Romney Will Say Anything

I didn't realize how ripe of a take-down there was awaiting Mitt “Robme” Romney, but it's all out there just waiting for someone to put it all together...

Mr. Romney claims that he will create 12 million jobs during the next 4 years if only we elect him as president. He doesn't say how he'll create the jobs, just elect him, sit back, and find out...

Nail #1: Since he won't specify, we are enabled to speculate. And some big guns have speculated, like those fine folks at Macroeconomic Advisers and Moodys Analytics. Their estimation: The economy, regardless of the president will add 11.8 million jobs over the next four years. So, that's only 200,000 for you?

Mr. Romney has repeated used the meme that he was a job creator while working for Bain Capital, that he knows how to create jobs...

Nail #2: Search for the jobs he created, and you will search in vain. But you will find cogent analysis of his work and methods there, by no less a business standard than Bloomberg:

What’s clear from a review of the public record during his management of the private-equity firm Bain Capital from 1985 to 1999 is that Romney was fabulously successful in generating high returns for its investors. He did so, in large part, through heavy use of tax-deductible debt, usually to finance outsized dividends for the firm’s partners and investors. When some of the investments went bad, workers and creditors felt most of the pain. Romney privatized the gains and socialized the losses.

So, Mr. Romney is willing to mislead on his record, mislead on what he'll actually accomplish while at the helm (if we give it to him). But, he has served in government before, what did he accomplish there? Surely that would give him some bona-fides...

Nail #3: As Governor of Massachusetts, which as candidate Romney he claimed he would initiate a jobs program "second to none in the history of the state.” But, the history, as capably outlined by Jim Kaplan of the Tampa Bay Times: “When Romney's four-year term expired, the job growth rate of 1 percent lagged four points behind the national rate.” So, even though he has promised this particular outcome before, last time he utterly failed.

During the second Presidential Debate, Mr Romney asserted that “Government does not create jobs”.

Which leads us directly to...

Nail #4: Mr. Romney: If the government does not create jobs, how the he** are you going to create jobs as president of the United States? You didn't create jobs when you were in the private sector, you failed to create jobs the last time you were in government, and you are willing to lie to us about what will happen even though, by your own assertion, it is impossible for you to accomplish that! What kind of a man are you?

I believe four nails allows us a roundtrip on this particular coffin. Sleep well, Mr. Romney. I don't believe there is a place in heaven for folks like you. May I suggest you read Neil Gaiman's collection of shorts, “Smoke and Mirrors”. There is a particular story in there about a place where time has no meaning...

Do As I Say...(Boy Scouts Edition)

It should be obvious why the Boy Scouts don't allow gays or atheists into their ranks: They don't need the training that scouting has to offer, and their outstanding moral positions would prove to be a humiliating distraction to the rest of the poor boys who struggle with the 12 tenets of the scout law.

For who can demonstrate loyalty better than an atheist, who won't drop you as friend if he learns you worship a different god? Or a gay boy, who won't torment you for liking Sally or Billy, but accepts that liking someone and pledging undying friendship, kindness and love is the height of being human?

Either can demonstrate trustworthiness, thriftiness and cleanliness. And what of reverence? Being gay or atheist is a life lesson in respecting institutions that support connections between people, but rejecting any that smack of bigotry or prejudice. Showing reverence for hate and fear is as wrong as lacking any reverence.

With their extremely tolerant views of others and willingness to offer the freedoms for others to pursue goals as they want the freedom to pursue theirs, the presence of gays and atheists within an intolerant, struggling group of Christian Scouts would prove a constant embarrassment.

(And what of the members of the LDS, who deemed the Book of Mormon insufficient for instilling moral character into their boys, and added the canon of Lord Baden-Powell alongside as the sole youth program for young men? Being bested in the mastery of cheerfulness, helpfulness or bravery by one who didn't consult either text might prove to be a debilitating demoralization!)

Instead of attempting to get in, gays and atheists should rejoice that they have mastered what scouting would teach them. They are the graduates.

And, never-mind that for a boy to fully understand Friendliness (offering his friendship to people of all races and nations, and respecting them even if their beliefs and customs are different from his own.); Kindness (He treats others as he wants to be treated. He does not harm), or many of the other 12 tenets without the inclusion of all people, without leaders and an organization that lives those tenets and shows no prejudice, will, in the end, cripple him and his understanding.

