Desperate Ed Royce has been coming out with what seems like one mailer for every day that mail gets delivered. The effects of supersaturating voters like this will be the subject of a later post, where I shall make fun of Desperate Ed somewhat mercilessly for doing more to get people to think of him as “Desperate Ed” than I ever could. Those suckers have been piling up — and ideally I’ll get to them all before Election Day, but — boy, howdy, his mailer on economics truly and totally sucks! Here, if you don’t believe me, ask his cover boy.
By the way, because I am putting up Ed Royce mailers here — OK, with a few added speech bubbles, admittedly — I’m going to have to put up some Jay Chen mailers too to balance things out. There are fewer of them, but there’s much less to criticize.
The brunt of this mailer is on the economy. The meat of it — this middle two pages (which I’m combining into one long page) — deals with three themes of the economy. Better have some coffee, alcohol, or whatever else will help you get through this experience, because I’m going to go over them with a fine-toothed ball-peen hammer.
This is going to hurt me more than it’s going to hurt you.
OK, let me grab my shovel. First up:
DEBT
Royce says that he:
– is a fiscal watchdog
– voted no on all bailouts
– voted no on all stimulus spending
– led the Congressional “Porkbusters Caucus”
– was named a “Taxpayer Hero” by Citizens Against Government Waste
In fact, Royce
– voted for the hugely expensive War in Iraq
– – – (and he’s now stiffing returned veterans on paying for their health care and other needs)
– voted for the budget-busting gift to pharmaceutical companies, Medicare Part D
– voted for the budget-busting Bush Tax Cuts, slanted towards the wealthy
– voted for the budget-busting repeal of the estate tax
– refuses to allow consideration of extending tax cuts for the middle class unless the rich get theirs too
– voted to possibly let the economy crater into a full-blown Second Depression
– – – (and does he deny stories from others, including many Republicans, that this was so?)
– voted against an auto bailout that saved 1 million manufacturing-based in this country
– voted against stimulus spending that
– – – gave tax breaks to middle-class families of students in college, among many others
– – – is calculated to have saved another 3 million jobs at a time when they were needed most
– was the chair of the Committee charged with regulation of financials services
– – – that’s the sector of companies that was his biggest contributor before the economic collapse — and now is even more so!
– – – the failure of these poorly regulated companies is what blew up the economy in the first place!
– – – for which Royce has made sure financial executive and companies didn’t suffer!
– chaired the caucus that pretended to stop pork but in fact allowed all of the above huge budget abuses
– received his fake-named award from a group that basically just supports the Republican Party, so …
– – – this is no surprise, and
– – – there’s no reason to believe that it’s true rather than just PR!
Royce says that Chen:
– supported the bailouts and stimulus
– – – thus preventing a Second Depression that would have even more badly hurt the poor and middle classes
– favors making stimulus spending a permanent part of the budget, an unexplained statement that is either
– – pointless (because all federal spending is stimulative to some degree)
– – or wrong (because extra stimulus spending is needed in recession or depression, not times of inflation)
Royce leaves out that Chen:
– would have opposed the unnecessary, foolish, and budget-busting Gulf War
– would have favored concentrating on finishing the job in Afghanistan when it was easier and cheaper
– would have demanded a less expensive and more rational Prescription Drug bull
– would have favored targeted tax breaks to the middle class and truly small businesses, not to the wealthy
WHEW! Let me replace this now-dented shovel and move on to …
TAXES
Royce says that he:
– believes that hard-working American families pay enough in taxes
– supports keeping low tax rates in place
– wants to make the tax system simpler
– wants to close loopholes for special interests and lobbyists
In fact, Royce:
– is standing in the way of of extending tax breaks to the middle class!
– – – Royce refuses to do so unless tax breaks are also extended to the wealthy
– – – Most “hard-working” families are in the broad middle class. Royce protects his wealthy donors
– – – The wealthy tend not to make their money through “hard work” but from investments.
– – – Royce should claim that he believes that “hard-investing American families pay enough in taxes!”
– cares about keeping low tax rates in place for the wealthy
– – – while states and localities have to make up the shortfall of federal money with regressive sales taxes and fees
– wants “tax simplification” because it’s code for “the rich pay no higher tax rates than the poor and middle class”
– hasn’t proposed closing loopholes for wealthy special interests, at least unless they have no chance of passing
– – – politicians always propose this — but it keeps on not happening
– – – what has Royce done in his powerful committee position to make this happen? Nothing! It’s just hot air!
