Tag: Mitt Romney

Mitt’s other good idea

Mitt’s other good idea

Posted on by Jack

A few days ago, I was adding to this blog and mentioned that Mitt Romney had 2 good ideas and how one of them might help solve the fiscal cliff problem. But I didn’t mention that other idea.

And nobody asked. I was wondering if nobody was paying close attention. Maybe they were just in awe of my explanation of the first idea and didn’t think about that second idea that I just left out there. Or maybe they just didn’t care. But I do. So I’ll tell you about that second idea.

It was just a matter of seconds between the first idea (which I though was absolutely brilliant and may solve that pesky fiscal cliff problem) and that second idea. In itself, the first idea won’t cause the economy to boom but it may help us from sliding into a second recession.

The second idea won’t cause the economy to boom either. It won’t even stop a second recession. At least I think not. But I have been wrong before. I don’t think it happens that often but I know people who disagree.

The second idea probably is not even in the ball park of modest middle class tax relief when it comes to saving money on your taxes. But it is huge in reducing the middle class a pain-in-the-ass aspect of doing your taxes.

What is the idea?

Here it is:

… every middle-income taxpayer no longer will pay any tax on interest, dividends or capital gains. No tax on your savings. That makes life a lot easier.

If you’re getting interest from a bank, if you’re getting a statement from a mutual fund or any other kind of investment you have, you don’t have to worry about filing taxes on that, because there’ll be no taxes for anybody making $200,000.00 per year and less, on your interest, dividends and capital gains.

Of course you want to be sure I am just not making this up. So if you are not the trusting type, you can look it up at ABC News: Debate transcript.

So how does this reduce the pain-in-the-ass aspect of doing your taxes for us middle class types. I do my own taxes so let me give an example. I’ll just make up some stuff here so some over-zealous IRS agent doesn’t want to check my taxes.

Say for a wedding gift someone gave someone else (not me certainly) 1 share of XYZ corporation which the gifter thought was going up (after all everyone needs XYZs) and would make the giftee and spouse rich by their 10th anniversary. To make it more likely this one share would lead to a fortune, it was enrolled in a Dividend ReInvestent Plan (or DRIP) which would reinvest dividends and so forth in additional shares.

By that 10th anniversary the happy couple now own 2.583 share of XYZ with an approximate market value of twenty bucks. Then XYZ get new management and someone figures out that the company is spending way too much money administering these small DRIP accounts.

So the couple gets a letter from XYZ saying that the plan will be terminated unless the stock holder has at least 50 shares in the plan. So their options are to take the $20 or invest hundreds of dollars more. Not surprisingly, they take the money.

Then come tax time, they get a statement from the company. And then they realize that they need to fill out a tax form.
But the IRS doesn’t ask for much – just when they bought the shares and what they paid.

The problem is they misplaced all those quarterly statements they have been getting for 10 years as their dividends reinvest. So now they need to creatively come up with some figures that make sense. They could look up the value of the stock each quarter or maybe just make up numbers that seem to make sense. But how do they figure out how many shares or what fraction of a share they bought each time?

So it is just a matter of figuring which quarters the company paid dividend and how those reinvestments compounded to give them a total of 2.587 shares. Now they wish they paid a bit more attention to their math teachers.

Then after spending a few hours on that, they figure that they made a profit of $ 1.87. But they are not finished yet. They have to figure out how to apportion this between long and short term capital gains. This doesn’t take too long, just adds a bit of insult to injury.

But if Congress had only taken Mitt’s suggestion and modified the tax code, tax-time would be so much easier. After all if you have such a large tax code, there is really not much of a reason not to tack on a few pages that may relieve some of the pain.

Mitt Romney had a Good Idea

Mitt Romney had a Good Idea

Posted on by Jack

In defending his tax plan which many analysts thought impossible Mitt Romney did come up with 2 good ideas, one of which may be a partial solution to the fiscal cliff we are facing.

President Obama is pretty insistent on raising the tax rates on households making over a quarter million dollars per year. Republicans are insistent that this rate won’t be raised. This standoff is over the temporary Bush tax cuts which should have expired but were temporarily extended 2 years ago and are now set to expire again at the end of this year.

The Democratic view is that these tax cuts should be kept in place for those households making over a quarter million dollars per year and allowed to expire for those earning more. The Republican view is that the tax cuts should be extended for everyone, regardless of income. Let us just call this the tax rate standoff.

