Romney's" change": eat our seed corn; Obama's "forward" fertilizes the future

“CHANGE”, Mitt Romney's newest theme, is butting heads with Pres. Obama's “FORWARD”. Obama is making investments in our future a priority. Romney wants to return to the past policies. It is a profound choice ultimately decided by voters who are looking for a candidate whom they can trust to govern in their self interests.

Romney's vision has been a moving target. Which Romney, the pre or post debates version, could we trust to govern? It is most likely he will keep promises to those who brought him to power through the primaries and whose continued support he will need for re-election to a second term. To win the primaries, Romney embraced some extreme positions on women's health held by the religious right, the tax protesting Tea Partiers, and the interventionist neo cons who steered Bush and our country to invade Iraq .

In Debate #1 Romney moved to the center, or so it appeared. He threw a 20 percent tax reduction bone to the middle class, and spoke little about tax cuts to wealthy job creators that he still supported. He professed to feel the pain of the 47 percent he had so disdained in private yet he has never disavowed plans with embracing proposed cuts to the poor's safety net (called immoral by Catholic leaders) and to unspecified programs the middle class treasures. Throughout 2012, he confused leadership of the world with militaristic bluster until he became a verbal peacenik in Debate #3.

Fact checkers and non partisan analysts call Romney's revised tax plans impossible to achieve because there are not enough upper income loopholes to cover the losses of tax income to the treasury. He is making promises which he could never keep without blowing a hole in the deficit or raising middle class taxes and eliminating their deductions. Facts count? Not necessarily. Pledging lower taxes is an ancient, winning political strategy.

Will Romney's riff that Obama's next four years be like the last? No. The International Monetary Fund predicts US growth over the next four years will be 3 percent a year. Respected analysts such as Moody's noted 12 million jobs would be created anyway by just staying the course laid out by Obama. Romney's promise to create 12 million jobs in four years is one pledge he could keep since it will happen even if he is not elected.

On some issues Romney does not need Congress to cooperate. These are promises he can keep. He has pledged to repeal Obamacare, with results that would return the 27 million uninsured to expensive emergency rooms, with no reduction in future health care costs. He has promised executive orders to exempt states from implementing Obamacare and he can choose not to spend money Congress authorized.

We can trust him to overturn Roe v Wade through his Supreme Court nominations that would end 50 years of women's control over their health decisions. The Court needs just one more conservative vote and the Senate approval rarely hinges on a nominees position on a future specific case.

Obama's FORWARD is straight forward. He positions are known and consistent. His plans for the second term are to complete what a stonewalling Congress stopped in 2010, to continue to implement Obamacare and Wall Street reform, and to seek solutions to the deficit similar his own Grand Bargain proposal.

Priorities count. Romney's is “ eat our seed corn” with large cuts in federal budgets: aid to education, investment in research and development, and infrastructure, meaning that the next generations will be stuck in the past for years to come while the rest of the world moves ahead. Obama promises to fertilize the future as he proposes the exact opposite.

Obama's course on balance leads to a better future. Romney can keep his change.

This is the column that appeared in the Sky Hi Daily News on line edition today: www.skyhidailynews.com
For more, visit www.mufticforumblog.blogspot.com and www.mufticforumespanol.blogspot.com

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. It's the how to details that count Oct. 3

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

If wishes were horses

Beggars would ride….

That nursery rhyme teaches  the folly of wishing without a workable action plan . .   Mitt Romney has  based his  campaign on wishes.  Who does not want  more jobs,  a growing economy, and a solution to the deficit problem:?  Some  items not on his list were  apple pie.(Motherhood crops up in his severe right turn to social conservatism as he proposes ending Planned Parenthood and overturning Roe v Wade) and  the details  of  how he would  turn those wishes into reality. He has a chance to fill in the blanks  in the debate in Denver, Oct. 3 (tonight).

So who will win the debate?    Many experienced observers  believe   it is the degree of  likeability , competence, and who comes up with the best zingers. However, Pres. Clinton received praise for this year’s Democratic  convention speech  for being the “explainer in chief”..  There is  a hunger for explanations and this  may be the year of “it’s the message details, stupid”. 

 

Polls are showing that confidence in the President’s ability to manage the economy has increased so much, he is ahead of Romney now.  Obama so far has succeeded in making the case that   the GOP’s trickle down theories of cutting taxes on the wealthy and inflicting pain on the poor and middle class are not the only paths  to recovery . What the President has done or plans to do is more palatable and will eventually work..

While weak on the “how to”  details,  Romney has answered one question.     Whose interests would he favor when hard choices have to be made after the election? He will have a difficult  time with that one,  especially when he.was caught dissing   47% of Americans   as government dependence lovers  and for  not paying income taxes ...  

