden front-runner status. But if he expected to dance rings around the others in the minefields of international politics, he was mistaken.
Gingrich made only one mistake, but potentially it was a big one: He declined to pander on immigration. Instead of parroting the draconian party line, he stated the obvious fact that we’re not going to expel millions of illegal immigrants who have been in this country for years and become pillars of their communities.
You will recall that Rick Perry was leading in the polls when he, too, stumbled by saying reasonable things about immigration. Perry called immigration hard-liners heartless, while Gingrich encouraged the audience to be “humane.”
Romney, as usual, took the right position to appeal to Republican voters. He said Gingrich was wrong because “amnesty is a magnet” that attracts more illegal immigrants.
Ron Paul had smart and important things to say about the Patriot Act, calling the law “unpatriotic because it undermines our liberty” and arguing that “you can still provide security without sacrificing our Bill of Rights.” Gingrich, by contrast, argued that the Patriot Act might need to be strengthened. Asked which side of this debate she favored, Michele Bachmann said she was “with the American people.” I thought Gingrich and Paul were citizens, but never mind.
Bachmann then pulled the pin on one of the more nonsensical rhetorical grenades that she regularly lobs at President Obama: that he “has essentially handed over our interrogation of terrorists to the ACLU.”
The record shows that Obama does not coddle terrorist suspects with the niceties of liberal jurisprudence. Instead, he blows them to pieces with missiles fired by Predator drones. It’s possible to disagree on whether the administration’s program of targeted assassination is wise or effective, but no one can claim it’s soft.
Rick Santorum argued that we should be profiling Muslims for extra scrutiny at airports and sparing travelers who are deemed to present lower risk. Herman Cain said he favors a policy of “targeted identification” of potential terrorists, a concept so subtle that it defied Cain’s further attempts at explanation.
Romney got it right again, pledging “to protect the life, liberty and property of American citizens and defend them from foes domestic and foreign” without being specific about how this would be accomplished.
Perry had an interesting night. He stood by his promise not to send “one penny, period,” of U.S. aid to Pakistan until officials of that nation demonstrate “that they have America’s best interests in mind.” Bachmann called this position “highly naive,” pointing out that Pakistan is “too nuclear to fail.”
But Perry was undeterred. He went on to show a breathtaking lack of understanding of what’s happening in that part of the world, at one point saying that “we’ve got Afghanistan and India working in concert right now to leverage Pakistan.” That one sentence succinctly captures Pakistani officials’ deepest fear — being sandwiched by two enemies — and why they continue to support Taliban-affiliated militant groups that attack U.S. and Afghan forces.
Go home, Governor. Please.
Jon Huntsman had his best performance of the many debates held thus far, laying out a vision of U.S. foreign policy that was informed, nuanced and reflective of the real world rather than the make-believe world in which the campaign is taking place. Maybe he’ll be the next candidate to see a meteoric rise and fall in his poll numbers. Pretty soon, though, we’re going to run out of meteors.
Which leaves Romney still waiting for his party to show the love. He knows the issues. He says all the right things. So why do Republicans keep getting infatuated with these fire-breathing suitors who always, in the end, break the GOP’s heart?
Maybe voters just wonder about a guy who’s willing to tailor everything to please his audience. Even his name.
By: Eugene Robinson, Opinion Writer, The Washington Post, November 24, 2011
Mitt Romney Lacks The Courage And Character To Be A Leader
Conservative columnist George Will recently slammed Mitt Romney as “a recidivist reviser of his principles,” who seems to “lack the courage of his absence of convictions.” The line continues to look more and more apt all the time.
Last night, Newt Gingrich showed some guts and said when it comes to undocumented immigrants who entered the country a quarter-century ago, he sees no need to “separate them from their families and expel them.” Romney and his team pounced, condemning Gingrich for supporting “amnesty.”
It led, however, to a rather remarkable exchange in the spin room, with Romney adviser and spokesperson Eric Fehrnstrom finding himself at a loss for words.
When Examiner reporter Philip Klein asked whether the former Massachusetts governor believed in deporting undocumented immigrants, Fehrnstrom repeated, “He doesn’t believe in granting them amnesty.”
Asked again what Romney would do with immigrants who are currently living in the Unites States illegally, Fehrnstrom once more evaded the question.
The evasion wasn’t exactly graceful. Klein asked what Romney would do with the undocumented immigrants who are already here, and Fehrnstrom replied, “He would not grant them amnesty.” Right, Klein said, but instead of amnesty, what would Romney do with these people? “He would not grant them amnesty,” Fehrnstrom answered. Got it, Klein said, but what, specifically, would Romney do? “I just told you, he’s not going to grant them amnesty,” the campaign spokesperson said. When Klein then explained that this isn’t actually an answer, Fehrnstrom, once again, said, “He would not grant them amnesty.”
Remember, Philip Klein writes for the Washington Examiner, which is a conservative outlet. It’s not like the Romney campaign was blowing off some liberal reporter; the leading Republican campaign couldn’t get past its own superficial talking point with a conservative reporter asking a basic question.
In this case, Romney wanted to take a shot at Gingrich over immigration, without pesky questions about what Romney believes about the same policy.
And this ties in perfectly with one of Romney’s more glaring character flaws: his cowardice on key issues.
Does Romney support the “Personhood” amendment in Mississippi? He doesn’t want to give an opinion.
Does Romney support an extension of the payroll tax break? He doesn’t want to give an opinion.
Does Romney support collective bargaining rights in Ohio? He doesn’t want to give an opinion.
Was Romney comfortable with GOP voters booing a U.S. soldier serving in Iraq during a Republican debate? He doesn’t want to give an opinion.
Does Romney support mass deportation of undocumented immigrants? He doesn’t want to give an opinion.
There’s going to come a point next year when the Obama campaign is likely to say, “Mitt Romney lacks the courage and the character to be a leader.” And the criticism will sting because it’s based in fact.
Either Romney has the guts to lead or he doesn’t.
By: Steve Benen, Contributing Writer, Washington Monthly, November23, 2011
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 