mykeystrokes.com

"Do or Do not. There is no try."

Rick Perry And His Rivals Serve Up Scare Tactics And Drivel

Rick Perry should have backed off. Instead, he doubled down, and in a way that was doubly illuminating — about Perry himself and the degraded state of modern politics.

The issue, amazingly enough, is President Obama’s birthplace — months after the release of his long-form birth certificate should have laid the matter to rest.

In an interview with Parade magazine, the Texas governor declared Obama’s place of birth a “distractive” issue even as he happily latched on to the opportunity to distract.

“Well, I don’t have a definitive answer [about whether Obama was born in the United States], because he’s never seen my birth certificate,” he said. It was classic Perry, combining logical incoherence and a smarmy cheap shot.

A smarter candidate would have stopped there. Perry, in an interview with CNBC’s John Harwood, kept going, despite Harwood’s repeated invitations to walk back his silliness.

“Look, I haven’t seen his,” Perry said. “I haven’t seen his grades. My grades ended up on the front page of the newspaper, so let’s, you know, if we’re going to show stuff, let’s show stuff. “

Is this a presidential campaign or a middle-school playground? I’ll show you mine if you show me yours? By the way, if I had Perry’s grades, I wouldn’t be mentioning them. Certainly not if I were running against a former president of the Harvard Law Review.

But then Perry, as is his style, let on what this was really about. “But look, that’s all a distraction. I mean, I get it. I’m really not worried about the president’s birth certificate. It’s fun to poke at him a little bit and say, ‘Hey, how about, let’s see your grades and your birth certificate.’ ”

The matter of the president’s birthplace, Perry added, is “a good issue to keep alive.”

You might think this was the candidate cannily trying to have it both ways: a nod to the birther crazies with a simultaneous wink at those who know this is a ridiculous distraction. Except that Perry managed to step on his real message of the day: his unaffordable and unfair proposal to “simplify” the tax code — by grafting a flat-tax alternative onto the existing system.

Perry’s acknowledgment of his interest in benefiting from birther mania was reminiscent of his artless dodge, during the last debate, about whether he thought the 14th Amendment should be changed to abolish birthright citizenship. “You get to ask the questions,” he told moderator Anderson Cooper. “I get to answer like I want to.”

Note to candidate: It’s better not to narrate your own stage directions. Just because your debate coaches tell you to answer the question you want to answer, not the one that’s been asked, doesn’t mean you should announce that’s what you’re up to.

Now we have Perry, who has a decent if fading shot at the Republican presidential nomination, openly practicing politics as poke-fest. The point isn’t to debate whose solutions are best for America — it’s to get under the other guy’s skin.

Thus Perry needling Mitt Romney on immigration: “You hired illegals in your home and you knew about it for a year. And the idea that you stand here before us and talk about that you’re strong on immigration is, on its face, the height of hypocrisy.”

As it happens, Perry is righter — that is, more correct — than Romney on immigration, at least when it comes to the question of the DREAM Act and the ability of the children of illegal immigrants to obtain in-state tuition rates.

But Perry’s jab at Romney was below the belt. The former Massachusetts governor employed a landscaping firm that, the Boston Globe discovered, had hired illegal immigrants. Romney told it to stop. When it turned out that the company hadn’t, he fired the firm.

The matter of Obama’s birth certificate should be a closed case. It is astonishing that a sitting governor, no less a serious candidate for president, would stoop to playing this game.

Then again, 2012 is shaping up to be an astonishing campaign. Witness Herman Cain’s bizarre, substance-less new ad in which the candidate is endorsed by, yes, the candidate’s campaign manager. Who is actually smoking (literally) during the ad.

“I really believe that Herman Cain will put United back in the United States of America,” says the aide, Mark Block.

The country is facing serious problems. This will be a fateful election. Voters deserve better than scare tactics and drivel.

