Tag: elections

Listen carefully to Mitt Romney on FEMA

Listen carefully to Mitt Romney on FEMA

Posted on by Jack

Listen carefully to Mitt Romney. He seems to say stuff and you think he agrees with you. Last year there was an exchange with CNN’s John King at a debate that seemed to indicate he did not approve of FEMA. I guess it was easy to believe he would abolish it but that is not what he said.

This partial transcript is from breitbart.com.

KING: Governor Romney? You’ve been a chief executive of a state. I was just in Joplin, Missouri. I’ve been in Mississippi and Louisiana and Tennessee and other communities dealing with whether it’s the tornadoes, the flooding, and worse. FEMA is about to run out of money, and there are some people who say do it on a case-by-case basis and some people who say, you know, maybe we’re learning a lesson here that the states should take on more of this role. How do you deal with something like that?

ROMNEY: Absolutely. Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better.
Instead of thinking in the federal budget, what we should cut — we should ask ourselves the opposite question. What should we keep? We should take all of what we’re doing at the federal level and say, what are the things we’re doing that we don’t have to do? And those things we’ve got to stop doing, because we’re borrowing $1.6 trillion more this year than we’re taking in. We cannot…

KING: Including disaster relief, though?

ROMNEY: We cannot — we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we’ll all be dead and gone before it’s paid off. It makes no sense at all.

This is commonly interpreted to mean that Romney would eliminate or severely cut back FEMA. But that is not what he actually said. The Breitbart article cited above suggests that he just avoiding the question and reciting one of his talking points. If so, it came back to haunt him.

The technique of not answering questions is common enough among politicians not wish to offend anyone listening by actually taking a position. In this case it did not work out. It is frustrating to those of us who are trying to find out what a politician believes we should do (and what that politician may do if elected).

But now Romney seems to be supportive of FEMA. Below is a very recent quote from CBS News.

I believe that FEMA plays a key role in working with states and localities to prepare for and respond to natural disasters. As president, I will ensure FEMA has the funding it needs to fulfill its mission, while directing maximum resources to the first responders who work tirelessly to help those in need, because states and localities are in the best position to get aid to the individuals and communities affected by natural disasters.

But notice again what he actually says. While the statement appears to support FEMA in general, it offers no specifics. What is the “funding it needs”? Is what he thinks it needs similar to what you think it needs or in the same ballpark that recent administrations have allotted.

It seems unlikely to me that given the severe cuts to the domestic side of the budget promised by Governor Romney that FEMA or many other non-military or security agencies would fair well. FEMA seems especially unlikely to get adequate support since he seems to believe in state and local action in natural disasters.

The Romney-Ryan anti-choice team

The Romney-Ryan anti-choice team

Posted on by Jack

I thought I would look back on a previous post and repeat much of what I said but emphasize the anti-choice aspects of it.

This is a quote from the Vice Presidential Debate last month. The link to the entire transcript is the my original post.

Representative Ryan:

“That’s why — those are the reasons why I’m pro-life.

Now, I understand this is a difficult issue. And I respect people who don’t agree with me on this. But the policy of a Romney administration will be to oppose abortion with the exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.”

Rep. Ryan is saying that he respects people who disagree with his belief but the favors a law that would force them to comply with his belief.

Or more accurately, they must comply with Gov. Romney’s belief because Rep. Ryan doesn’t believe in those exceptions but does defer to the top of the ticket.

So I guess if you are anti-choice and favor the repeal of Roe v Wade, the Romney-Ryan team is for you. If you are pro-choice, the issue is also pretty clear.

Listen carefully to Mitt Romney

Listen carefully to Mitt Romney

Posted on by Jack

Listen carefully to Mitt Romney. Although he does seem exceedingly vague at times and often mathematically challenged. Some of what he says may give you an idea about his plans. But you must listen carefully and think about it.

Governor Romney is no doubt a very smart man. He has made a fortune in business so I doubt his grasp of math is as weak as his statements might suggest. He has been very successful in business, in running the Salt Lake Olympics and as Governor. So I don’t think his thinking is vague. But as a successful politician, he must be vague to mask his ideas that some or maybe even most voters would not agree with.

What got me thinking about this was an article in the Christian Science Monitor. The article explained how his statement about the rich paying the same percentage of income tax as now really has nothing to do with the rich and not-so-rich getting similar benfits from the tax plan or the tax system maintaining its progressive nature.

Then there are other tax issues such as inheritance and payroll taxes. Listen carefully of what he says and read this article

More disingenuous crap from Mitt Romney on medicare this time

More disingenuous crap from Mitt Romney on medicare this time

Posted on by Jack

I do like the term “disingenuous crap” to describe many of Mitt’s apparent positions. This time he is talking about Medicare.