For, obviously, the inclusion of gays and atheists within the ranks of scouting would prove too big a challenge, too great a test for the remainder, and their failure to live up to their tenets would become plain for all to see.

The Deficit, Part Two...

One of the things that drives me nuts about politicians and politics is that they rarely are required to keep even a superficially consistent story. It would make so much more sense if we had on the one side those who believe that less should be privately controlled and more publicly controlled, offset by those who wish for stronger protections for private property, both balanced by the conservatives who just want to slow the pace of change and keep the status quo (and let's face it, changing for change's sake is not usually a good policy!). But instead, we get this:


In August we were treated to the spectacle of the deficit ceiling colliding with the rising deficit, and the hand-wringing of that singular (okay, so it turns out it wasn't that singular!) event: We were going to drive the country into ruin! We must cut the deficit! We must, must, must! One party in particular was driving the debate as the #1 issue facing the nation, now and into the future. We may disagree about the seriousness of the event, but they certainly can take a stand on it...

So, I would expect (especially after the collapse of the Deficit Reduction Commission - DRC) that any Republican candidate for the Presidency would continue to campaign on that idea - that the current policies followed by the current administration continue to increase the deficit and take us towards ruin. But, I am wrong.

Turns out that now candidates feel the best way to win the White House is to campaign on a promise to increase the deficit - on average by the amount the DRC was targeted to reduce: $1 trillion dollars. Say it with me: ONE TRILLION DOLLARS!

I am speechless. I'll let James Kwak tell the story:

The Times has a story out today: Surprise, all the Republican candidates’ tax plans increase the national deficit! The numbers (reduction in 2015 tax revenues, from the Tax Policy Center):

• Romney: $600 billion
• Gingrich: $1.3 trillion
• (Late lamented) Perry: $1.0 trillion
• Santorum: $1.3 trillion

*Paul is excluded, see fn1.

If I were an Independent or Democrat candidate for the Presidency, I would jump all over this (heck, if I were just an average journalist, I'd be all over this!) "Mr Candidate: Why isn't the deficit an issue any more and you feel that you are free to accelerate it's growth over the four years of your presidency if you were to be elected?" 

I have an idea why, though: Tax cuts are always popular - cutting programs is not. Sadly, though, all four candidates plans cut taxes for the rich and then wait for the resulting deficit to materialize so that they are 'forced' to cut government programss: Which usually are programs that aid the middle and lower class. You don't still doubt that we are governed by an oligarchy of the rich now, do you?

fn1: Mr Paul doesn't have a specific plan - other than to eliminate the IRS and wave his hands and hope that the reduction will be offset somehow - which leaves his plan well north of $1 trillion in deficit increase. But, he hasn't published specifics, so the Tax Policy Center can't run specifics...

I Dare You!

Rep McConnell yesterday slammed the emerging financial regulation legislation. His big gripe: It doesn't put an end to taxpayer funded bailouts.

You mean that same taxpayer bailout that you (Mr McConnell) voted for?

OK. I agree. I'd like to see the large financial institutions take a major downsizing, and next time, they need to fail. Along with Hedge funds.

So, Rep McConnell: I challenge you to propose an amendment that:

1) Brings back the major provisions of Glass-Steagall and separates banks from investment houses (and forces the newly consolidated megabanks: BofA, JPMorgan, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs to split up into their disparate entities)
2) Regulates the issuance (or maybe just prohibits) CDO's
3) Makes criminal the behavior that took place here (Magnetar)
4) Prohibits the payout of 'Golden Parachutes' during failures / bankruptcies. These execs are paid the big bucks for the big risks - Risks that could at any time destroy their house of cards and leave them unemployed. Make 'em eat it when they fail.

You got the goods, Representative? Or are you just bluster hoping to stifle the legislation so your cronies can continue to live large? (Fourth place in Private Equity Firms contributions, Fifth Place in Hedge Fund Contributions, Fourth place in Securities Brokers contributions.)

(And I'm okay if Rahm Emmanual feels some discomfort, too!)