By: Ruth Marcus, Opinion Writer, The Washington Post, October 25, 2011

October 29, 2011 Posted by | Class Warfare, Conservatives, Democracy, Elections, GOP, Ideologues, Ideology, President Obama, Republicans, Right Wing, Teaparty | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“Divided And Undisciplined”: The GOP Circus 
Is In Town

Even Republicans have to be laughing at the circus sideshow the GOP presidential candidates are putting on. The Mitt-Rick-Herman act was so comical this week it looks concerted, almost like they collaborated with the Democratic National Committee. Team Obama is grinning so hard its ears are hurting, because 10 weeks out from the Iowa caucuses, the Republican Party is divided, the candidates are undisciplined and the voters don’t love any of them. Just in time for the real ugliness to begin a few weeks from now.

The marquee moment belongs to Texas Gov. Rick Perry, of course, indulging in birtherism on Monday night so that he could step on Tuesday’s rollout of his flat-tax plan. Sure, Perry tried to discount the birth-certificate controversy — sort of — while throwing some greasy scraps to the Trumpsters who still believe a U.S. president has actually released a fake certificate.

“I’m not really worried about the president’s birth certificate,” Perry said in an interview with CNBC. “It’s fun to poke at him a little bit and say, ‘Hey, how about, let’s see your grades and your birth certificate.’ ” Perry made sure to mention that Donald Trump recently said he didn’t think the birth certificate was real. And he said it’s “a good issue to keep alive.”

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney could have jumped all over that — if he hadn’t been busy shooting himself in the foot in the battleground state of Ohio. Yes, Romney decided a fresh flip-flop was in order, despite the fact that his critics are happy to savor his many others. While at a Republican call center in Ohio, he refused to comment on an Ohio law limiting collective bargaining that he had expressed support for months ago. After being pummeled by conservatives, Romney reiterated his, um, previous support.

Herman Cain, who tops the GOP field in a new CBS/New York Times poll, spent the last few days telling reporters who asked tough policy questions that he needed a little more time to think of an answer. He learned the hard way by saying on CNN that abortion is a family’s choice. Whoops — better to leave details out of this whole thing. Cain still can’t really be found on the campaign trail. No, the motivational speaker was in Texas selling books and giving a speech. And despite Perry’s attempt to beat Cain at his 9-9-9 game with a flat-tax plan, Cain-world still scored much buzz with a weirdo Web ad featuring his campaign manager Mark Block smoking into the camera. It already has more than 387,000 hits on YouTube.

With that kind of juice, who needs to endure the icy winds of the door-to-door campaigning Iowans demand of their caucus winners? If Cain continues to surge without leaving the book tour, then we will know that talking to voters in town-hall meetings and asking for their support is no longer necessary. In fact, perhaps televised debates aren’t, either. Perry told Bill O’Reilly in an interview on Fox News on Tuesday that while his debate performances have been disappointing, the debates themselves are a mistake. “If there was a mistake, it was probably ever doing one of the campaign [debates] when all they’re interested in is stirring up between the candidates instead of really talking about the issues that are important to the American people.” His campaign said Perry will attend one more in Michigan, but beyond that he might be a no-show.

That’s understandable. Questions at debates about serious policy matters — like what his response would be to the Taliban gaining control of Pakistani’s nuclear weapons — just aren’t Rick Perry’s idea of “fun.”

 

By: A. B. Stoddard, Associate Editor, The Hill, October 26, 2011

October 28, 2011 Posted by | Bigotry, Birthers, Class Warfare, Democracy, Democrats, Economy, Elections, Ideologues, Ideology, Income Gap, Libertarians, Middle Class, Right Wing, Teaparty | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Mitt Romney: The Corporate ‘Person’ And The One Percent

For Mitt Romney, the fundamental argument underpinning his presidential candidacy is his experience as a top executive at Bain Capital, the huge Boston-based private equity firm. That is especially true now because he must disown his most important achievement as Massachusetts governor — health care reform — in order to assuage the Tea Party extremists in his own party. But what does his business career tell us about the economic policies that might be pursued by the Republican front-runner — and about his worldview? Much could have been gleaned from the career history of George W. Bush, if only voters had paid closer attention to the unflattering reports of his experience as oilman and baseball team owner that accumulated in 1999 and 2000.