Royce says that Chen:
– wants to see a higher tax rate on the middle-class next year
– wants higher tax penalties on those who don’t join government health care
Royce leaves out that Chen:
– is the one who wants to see the tax cut for the middle class made permanent
– – – the problem is that Royce is holding it hostage until it is tied to extending unnecessary tax cuts for the wealthy!
– – – it is Royce’s position, not Chen’s, that could endanger middle-class, and ONLY middle-class, tax relief
– doesn’t want to see people penalized, he wants to see people insured
– – – people who can’t afford the penalty are either subsidized to receive insurance or are exempted from it
– – – Chen knows that when people aren’t insured, they use emergency rooms for their medical care
– – – this costs the rest of us much more than we’d spend if we provided people care before their problems worsened
– – – but Royce — and Romney — favor the use of emergency rooms by the uninsured for primary medical care! Nutty!
Time for another new shovel! Let’s move on to …
GAS PRICES
Royce says that he:
– is working to bring down gas prices
– wants the U.S. to be more energy independent
– wants to use more oil, gas, and coal
– wants to use more nuclear power
– wants to use more renewables (wind, solar, hydroelectric)
– wants to build the Keystone pipeline to bring Canadian tar sands oil (the dirtiest kind) to the U.S.
In fact, Royce:
– stands in the way of lowering gas prices by opposing the lowering of demand through improved fuel efficiency
– wants to contribute to environmental carnage by pushing for the dirtiest energy sources
– – – using up our limited oil, which is a theft from future generations, no matter how
– – – natural gas that poisons your tap water when extracted through “fracking”
– – – coal that now largely requires blowing off mountaintops and polluting our water
– – – all of which also contributes to disastrous climate change directly by putting more CO2 into the atmosphere …
– – – and indirectly by giving other countries an excuse not to cooperate with global efforts to reduce this trend
– doesn’t seem to care that safety problems at San Onofre threaten the lives of people in his own district
– doesn’t get that the Keystone pipeline would not help lower U.S. gas prices …
– – – because the pipeline wouldn’t carry oil TO the U.S., but THROUGH it to our ports, for the international market!
– – – and because refining this dirty, sandy oil sludge takes much more energy that processing normal oil
– – – and because we’ll have to pay (in dollars and sickness) for the inevitable spills in the middle of the U.S. anyway!
Royce says that Chen:
– doesn’t want to build the Keystone pipeline
– wants higher taxes on energy producers
– favors policies that would lead to higher prices at the pump
Royce leaves out that Chen:
– is correct that the Keystone pipeline (getting Canadian oil to Asia) won’t help reduce U.S. gas prices
– knows that Big Oil has been deeply undertaxed and insanely subsidized …
– – – and is making record profits, and paying enormous profits to its execs, meaning that it can afford more taxation
– knows that we lower domestic gas prices by increasing fuel efficiency and lowering demand
– – – both of which Ed Royce has opposed
– knows that our overseas competitors in Germany, China, and elsewhere have been way ahead of us in clean energy technology
– – – which means that their gas prices — or prices for auto fuel and power, including electricity — will go down …
– – – while, under Royce policies, they won’t …
– – – and that clean fuel technology that ought to be produced here in the U.S. will instead have to be bought from others …
– – – and that Royce’s choice to keep things as they are is ridiculous and short-sighted …
– – – and is extremely damaging to the world’s environment — including in OC and LA!
WHEW!!! On to the last page!
(Again, the speech and thought bubbles are mine, not Royce’s. You probably already knew that.)
“Citizens Against Government Waste” is just another word for “Republicans fronting for big corporate interests” –especially tobacco companies who prefer Republican deregulators for reasons that have nothing to do with “waste” and everything to do with their own profits and defeat of consumer protection regulation — who are using their greater financing and superior power of marketing to bamboozle the public. Here’s a bit from Wikipedia on this group that awarded Royce this “honor” he that brags about. (Don’t trust Wikipedia itself, go to the links themselves!)