I suppose it is meant to scare seniors who don’t think it through. Be Scared, very scared. Not so much about Obama’s cuts to Medicare as Mitt would like. But just think about the Medicare cuts in the Ryan/Romney budget.

Read the NPR story on his latest dubious and baffling claim. Is he really that that confused or is he trying to confuse us?

Who Do You Trust? Obama or Romney

Who Do You Trust? Obama or Romney

Posted on by Jack

When I was a kid there was a game show called Who Do You Trust?. I don’t remember ever watching but I remember seeing the promos on my TV. I think elections come down to that question.

Politicians are not known for their forthrightness. I liked that last word and it seemed to fit but I had to look it up to make sure. Forthrightness is defined as “Direct and without evasion” or “straightforward” by the Free Dictionary.

Politicians are good at telling you what you want to hear, not what you should know about them or their plans. We select our leaders with imperfect and incomplete information.

I’ve complained about Mitt Romney’s lack of specifics many times in the past months but to be fair I should note that Barack Obama is not always very specific about what he would do in a second term. But as I see it, the President has spent almost 4 years being very specific, even sending specific plans to Congress with proposals of what he would like to do.

Think about our real needs to rebuild our decaying infrastructure or educate workers or help veterans re-enter the job market. The president has proposed plans. Congress rejects these plans. It always seems to be Republicans blocking these plans. (To be fair I note that Democrats often reject Republican plans.)

Now I am not saying that each of Obama’s plans is perfect or that Congress could not work with the administration to improve these plans. But in many cases, Congress did not suggest improvements but just rejected these plans on a partisan basis. My point is that you have a pretty good idea about the type of things he would like to do.

Governor Romney has no such track record. All we have are his vague statements, a track record as governor of Massachusetts but he has pretty much denied everything he has done there (except for being a bipartisan guy which is somewhat in dispute), and his business record. It is unclear to me how this would translate into success in running the federal government.

I think all elected leaders run on a platform of “trust me”. But in this race, Romney requires a lot more trust.

Podcast: misleading politicians

Podcast: misleading politicians

Posted on by Jack

Politicians tell voters what they want to hear, even when it makes no sense.

I mentioned before that I like to walk and when I don’t have company, I usually listen to podcasts. Today I was listening to the Freakonomics podcast “We the Sheeple”.

The guest was Bryan Caplan, Professor of Economics at George Mason University, who is not a big fan of our political system and politicians. In his words,

You know, if you’re a successful politician, you know you don’t succeed by figuring out what’s really going on in the world and trying to explain it to people. You need to find out what people what to hear and then tell it to them. That’s what you see in debates. That’s what you see voters, successful politicians instinctively are trying to read people, trying to read their faces, what does this person want me to say to him, and that’s how they win.

It was a very interesting discussion for those of us who are a bit skeptical about what politicians tell us. It would be a bit of an eye-opener for those who believe everything they say, even if it doesn’t seem to pass the common sense test.

Mitt Romney is now the candidate of big change or big flip-flop

Mitt Romney is now the candidate of big change or big flip-flop

Posted on by Jack

So Mitt Romney is now the candidate of big change. Sounds very 2008 when President Obama was a candidate of hope and change.

I guess the difference is that I liked some of President Obama’s changes. I think it is good that health insurers can’t turn down people with pre-existing medical conditions. And it is good that insurers cannot cap your coverage if you have some really big claims. It seems good that insurers cannot find a reason to deny coverage if you are sick. There will be problems with health care reform and we need to elect people who will modify the reform to get it right.

I like that the economy is not falling apart and we are not losing hundreds of thousands of jobs each month as we did in the year before Obama took office. It seems the Presidents Bush and Obama (and Congress) took the right steps in late 2008 and 2009 to reverse the trend. Certainly things could be much better and I think they probably would be if Republicans in congress did not block many of President Obama’s efforts. But I see nothing to indicate Governor Romney would do any better.

I like that Obama seems to have a thoughtful foreign policy.

But Governor Romney is also known for his changes or flip-flops. I am surprised he wants to remind voters about that.

Science Debate

Science Debate

Posted on by Jack

No doubt science is important. Very important. It help us understand our world and beyond. It guides us in many ways as we find our way to live in the world. It is the basis of industrial advances. It is an important part of a healthy economy. Scientific advances are also important to our health. The ways in which science impacts our lives are almost too numerous to count.

Yet science does not seem to play a large part in political debates. The presidential candidates barely mention science and certainly not in any way that approaches its importance to our society. I’m not aware of any elected political office where the candidates discuss science.