Certainly there are many other tax issues – the estate tax, payroll taxes, dividend taxes, capital gains taxes, carried interest to name a few – but I think Mitt Romney may have suggested the solution to the tax rate standoff.

So here is Mitt’s good idea :

And so, in terms of bringing down deductions, one way of doing that would be say everybody gets — I’ll pick a number — $25,000 of deductions and credits, and you can decide which ones to use. Your home mortgage interest deduction, charity, child tax credit, and so forth, you can use those as part of filling that bucket, if you will, of deductions.

So if rates are kept the same on everyone (as the Republicans want), Congress can still limit deductions to a number which will not adversely effect those households making less than a quarter million dollars per year but would still raise taxes on those households making over a quarter million dollars per year (as the Democrats want).

Of course, it won’t be a sharp divide at a quarter million dollars per year but it meets the spirit of what both sides want to do. I’m not sure if the number picked is the right one and if there should be additional rules but this caps could be the start of a discussion.

this election, you dislike both, 3rd party candidates

this election, you dislike both, 3rd party candidates

Posted on by Jack

Just to quickly review what I’ve had to say about this election, see http://www.jackreidy.com/blog/tag/mitt-romney/.

Also if you are undecided between the 2 major candidates because you dislike both, have a look at 3rd party candidates in your state.

Obama, Romney, campaign promises, be afraid

Obama, Romney, campaign promises, be afraid

Posted on by Jack

Obama says stuff; Romney says stuff. You might think of them as campaign promises. But there is a difference –

With Obama, you might be afraid he won’t deliver on all his promises.

With Romney, you worry that he might deliver on some.

Be afraid, very afraid.

Only 12 Million jobs, Governor Romney

Only 12 Million jobs, Governor Romney

Posted on by Jack

Mitt Romney has mentioned many times that his policies will add 12 million jobs.

I wrote about this before but thought an update is in order.

He says this will happen over his 4 year administration and it will be due to his five-point plan.

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

Turns out there is no strong tie to his 5 point plan, just a tie to average growth returning. Over 4 years this breaks down to a quarter million jobs added per month.

When Obama took over as President we were losing over 800,000 jobs per month. He turned that around and we have been gaining jobs since early 2010. The figures bounce around from month to month but have been over a quarter million some months and significantly less others but always positive. (See Is the Obama job recovery really so bad? And the stimulus worked ).

Is it better to trust the man who got us out of the job decline and is actually gaining jobs or the man who says he is going to do somewhat better but has no evidence to back-up his claim?

Is the Obama job recovery really so bad? And the stimulus worked

Is the Obama job recovery really so bad? And the stimulus worked

Posted on by Jack

There has been much complaint about the Obama job recovery and many think we should trust our economy to Governor Romney because President Obama is doing such a bad job. His stimulus failed they say.

In my view President Obama is doing a good job considering where we came from 4 years ago and the lack of cooperation from Republicans in Congress who have blocked many of his attempts in the past 2 years to fix the jobs situation.

There is absolutely no credible evidence that Republican ideas would help the job market. Well, there are theories and “Atlas Shrugged” but no real evidence. After all, Republican ideas were put into effect in the years before the economic melt-down and we saw the result. Why are these ideas and this party going to fix things now?

So I thought it would be a good idea to revisit an old post from over a year ago and update it with new job figures.

The graph below shows the month to month change in private employment during the months from January 2008 to October 2012. The numbers on the right indicate thousands of jobs gained or lost each month. All numbers and the graph are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) of the U.S. Department of Labor.

The graph clearly shows accelerating job loss in 2008 hitting over 800,0000 jobs lost in January 2009, staying in that area for several months, followed by a decreasing job loss, and emerging into positive job growth in early 2010. The job growth is too small bring down our stubbornly high unemployment rate but it is moving in the right direction. We need to create more jobs to keep up with the constantly growing labor force. Total job figures are a bit lower as we have the number of jobs in the public sector decreasing in many months.

Jobs Chart BLS OCT 2012

There are quite a few things that could influence the economy in this time. The slow-down in job decline in early 2009 seems to suggest that stimulus plan seems to have worked but is now slowing down. The TARP program passed in late 2008 may have helped this recovery. And one could argue that things would be better or worse if we had followed a different plan.

So President Obama seems to be doing as well as could be expected and it seems the most sensible course would be to re-elect him and re-elect fewer Republicans to Congress.

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.

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 .