CAGW and tobacco
The St. Petersburg Times reported that CAGW “got at least $245,000 from the tobacco industry”, and subsequently lobbied on its behalf. Internal tobacco industry documents made available by the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement indicate that CAGW and its affiliates supported the tobacco industry in several instances. Specifically, in 2001, when an industry-sponsored bill entitled the “Youth Smoking Reduction Act” was introduced in Congress, CAGW sent a letter supporting this legislation.[11] On the contrary, most public health and medical organizations, wrote a letter strongly opposing the legislation. They stated that despite the name of the bill, if enacted, “would do more harm than good to the public health.”[12] CAGW was also contacted by Phillip Morris to include ASSIST, a federal tobacco control program, in their Pig Book. ASSIST was considered an imminent threat to industry activities at the time.[13]
Asked about his group’s tobacco work, CAGW president Tom Schatz said, “We have always welcomed contributions to support the issues we support. Many of them have to do with fighting higher taxes and more regulations.”[14] [15]
Other controversies
Throughout its history, CAGW has been accused of fronting lobbying efforts of corporations to give them the appearance of “grassroots” support.[16] In part, this is because CAGW has accepted donations from Phillip Morris, the Olin Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, Microsoft, Merrill Lynch, and Exxon-Mobil.
According to the St. Petersburg Times in 2006, the Pig Book has been used to benefit corporate donors, specifically health clubs who donated to CAGW. The Pig Book listed federal grants to YMCAs who compete with those health clubs as waste. CAGW’s president countered that “The Ys are there because they qualify as pork. Period.”[16]
A Senate Finance Committee investigating ties between CAGW and other non-profits and Jack Abramoff in 2006 stated in a report that the non-profits: ‘probably violated their tax-exempt status “by laundering payments and then disbursing funds at Mr. Abramoff’s direction; taking payments in exchange for writing newspaper columns or press releases that put Mr. Abramoff’s clients in a favorable light; introducing Mr. Abramoff’s clients to government officials in exchange for payment; and agreeing to act as a front organization for congressional trips paid for by Mr. Abramoff’s clients.”‘[17]
In 2007, CAGW supported a bill that would limit damages resulting from malpractice lawsuits.[18] Many consumer watchdog groups opposed the bill.[19]
In 2009, CAGW had been lobbying against the F136 alternate engine for the F-35 JSF made by GE/Rolls Royce. A GE Aviation spokesperson said it was always a strong suspicion that CAGW was funded by Pratt & Whitney(which manufactures the F135 engine for the JSF)[20] but a Pratt & Whitney spokesperson said they weren’t funding CAGW’s lobbying efforts.[20]
In October 2010, CAGW introduced a television attack ad suggesting that economic stimulus spending, health care reform, and other actions characterized as “turning their back on the principles that made them great” would lead to the downfall of the US and an economic takeover by China.[21][22]
But that’s not the best part. The best part is the part in yellow at the bottom right.
Royce goes on a rant because a group that won’t disclose its donors, America Shining (which seems to support Asian politicians of both parties), is putting out independent expenditures for ads against him. A few points:
“False Charges”?
I haven’t seen the America Shining material, but I doubt that their charges against Royce are any more false than what you’ve seen above. The cool thing is that they’re obviously getting to him. And note that he doesn’t rebut any charges in particular, as I do here — but only in general! He wants you to trust him. (You’d have to be nuts!)
Hypocrisy!
Ed Royce isn’t getting independent expenditures so far — because he implied that he didn’t need them based on the bogus primary outcome — but if you look at his campaign donations (AND WE WILL DO SO SOON!), you’ll see that he has piles and piles of donations from shadowy groups that ultimately can’t be traced back to individual donors. But that’s not the funniest thing about this:
The Existence and Secrecy of America Shining is Due to Citizens United — WHICH ROYCE FAVORS!!!
Jay Chen would like to see Supreme Court Justices appointed who would get rid of the travesty of Citizens United, which gives so much anonymous power to these independent groups — which are beyond his control. I presume that he’d favor seeing them have to disclose all of their donors. DOES ED ROYCE FAVOR THAT?
Come on, Ed — if you favor requiring SuperPACs to release their donors, please say so! Say so in a joint press conference with Karl Rove, the master manipulator, and then watch out because he might stab you in the back right then and there. Republicans are getting the brunt of the benefits from these anonymously funded SuperPACs — but it’s only a problem for Ed Royce if it affects him personally!
In Conclusion:
Some people wonder why Ed Royce won’t debate — or even appear publicly with — Jay Chen.