But the presidential candidates (President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney) participated in an online science forum ( http://www.sciencedebate.org/ ) in which they answered a series of science questions.

The questions were submitted to and answered by the candidates. So it wasn’t really a debate but it is the start of a discussion and the hope is that candidates might be moved to address these important scientific questions in a debate.

So if you would like to know what the candidates are thinking about science, be sure to check out http://www.sciencedebate.org/.

Romney’s 12 million job promise

Romney’s 12 million job promise

Posted on by Jack

Mitt Romney has mentioned many times that his policies will add 12 million jobs. In the recent debate ( transcript here ) he specified this would happen in 4 years and is a result of his five-point plan.

That’s why I put out a five-point plan that gets America 12 million new jobs in four years and rising take-home pay.

Or at least that is what he seems to be saying.

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post has written an article called Romney’s facts are curious things. A great article that examines this 12 million jobs claim. Turns out there is no strong tie to his 5 point plan and the 4 years thing is a bit fuzzy too. But read the article. You’ll be glad you did.

What are Mitt Romney’s education policies?

What are Mitt Romney’s education policies?

Posted on by Jack

I was trying to find out a bit more about Mitt Romney’s education policies since in both debates he seemed to come across as very pro-education. What I’ve found didn’t seem very consistent with his statements in the debates.

In both debates he indicated that he thought education was important and would not cut education funding. In the first debate, he mentions Massachusetts schools being #1 in the country and seemed to be talking about K-12 education. In the second debate, his answer to the college student promised a growth in Pell grants and a loan program. It was unclear whether he was promising a new program or continuation or the existing program. But he seemed to support higher education.

According to Valerie Strauss an education writer for the Washington Post, Massachusetts schools may have been #1 in some ranking but not the one usually used. Furthermore, while Massachusetts schools were once excellent, they declined while Romney was governor (but are still very good). And Romney supports the budget of his running mate which included big cuts for education.

Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up?

I also noticed that his website includes a group called Educators for Romney. That section seems to be a blog with 2 entries. A general comment on the debate by an advisor. And an entry on education by Rod Paige a former Secretary of Education. They may want to beef-up this section of the website.

Those of us who remember the George W. Bush years, remember Rod Paige as Bush’s secretary of education. We were told he was the Houston School Superintendent who greatly reduced the dropout rate. It turned out out that this outstanding feat was the result of cooking the books. But perhaps his greatest claim to fame is calling National Education Association a “terrorist organization” . He later claimed it was a bad joke, but clearly this is not a man who would get on well with the millions of teachers in the NEA.

This got me curious about his other education advisors. Turns out that many were advisors to President George W. Bush .

Pro-life and Anti-Choice: VP abortion debate

Pro-life and Anti-Choice: VP abortion debate

Posted on by Jack

Abortion is a issue on which Americans disagree. One side believes it should be legal. The other believes it should be illegal.

In last night’s Vice Presidential Debate, Vice President Biden and Representative Ryan pretty much expressed positions on opposite sides of this issue. The quotes below are from NPR which has the video and transcript online. Those interested in the whole exchange can find it there.

Representative Ryan:

“That’s why — those are the reasons why I’m pro-life.

Now, I understand this is a difficult issue. And I respect people who don’t agree with me on this. But the policy of a Romney administration will be to oppose abortion with the exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.”

Of course if you think about, it Rep. Ryan is saying that he respects people who disagree but the favors a law that would force them to comply with his belief. Or more accurately, they must comply with Gov. Romney’s belief because Rep. Ryan doesn’t believe in exceptions but does defer to the top of the ticket

Vice President Biden:

“With regard to — with regard to abortion, I accept my church’s position on abortion as a — what we call de fide (doctrine ?). Life begins at conception. That’s the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life.

But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews and — I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the congressman.”

I am with Joe Biden on this one. I don’t think I should impose my beliefs on others. I think it is a difficult decision but I would rather see individuals involved decide rather than the government.

I can understand why some people will have positions very different, even opposite, from my positions. But I think there is a lack of consistency in taking positions that highlight individual free choice for most aspects of life but take the anti-choice position in others.

Then there is a practical issue. Abortions will occur whether legal or not. Would it not be better to have them occur in plain sight where they will be safer?

Lesser of two evils and the evil of two parties

Lesser of two evils and the evil of two parties

Posted on by Jack

Quite often our choices in elections come down to picking the candidate we believe to be the lesser of two evils. We just don’t like our choices. Pick 1 of 2 but you dislike both.

So who do you dislike least ? Who do you vote against ?

The choices we make in each election seem fairly important. And this election could be very important.