 

The dilemma Romney faces is that our problems are difficult  to solve  without goring someone’s ox and turning off  voters.  The best strategy for him is to remain vague and. Obama’s task is not to let him get away with it.

 Romney has some new headwinds. Former President  Bill Clinton raised an important point at the Democratic Convention that gained some traction.  It is the “addition” issue, the “ fuzzy math” charge revisited.. .  The GOP is vulnerable on the question of  whether Romney’s  plans will  decrease the deficit. . Romney himself has presented few details, but  his running mate, Paul Ryan, has.  The Congressional Budget Office scored both the impact of repealing Obamacare and  Ryan’s budget reduction plan.  Their conclusion was that neither would  reduce the deficit, and would actually add to it. So obnoxious are some of Ryan’s proposals, especially concerning voucherizing Medicare, that Romney has distanced himself by claiming he has his own plans…though he has never let  us know  with what part of Ryan he differs..

The GOP often counters  with “the President has not given us details either”. Their argument is “two wrongs make a right  ” .  Unfortunately for that line of discourse, Obama has been more detailed than Romney has.  Obama  did present a detailed deficit reduction plan that included 10 cuts for every one revenue dollar raised. Obamacare is law, reduces the debt,  and extends the life of Medicare.  His jobs plan to hire teachers and build infrastructure was presented as legislation. . It is just that since 2010, the  Teaparty controlled House of Representatives blocked any new initiatives .

The GOP sheds crocodile tears that Obama did not embrace in entirety the Simpson Bowles recommendations, yet every single GOP  member of the Senate and House  voted against it when they had a chance. .   If Obama wins, a Simpson Bowles- like  approach will too. If the GOP gets the government reins, the Ryan plan rises. That is the fundamental choice facing us in November.

(A version of this appeared in the Sky Hi Daily News today)

For more  visit www.mufticforumespanol.blogspot.com

.

Romney insults even his supporters

The real Romney revealed himself  with   comments  at a private  fundraiser in Florida in May. I was not surprised.   I have heard  similar  opinions expressed  since  the 1950's, but  in 2012 it is an insult to many, and it  once again dramatized Romney’s disconnect with the reality of the  lives today of  most Americans.

His comments:“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax... my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives…”(Text source: the Washington Post fact checker blog)

A question to everyone  on Medicare and social security, or whose parents can find health and nursing home care because of  Medicaid when they outlived their assets :  Did you take personal responsibility and care for your lives? Since most of the recipients of Medicaid and food stamps are kids and elderly, are they even able to  take responsibility for their care?  Did you participate or benefit from these programs  because you felt you were a victim? Or did you participate because your income and savings would not sustain you or your family?

Romney deceptively limited  his figures to income taxes.  According to the Congressional Budget Office  all but 10% pay federal taxes in some form, including  payroll taxes and contributions toward   Medicare and Social Security.

So who do not pay income taxes?  Per senior fellows in the Brookings and Urban Institutes writing in the Washington Post: “About half of these households don’t pay federal income tax simply because their incomes are low. More than one-fifth are retirees who benefit from tax breaks for seniors, including an exemption for most Social Security benefits. And another one-seventh are working families with children whose income tax liability is eliminated because of the child tax credit… or the child and dependent care credit. Together, these three groups of taxpayers account for almost 90 percent of the households that pay no federal income tax.”

With these comments Romney brought additional  attention to  his disconnect with the real life of most Americans. His perspective  is stuck in a 1950’s  mind set  when   we could cover  medical bills in chickens  or even pay out of pocket; the medicine practiced then was unencumbered by expensive life extending   modern technology..  Dad could earn enough money for mom to stay home and take care of their aging parents and provide child care.  The poor stayed poor, they  could not go to college, and they were stuck in an underclass until in the 60’s they exploded when they could not take it anymore. .

 To backpeddle, Romney changed his tune.  Now he says he cares about the 100’%, but his and Paul Ryan’s    plans are not where his mouth is: They propose to cut Medicaid by 30%, Pell grants, Head Start,and  food stamps. Catholic Bishops have called these  plans to cut the poor’s safety net immoral. The plan to “save”  Medicare would,  privatize  part  and   eliminate the  guarantee the federal contribution will cover future costs..

To reduce the deficit is indeed an  important goal, but the Romney and Ryan plans are not the only way to do it.  Plans similar to the Simpson Bowles recommendations would inflict less pain on safety net programs and  maintain Medicare as we know it. Many alternatives are discussed at http://www.aarp.org/health/.

 The above is a version that appeared in today's Sky Hi Daily News