Everything that I’m saying here, Jay Chen already knows. He’s also really good at explaining it in person. That’s why Cowardly and Desperate Ed Royce won’t debate him.
This fear to stand next to his opponent is pathetic — and, worse for Ed Royce, it’s obvious. And voters are taking note of it. (Poor Desperate Ed! He’s been exposed!)
[Disclosure: I’m a candidate for State Senate in the district largely overlapping Jay Chen’s, but I have intentionally not let Jay or anyone connected to his campaign see this or hear about its specific contents before publishing it. I have planned to do a piece on each of Ed Royce’s blizzard of campaign mailers, but — as you can tell, it takes a lot of time to do even one of them!]
You said: “… That’s why Cowardly and Desperate Ed Royce won’t debate him.
This fear to stand next to his opponent is pathetic — and, worse for Ed Royce, it’s obvious. And voters are taking note of it. (Poor Desperate Ed! He’s been exposed!)”
I’m all for debates. I suppose you would also castigate S. Fienstein for the same reason?
Who’s S. Fienstein?
If you mean Senator Feinstein, I think it would be good form for her to debate her opponent. (Ditto with Bob Huff and me.)
In a close and hotly contested election like Royce’s though, I think that voters should demand a willingness to debate.
diamond why would huff debate you , he does not need too he is going to win by 35-40 percent over you . since you have worked so hard on your effort , yes i read moxleys story , and yes just filled out my ballott and royce and huff where put a big x next to their name , 3 votes for huff at the house . along with mitt , no on 30 , yes 32 ,
Starting to creep back in the game after a brutal tax filing deadline…
GD “The wealthy tend not to make their money through “hard work” but from investments.” I am somewhat insulted by the implication that the wealthy (apparently those who make more than $250K per year) are not “hard working”. Craziness!! There are many many people who earn their income who would be impacted by tax increases at POTUS Obama wants them. A very small portion would be the investor types. I would surmise that if you have ever tried to make a living by being an investor, it would also be considered to be “hard work”.
I am fine with you saying that we should raise taxes on investors, if that is what you mean, b/c the current system overly favors them, but to imply that those who make over $250K (the apparent definition of wealthy through tax raising proposals) are not “hard working” is such an insult to many people.
It seems that his statement is correct as it is written unless you think that the POTUS for example, who has wages of around $400K per year is not “hard working”. Or the business owner who makes $500K per year and puts in 80+ hour weeks consistently is not “hard working”. Or the doctor who makes $300K per year helping to keep people healthy is not “hard working”. Or the NFL football player who busts his ass physically for hours on end for $400K is not “hard working”. Or the “investor” who puts his own money on the line investing in a new startup, helping the young owners through each step of the way, and praying that his money is not lost, is not “hard work”. The list goes on and on…your assertion that those who have higher income are not working, does not seem to be correct from the figures.
Here are some figures from the 2009 IRS Stats that you may find interesting (note that those who have a small business such as a sole prop or a partnership or LLC interest generally would NOT have wages):
Filers w/ AGI > $300K: 1.77M filers; 1.26% of total filers (yes, the 1%)
Filers w/ AGI > $300K who have wage income: 1.5MM filers (88%)
Ave Wages of those who have AGI > $300K and Wages: $442K
Filers w/ AGI > $500K: 729K filers; 0.5% of total filers
Filers w/ AGI > $500K who have wages income: 622K filers (85%)
Ave Wages of those who have AGI > $500K and Wages: $685K
Ave Int/Div/CapGain of those w/ AGI > $300K: $187K
Ave Int/Div/CapGain of those w/ AGI > $500K: $395K
For the group of $300K to $1.5MM (ave AGI of $852K for the group), they make approx $105K of their income from int/div/capgain which is approx 12%. They make approx 60% of their income from wages. The difference would include both other “earned income” such as Sch C (sole prop business) and LLC/Partnership Income as well as less “earned” income such as rentals and S Corp income.
Hard Work does not always mean low pay…lots of higher income folks make a good living through hard work.
“Hard work” in the context used here generally means labor for salary, wage, or benefits. The wealthy can hand over control of much or all their income to an investment advisor like Romney’s son, if they wish, and do absolutely nothing else to collect their non-wage income.
One of the best definitions of “wealthy” that I know of is that one’s income derives more from investments than from one’s paid labor. That’s what I had in mind when I wrote this.