But in the long-run a perhaps it is just as important or maybe even more important that we find a better election system. I have written in this blog about this. I cite one post here but click on the tag “partisanship” to see a long list.

Mickey Edwards has written a fine book about it, The Parties Versus the People: How to Turn Republicans and Democrats into Americans which I read and reviewed several months back. This book really started me thinking that we have given up too much control to the 2 major political parties.

You might be interested in Mickey Edwards’ Atlantic article which explored this before he had expanded the argument to book length.

I ran across this series of articles which also explored this problem. The link is to one article in the series but you can easy find the others on the website.

The first step is to think about it. And if you think it is a problem, lend your support to those who would like to do something about it.

Slippery Mitt moves toward the middle in the debate

Slippery Mitt moves toward the middle in the debate

Posted on by Jack

It has been widely said that Mitt Romney clearly won the first presidential debate held on October 3, 2012. Here is a transcript of the first presidential debate.

How did he do it? It comes down to that President Obama was unprepared for another shake of the Etch a Sketch when Slippery Mitt was asked about the tax plan that he has been proposing for a year or so. President Obama asked how it was possible to have to have this large tax cut and greatly increase military spending without adding to the deficit. Yes, old Mitt slipped away while denying any increase in the deficit was possible under his plan. He said that he would not increase the deficit. He said it, so it can’t happen.

“My plan is not to put in place any tax cut that will add to the deficit.”, said Mitt Romney. This seems to be something new. Before it was a kind of article of faith that if you cut taxes the economy would boom and revenue would pour into the federal coffers. But does this mean that if the massive tax cuts look like they might cause a deficit, that the tax cuts are off the table? Are they conditional on Congress agreeing to end enough deductions to offset the lower rates. Do we have any particulars on which deductions will be lost?

Further, it is widely assumed that this severely conservative budget will be a decrease over the present budget. So if we massively increase military spending and decrease taxes rates (although that will be wholly of partly offset by decreasing unspecified deductions), it stands to reason that some pretty big cuts must come out of the other stuff. But when President Obama questioned Slippery Mitt on how he would cut education, Mitt slipped away again by saying he would not cut education. So now it seems like the cuts elsewhere would be more severe.

You may have noticed that he did not agree to any of Obama’s expansions to education (more teachers and so forth), he just said he would not cut. Exactly what that means, I do not know. But it does sound much more moderate that previous stances.

So I think most of us figured Mitt Romney would eventually slip away from some of the more conservative positions he has taken and try to move toward the middle but he surprised me and maybe the President by his quick and bold moves during the debate.

But the lack of specifics in his proposals has been maddening. Of course, for most of these changes he has to work with Congress. So it would be foolish to say “this is what will happen”. But it would be nice if he took a position and said “this is what I propose”. Instead all we get are vague statements like – I know how to create 12 million jobs or I will cut the budget.

So trust in Slippery Mitt and trust in our highly-regarded Congress. It seems like such a good plan.

Mitt Romney may know something we don’t know about Voter ID

Mitt Romney may know something we don’t know about Voter ID

Posted on by Jack

Most of the polls I’ve seen indicate that President Obama is widening his lead in Pennsylvania but Mitt Romney has campaigned here in an attempts to turn things around. I know of at least 2 events yesterday (Friday).

I try to remember not to answer my phone without checking my caller-ID. Today unknown caller was calling so I figured it was a political or maybe a sales call and I’d listen to the message if there was one. The message was inviting me to a victory event for the Romney campaign tomorrow.

Does Mitt Romney know something we don’t know? Maybe the pollsters (except those working for the Republicans) are not figuring on an extensive suppression of the democratic vote by the new voter ID law passed by the republicans in the state house?

Writing off the 47%

Writing off the 47%

Posted on by Jack

Yesterday, I noted that Mitt Romney is writing off the 47% who don’t pay federal income taxes as Obama supporters. I pointed out that if this is correct, it pretty much insures an Obama victory and Romney loss. But there is more to the quote than that.

Governor Romney said:

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.

Quite a few of these people are responsible, despite what Mitt Romney thinks. The figure would include many on Social Security and Medicare who probably saved and paid taxes for much of their lives. There are the working poor. Leonard Pitts, Jr. profiles several of these in his “True stories of the 47 percent”. Interesting one of the comments is from the wife of a soldier who paid no income taxes because he was deployed to Iraq. There are people on disability.

There are many reasons people do not pay income taxes. What most have in common is that they make too little money. And many of them do pay other taxes. Some may be irresponsible. But it is probably not many and certainly not all.

There are even rich people who somehow avoid paying income tax (but that is another discussion for another day).

The President is president of all Americans, not 53% of them.