As the stories behind Romney’s success unfold in the coming campaign, the answer is likely to be that Bain Capital has prospered during the past quarter-century promoting a harsher brand of enterprise — one that ruins communities, impoverishes workers, and exports American jobs, all in the name of shareholder “value.”

In the current issue of New York Magazine, reporter Benjamin Wallace-Wells begins the process of unpacking what Romney and his colleagues in management consulting and private equity have wrought upon the U.S. economy. Wallace-Wells opens his narrative with a telling recent anecdote from the campaign trail in Iowa, where Romney lectured a disbelieving crowd on the issue of corporate personhood. When a heckler urged raising taxes on corporations, Romney replied with condescension: “Corporations are people too, my friend….”

Of course in the strictest sense he was right: The management, shareholders, and workers of every corporation are indeed human beings, and it is to those human beings that the money earned by corporations, after taxes, is paid. But as Wallace-Wells discovers, Romney and company have done much to change how those earnings are apportioned, encouraging massive increases in the amount appropriated by management and huge reductions in wages and benefits paid to workers. Creating incentives for managers to maximize stock prices — which would explode their own compensation — simultaneously undermined old-fashioned corporate responsibility toward employees, communities, and the nation as a whole. The deepest implication of the consultant creed that Romney represents is an ugly Darwinism — or so Wallace-Wells suggests.

But as consultants, there was only so much that Romney and the Bain crowd could do to change any corporation. Wanting to put their theories into practice, and sensing that big profits could ensue, they formed Bain Capital, whose record in corporate takeovers and turnarounds became the envy of the industry — and the ruin of thousands of workers and their families unlucky enough to become collateral damage.

The improved efficiency and productivity of private enterprise over the past two decades certainly were not without benefit to society, in lower prices, better technology and even, for a while, higher employment. But the perfect “alignment” of incentives between corporate managers and shareholders, without any regulatory brakes, led to worsening economic inequality, executive recklessness, stock manipulation, and a laser-like focus on the short term — in short, all of the ills that underlie American economic decline. Those same incentives have been trained on the political system to ensure decisions that benefit those same overpaid, seemingly sociopathic bankers and investors — now known as the “one percent.” They could scarcely hope for a more sympathetic candidate than the man from Bain.

By: Joe Conason, The National Memo, October 25, 2011

October 26, 2011 Posted by | Class Warfare, Conservatives, Consumers, Corporations, Economic Recovery, GOP, GOP Presidential Candidates, Health Reform, Ideologues, Middle Class | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Leaders Know How To Take A Stand, Unless You’re Mitt Romney

Gov. Romney, Republican voters booed a U.S. soldier serving in Iraq; are you comfortable with that? No comment.

Gov. Romney, Ohio Republicans are fighting to undermine collective-bargaining rights; do you agree with them? No comment.

Gov. Romney, your top rival for the Republican presidential nomination is questioning the president’s citizenship status; is this a legitimate subject for debate? No comment.

I thought it would be worth asking the campaigns of the two frontrunners — Herman Cain and Mitt Romney —for comment on [Rick Perry’s birther comments]. Are they willing to condemn it? After all, Romney has vouched for Obama’s U.S. citizenship in the past and has made Perry’s unelectability central to his campaign, and it seems likely that Perry’s flirtation with birtherism will fuel doubts about whether he has the gravity and temperament to be a good general election candidate.

No luck.

Both campaigns declined to address Perry’s comments. “We’ll pass,” Cain spokesman J.D. Gordon emailed. A Romney campaign spokesperson also declined comment.

Remember, this isn’t one of those 11th-Commandment-style dynamics; Romney criticizes Perry comments all the time. But when Perry dabbles in unhinged conspiracy theories, the Romney campaign prefers to remain silent.

Greg Sargent added, by the way, that some major players in the party — Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, Karl Rove, and others — have all said Perry’s comments were, at a minimum, out of line.

So where’s Romney as his top rival is taking heat from within the party?

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.

Romney can end this talk very easily and demonstrate that he’s more than a craven empty suit. There are some basic yes-or-no questions — Do you condemn the booing of honorable American soldiers? Would you endorse Paul Ryan’s budget plan? Do you support public workers’ collective bargaining rights? — that the former governor could answer directly without looking for wiggle room and without a bunch of caveats to cling to later.