So you are not in favor of raising taxes on the hard working folks who earn their living through wage earning and business ownership just the investors? I am confused…I thought that you were in favor of the plan to raise taxes on those whose taxable income was $250K-ish. There are a lot of hard working folks in that group that don’t make their living off of their investments as the numbers above show. From one hard working taxpayer to another…
You’re conflating the policy I support (raise taxes on those earning $250K/year) with my explanation of my previous statement (how one might operationally distinguish the wealthy from others.) These concepts overlap, but they’re not the same thing.
Fair enough…you are fine with raising taxes on hard working folks, as long as they make more than $250K. A lot of the country is with you on that one- not me, but a lot.
Royce: “Believes that hard-working American families pay enough in taxes”. I guess you would not agree with that statement. I for one would rather see the investment income treated closer to that of earned income, although investing can definitely be hard work too. Hard working families pay enough, IMO.
BOUTWELL,
You’re right, many hard-working folks make over 250k a year and Obama wants to tax at a higher rate, the income OVER that first 200/250k.
So, if a couple makes 500k a year they’ll probably end up paying about 10k more in taxes. That is a lot of money, but doable for folks at that income level. It’s what they paid during the Clinton years. Also he wants to institute the Buffet Rule that makes sure folks who make over a million dollars a year pay at least a 30% tax rate, again people who can afford it, like Mitt Romney.
The reality of the US economy is that we ned to raise revenue and we’re going to have to go to the folks who have the money. People making 500k can afford a 10k tax increase easier than someone making 20k a year can afford a 200 dollar a year increase (something some Republicans have suggested).
I don’t know if you’re still believing in Romney’s magic tax plan, the one where nobody has to sacrifice ANYTHING or at least until he divulges those “numbers” (why if he insists that “of course they add up” won’t he SHOW them?).
Anyway here’s the latest “reality check” from the non-partisan Tax Policy Center about Romney’s “bucket of deductions” plan, you might find it interesting.
http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2012/10/17/how-much-revenue-would-a-cap-on-itemized-deductions-raise/
Anonster…you don’t need to remind me that it is only a tax increase on the amount over the $250K threshold; hopefully you know that I have a pretty good grasp of the micro numbers. However, I am going to disagree on your $10K figure. If you were only a few thousand off, no biggie but that is not the case.
A couple with no kids who has $500K of taxable income (TI) all from wages under current law would pay $144K of tax in 2012. That same couple in 2013 with $500K of TI would pay $163K. $19K more but they would also have to earn about $10K less in order to get to $500K TI due to non-tax rate adjustments such as exemption credits (none in 2012 for that income level- totally phased out). If we were to tax the same money earned in 2012 to get to $500K TI as taxable in 2013, the increase would be about $23K! Not sure how you are getting to $10K when it is more like double that figure- or more. Throw in investment income to the mix and the increase goes up even more due to the healthcare surcharge.
$19K is a lot of money for someone making $500K and even more painful than the $10K you state. That is over $1500 per month! I don’t care what you earn…that is real money.
As I have stated before, I am actually OK in utilizing some sort of minimum tax philosophy such as Buffet Rule in order to bring closer the wage vs investment taxing schemes. We already had a prior form through AMT have it but it has not kept up with the times- reform AMT.
I agree that we have to raise revenue, but don’t think we should necessarily make hard working folks pay more on the same income.
I am not believing in any “magic tax plan”…I do believe that if you put together a plan that has some parameters such as:
1. The share that the middle class will bear will not increase
2. The share that the upper class will bear will not decrease
3. No increase to the deficit
and the goal of simplifying and flattening, some good things can be done by some super smart finance leaders in congress. Reduce the rates, reduce/eliminate deductions/exemptions/credits, reduce other tax incentives for the upper class (i.e. retirement savings thresholds, health insurance taxability) to compensate for the rate reduction. Is it 20%…maybe not. Is it 20% for lower brackets and a lower reduction for higher brackets. If the math does not work…see #1, 2, & 3 above and start over. The gov’t is very good at picking winners and losers right now– I personally feel that the government should not pick winners and losers so much in the tax environment and so a reduction of exemptions/credits/deductions seems to move in that direction. I personally very possibly could pay more b/c I utilize a lot of those items that would be reduced (to be offset by the rate cut) such as kids, home, charity, ppty and state taxes (actually not them due to AMT). $2T is a good start out of $5T, but again, see 1, 2, 3 above…even better would be if we could find a sure fire way to increase the amount of income we tax (economic generation).
The TPC guys are numbers guys…I would love to see what their thoughts are on how to make it work. For example, do we get there if we eliminate deductions, reduce exemptions, reduce credits, tax health insurance, reduce retirement tax favors, etc…what would it actually take to hit the $5T? Would a 1% increase in the tax base work? Food for thought.
My math is wrong on the $19K above…that would be the number if all of the Bush cuts were to expire. The tax increase on someone who makes $500K TI, would be closer to around $15K…split the difference with Anonster…still real money- >$1K per month.
BOUTWELL,
I know you know about the only over 250k tax rule, not sure if everybody reading is clear on that fact. As for my math, I just did a rough calculation, you’re the tax man, I’ll take your word on the actual amount.
Still, a couple making 500k is bringing home over 40k a month and they can take the hit better than a couple making 50k a year. It is unfortunate that those not making the REALLY BIG BUCKS are going to have to pay, but that is where the money is.
If you make over 250k and you actually work for your money, you end up subsidizing folks like Mitt Romney.
I would like your take on why Mitt Romney won’t show us his numbers. Why would you trust anyone who would tell you “I have the numbers and they work, I just won’t show them to you”?
We can go around on the numbers for hours with different assumptions, but someone who has TI of around $500K is not taking home $40K per month after tax (income and payroll). They are more likely around $26K +/- depending on what their deduction situation is- nothing to sneeze at for sure. However, a 6% take home cut is sizeable even for someone making that type of money. They will spend less from my experience while still trying to save the same- at least the ones who are financially responsible will. Essentially, the additional taxes will reduce spending not saving.
My take on Romney…first, in my opinion everyone’s perception of the power that the POTUS has for tax policy is much more than they actually do. They can do squat without Congress (hence, Obama’s issue now). Since Romney knows this, he is trying to set out guidelines of what he would want to do including not adding to the deficit, not increasing the middle class’s share, not decreasing the upper class’ share, reducing rates, decreasing exemptions/credits/deductions. He is setting the path up for a “We” conversation that will be inevitable with Congress. A “Me” conversation will not get through Congress…it has to be a team approach.
Having said that, I would like to hear his starting point from a math perspective…for example: $5T in reductions due to 20% rate reduction/AMT/Estate Tax (all #’s over 10 years I believe), $2T raised from elimination of deductions, $500B from raised of credits, $500B from reduction of exemptions, $500B from other loopholes, $500B from repatriation of corporate foreign income, $500B from the expansion of the economy, $500B from elimination of something else, etc…those are my made up #’s by the way so don’t go fact check them- they are illustrative only. I would love to see it…of course I would, I am a numbers person.
However, as soon as people dive into the numbers, they forget about the overriding principles. Heck, people have already done that and he has not provided the numbers. Remember: no tax increase on middle, no decrease on upper (both in whole for the group…certain individuals will see ups and down), no additional debt from the changes, flatter tax rates, simpler calculations, etc…that sounds like a good thing to me and I make my living based on the confusion created by the tax code.
As with most strategies and visions in the beginning stages, you have to give enough to where people understand where you are going and want to achieve, but no so much that they destroy the plan before it is even discussed, massaged, and matured. Rarely is the first draft the right draft, but many final drafts never even get to be discussed because of the details. IMO, Romney has not done a good job in that area…I suspect you would think that is much too kind on my part, which is fine.
I can see the strategy of his thinking…likely because I live taxes, finance, and business daily. I can also see the confusion that it brings by not breaking it down into details. Again, it all comes down to trust. I can see where he wants to go, not sure he can get there, but even half way is better IMO. I can also see where POTUS Obama wants to go, and I feel it would not be on as much of a good path as the alternative.
You may not like or agree with my thoughts, but hopefully that at least explains where I am coming from.
BOUTWELL,
Well, this is what I find absurd;
“As with most strategies and visions in the beginning stages, you have to give enough to where people understand where you are going and want to achieve, but no so much that they destroy the plan before it is even discussed, massaged, and matured.”