He just doesn’t seem to have the guts.

By: Steve Benen, Washington Monthly Political Animal, October 25, 2011

October 26, 2011 Posted by | Bigotry, Class Warfare, Elections, GOP, GOP Presidential Candidates, Ideologues, Republicans, Right Wing, Teaparty | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

State Loan Program That Rick Perry Touted Had To Be Bailed Out

Gov. Rick Perry has anchored his presidential campaign to his claims of  creating jobs.

With no business record of his own, Perry must contrast his ability to create  jobs with public money against the records of two front-runners, Mitt Romney  and Herman Cain, who tout credentials as private employers.

His GOP opponents already have sniped at his gubernatorial record, saying  Perry inflates his job-creation numbers and takes credit for a business climate he inherited. Perry’s efforts to create jobs and spur agribusinesses as the state’s agriculture commissioner during the 1990s might provide even more fodder for the opposition.

Over his eight years as Texas’ farmer-in-chief, Perry oversaw a loan guarantee  program with so many defaults that the state had to stop guaranteeing bank  loans to startups in agribusiness and eventually bailed out the program with  taxpayer money.

The state auditor panned Perry’s claims of creating jobs and criticized Perry  and his fellow board members at the Texas Agricultural Finance Authority for  not following their own lending guidelines.

In some instances, the auditor said, Perry and the authority guaranteed loans  to applicants with a negative net worth or too much debt. Citing growing debts, the auditor finally suggested that state officials consider dismantling the program.

Even as the first alarms were sounded, Perry defended the program, saying no  taxpayer money was at risk, blaming others and claiming he had fixed it.

It only got worse.

By 2002, Perry’s successor, Agriculture Commissioner Susan Combs, a  Republican, stopped making loans as the percentage of bad loans neared 30  percent.

By 2009, her successor, Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples, also a  Republican, asked the Legislature to pay off the loan guarantees with a $14.7 million appropriation. The finance authority could no longer afford the $541,000 to cover the annual interest on the bad debts, almost all of which dated back to Perry’s tenure.

“It’s bad,” Staples told the American-Statesman at the time. “Unfortunately,  taxpayers are on the hook for something that happened as long ago as 1987.”

In effect, Perry, as governor, signed his own government bailout when he  approved the 2009 appropriations bill.

The Perry campaign did not respond to questions about whether Perry, as  president, would use public money in economic development programs and what  lessons he learned from his experience guaranteeing risky business loans  with public money.

Mired in partisan politics

When the Legislature created the Texas Agricultural Finance Authority in 1987,  the intent was to boost the state’s agricultural economy by selling state-backed bonds to guarantee bank loans to entrepreneurs who could not get commercial loans. The goal was to create small businesses and jobs by  processing — rather than simply growing — Texas agricultural products.

The program immediately got mired in partisan politics, with Agriculture  Commissioner Jim Hightower, a Democrat, on one side, and the Republican  members of the finance authority appointed by Gov. Bill Clements on the  other.

The impasse ensured that no loans were made during Hightower’s term.

In 1990, Perry campaigned on a promise to create jobs and expand the rural  economy by making loans to agribusiness startups that would process the  state’s agricultural products.

Clements’ appointees to the finance authority board gave Perry, a board  member, sole authority to guarantee loans before newly elected Gov. Ann  Richards, a Democrat, could replace them.

Under the program, the state would guarantee 90 percent of a lender’s loan — up to a maximum of $5 million — to an applicant.

Entrepreneurs lined up for money to spin cotton into yarn, process meats,  develop cotton insulation, market canna bulbs to wholesale nurseries and sell pinto beans as a ready-to-eat frozen meal, to name a few.

‘This has not cost Texans money’

Perry had made four loan guarantees for $5.8 million by the time the attorney  general ruled that he had to share that authority with his fellow board  members. Even then, Perry and his staff drove the decisions.

Mary Webb, a Richards appointee who joined the finance authority as chairwoman  in 1992, said the part-time board members had to rely on Perry’s staff at  the agriculture department when screening loan applications.