Mitt Romney is running for POTUS based on his economic plan he OWES the american people the numbers so they can judge for themselves what loopholes, what exemptions and what deductions he’s planning on changing. After all, what is an election for? Silly me, I thought candidates propose plans and ideas and we get to decide whether or not we like those plans and ideas.
If Mitt Romney can’t defend his plan based on its merits or if he’s afraid it might be unpopular what does that say about him as a leader?
IMO; It says he’s an entitled asshole who doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the opinion or wishes of the american people.
BOUTWELL,
Another reason I don’t trust Romney’s economic plan is the “two Santa Claus theory” that the Republicans have embraced since Reagan. Remember when Dick Cheney said “deficits don’t matter”? He meant it, it’s the republican strategy. Found this letter-to-the-editor in the Baltimore Sun and he explains it better than I could;
The GOP’s ‘two Santa Claus theory’
June 21, 2012
Time and time again I hear Republicans chatter about how horrible President Obama has been for the economy. One of their funniest gaffes is that Obama is a big spending, government-loving liberal.
To put that in perspective: The average annual growth in federal spending under President Obama has been 1.4 percent.
Compare that to George W. Bush’s 7.7 percent, Ronald Reagan’s 6.8 percent,George H.W. Bush’s 5.4 percent and Nixon’s 10.4 percent. (These figures come from the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget and Marketwatch.
Now let’s look at federal employees. The federal government Mr. Obama leads has fewer non-military federal employees than it had when Ronald Reagan was president. Don’t believe me? You can look it up.
There is a two Santa Clause theory that started just before Mr. Reagan ran for the White House. It stated that stated since the Democrats “give” people things — unemployment benefits, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. — Republicans should “give” big tax cuts and run up the debt with out of control spending.
Then, when a Democrat is in office, Republicans can scream about the debt and force the Democrats to take away entitlements.
Can’t you see that game being played now?
Corey Golden, Baltimore
Anonster: “IMO; It says he’s an entitled asshole who doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the opinion or wishes of the american people.”
Well, that pretty much sums up your thoughts relatively well, I would think. My gut tells me that you probably would not be a Romney voter even if all of the numbers were presented and added up. I am not sure where you draw that conclusion based on his vision of tax policy, but I don’t understand a lot of people’s thoughts, so I am not surprised.
Question: if a plan was presented where the details support the vision, would you support it? The vision being tax simplification, lower rates, middle not paying any more, upper not paying any less, and no increase to deficit. I am trying to determine if you, and others for that fact, are against it because you don’t think it can be done based upon the numbers or if you feel the vision is a bad idea.
You know, speaking for myself (but I bet anonster would agree) we might agree or disagree with Romney’s plan, we’d probably disagree. But there would be a lot less anger and resentment over his not thinking us worthy of hearing it.
Boutwell,
If Romney’s plan was fleshed out, I could judge it. Hell, who wouldn’t want a plan where everybody wins, but unfortunately the devil is in the details. I don’t trust some one who says “he’s run the numbers and they all add up” yet doesn’t think that I’m capable of judging his plan BEFORE the election. That’s where the “entitled asshole” comes in, does he think he’s gonna be king?
You keep saying that his plan is one of “tax simplification, lower rates, middle not paying any more, upper not paying any less, and no increase to deficit” but that is NOT what he has been running on. Eliminating the estate tax is part of his plan, that is a HUGE GIFT to the super wealthy and not exactly budget neutral.
You also conveniently forget to add in his 2 trillion of military budget increases, why? He has promised it over and over again and I’m sure his wealthy donors in the military contracting business aren’t going to let him forget that promise, why do you?
Where is that money going to come from?
I may be biased, but I would love a plan where everyone payed the same or lower taxes and the budget was balanced and there weren’t going to be any cuts to medicare or social security, and ALL WE NEEDED TO DO WAS JIGGLE THE TAX CODE. Boy howdy, who wouldn’t love such a plan?
Unfortunately, I know a scam, a too good to be true deal, a sucker’s bet when I see one and that’s what Romney’s “economic plan” is.
i remember hard work,,,daddy used to make me walk the polo ponys around the field before a match and, when he really wanted to teach me values, he would send me to fetch the second and sometimes third bottle of champagne during the match. and, remember, it is hard work managing the staff at both the main house and the summer cottage, not to mention coordinating the G5 between colorado and the bahamas
Sounds like your daddy provided employment for a lot of people…good for him!