“They did the legwork,” she said. “We looked at the deals to  see if they fit with the legislation: Would they create jobs and help the  agriculture community?”

By the time Webb left the board in 1995, she said she knew a couple of loans  were in trouble. She said she learned only later the scope of the problems with other loans.

The first loan guarantees were financed by selling $25 million in bonds.

Twice, in 1993 and 1995, Perry campaigned for voters to approve more bonding authority.

Perry claimed the first two years of the program had created 4,100 jobs and  pumped $390 million into the economy by guaranteeing loans to 47 companies.  He predicted more than 40,000 jobs could be created with the additional  bonding authority.

He didn’t mention troubled loans as he touted the program’s virtues at a 1993  Capitol press conference: “We think that this Texas Ag Finance  Authority is, without a doubt, one of the finest programs that the Texas Legislature, that the citizens of Texas have ever gone forward with.”

At another stop, Perry said, “We can truly say it has not cost the taxpayers of Texas any money.”

Voters turned him down in 1993, but Perry finally won an extra $200 million in  bonding authority two years later.

“This is one of the few government programs that truly has worked,”  Perry said. “This has not cost Texans money.”

In January 1997, State Auditor Lawrence Alwin first alerted state officials,  saying Perry and the board had violated their own lending guidelines.

He said 10 of the 48 companies had defaulted, and six more were in trouble.  The first bad loans were written off as uncollectible in 1995, according to  records.

Alwin also debunked a $40,000 report by a state-paid consultant claiming the  program had created or retained more than 5,000 jobs at a cost of $412 per  job as well as contributing $600 million to the economy.

The consultant’s data, which Perry submitted to the Legislature, were “unverifiable,  incomplete, untimely, and inconsistent” and based on unrealistic  assumptions about job creation, Alwin concluded.

A year later, Alwin warned that the situation had gotten worse. The program  was $5.7 million in the red because of bad loans.

The issue hit the newspapers.

Perry and his lieutenants defended the program.

Deputy Agriculture Commissioner Larry Soward told The Dallas Morning News that  the audit reflected a number of bad loans made early in the program to  farmers and ranchers trying their first business ventures.

“The business acumen of the people behind them might not have been as  strong as possible,” Soward said.

But he insisted the program would rebound: “The fact that there is a negative balance does not mean the program is in trouble.”

Perry echoed a similar refrain in a guest column in the Amarillo Daily News.

“By their very nature, TAFA loans are considered higher risk. Because of  this, some defaults were inevitable and a negative balance was expected in the early years of the program,” he wrote.

He blamed the problems on “some unfortunate decisions made by the previous TAFA board early in the program.”

Perry promised the problem was fixed. “Today, TAFA is on solid footing with a positive balance projected by 2010,” he wrote.

He reminded readers that the loans were funded by debt — commercial paper: “No  taxpayer money has ever been used to make TAFA loans.”

In 1998, Perry was elected lieutenant governor, and Combs succeeded him as  agriculture commissioner.

She talked of expanding the loan guarantee program to other borrowers beyond  food and fiber processors. But she asked Alwin to do a follow-up audit.

His warning was prescient. He said a program that guaranteed loans to people  who typically couldn’t qualify for commercial loans would have a hard time  finding enough good loans to generate the income to offset the losses from the bad ones.

In 2002, Combs and the agricultural finance authority bowed to that reality,  suspending any new loans.

Twenty-nine of 102 guaranteed loans defaulted, almost all of them during  Perry’s tenure, according to the records provided this month by the agriculture department.

While the majority of the loans were in good standing, the majority of the  original $25 million — $14.7 million — was bad debt. Just as the auditor  warned, the income from the good loans could not generate enough cash to  make the program self-sustaining.

“We hit a brick wall,” Staples said in 2009.

By: Laylan Copelin, American-Statesman Staff, Statesman.com, October 22, 2011

October 24, 2011 Posted by | Banks, Conservatives, Corporations, Elections, GOP Presidential Candidates, Public, Republicans, State Legislatures, States, Taxpayers, Teaparty, Voters | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment