It is conspicuous that Mitt Romney is NOT, emphatically not, running on his record as governor of the state of Massachusetts.
When Sarah Palin was the vice-presidential nominee in 2008, all we heard about was the importance of that kind of executive experience, as mayor, and as a part-term governor, compared to Obama having only been a member of the Illinois state legislature, and subsequently having been elected to the U.S. Senate - an arguably more prestigious position which gave him practical insight into the function of legislation at both the state and federal level that Palin lacked.
Why is that not true in 2012, if it was ever true in 2008?
Could it be it was because as the head of the executive branch of government, Mitt R-money was not very good? That is exactly why, particularly in respect to job creation, and what arguably SHOULD be a successful policy he should boast about - health care reform, which has been so successful, that the state of Massachussetts filed an amicus brief in support of the Affordable Care Act because of how it had worked out for the problems within Massachussetts.
Bain is not a plus, should not be a plus; it is a perfect example of how money is extracted from our economy, extracted from the middle class and those who comprise the labor pool of this nation, redistributing that money, that wealth, to the upper 1% and away from the 99%.
These paragraphs from a recent STrib article on how Mitt R-money's relationship with Bain is hurthing his campaign illustrate the issue:
When Sarah Palin was the vice-presidential nominee in 2008, all we heard about was the importance of that kind of executive experience, as mayor, and as a part-term governor, compared to Obama having only been a member of the Illinois state legislature, and subsequently having been elected to the U.S. Senate - an arguably more prestigious position which gave him practical insight into the function of legislation at both the state and federal level that Palin lacked.
Why is that not true in 2012, if it was ever true in 2008?
Could it be it was because as the head of the executive branch of government, Mitt R-money was not very good? That is exactly why, particularly in respect to job creation, and what arguably SHOULD be a successful policy he should boast about - health care reform, which has been so successful, that the state of Massachussetts filed an amicus brief in support of the Affordable Care Act because of how it had worked out for the problems within Massachussetts.
Bain is not a plus, should not be a plus; it is a perfect example of how money is extracted from our economy, extracted from the middle class and those who comprise the labor pool of this nation, redistributing that money, that wealth, to the upper 1% and away from the 99%.
These paragraphs from a recent STrib article on how Mitt R-money's relationship with Bain is hurthing his campaign illustrate the issue:
But can the Obama campaign turn the argument over Romney and Bain into a broader challenge to the Republican claim that the only thing government can do to spur job creation is to get out of the way?
"Jobs" will remain the Romney battle cry for the rest of the campaign, but the success of the anti-Bain offensive points to an opportunity for Obama to engage in a kind of political jujitsu. He can argue that Romney's primary interest is not in job creation at all but in low-tax and deregulatory policies he would favor whether the economy was soaring or flat.
In a recent talk at the Center for American Progress, Stefan Löfven, the new leader of the Swedish Social Democratic Party, outlined a way to turn the debate around, arguing that job creation worldwide should be the focus of center-left parties. New policies on job creation should also be concerned with the quality and conditions of the jobs, how quickly the unemployed can be moved to new work, and how the unemployed are treated and assisted toward new opportunities.
Here are the questions voters should be encouraged to ask in 2012: Should government focus directly on innovative approaches to creating good jobs in a new economy?
Or should it be relegated to a position of powerlessness in which its only option is to concede ever more benefits to those -- including the financial wizards at Bain -- who are already doing very well indeed?
Let us remember, it's all about jobs ... even some jobs that maybe some may not want to do ... for example, who do you call to Dispose of Aborted Fetuses ?
ReplyDeleteWell, how about Bain and ask for Mr. Romney ....
According to Securities and Exchange Commission documents, Romney was involved in Bain's investment in a company called Stericycle in late 1999. What did Stericycle do? Well, it was a fast-growing, profitable medical waste company. But it also had some problems, such as getting fined for keeping body parts and dead animals in unmarked containers or exposing workers to tuberculosis. And then there were the fetuses.
The SEC documents state that Romney "may be deemed to share voting and dispositive power with respect to" more than 2 million shares of Stericycle stock "in his capacity as sole shareholder" in the Bain companies involved in the deal. A late November 1999 document names Romney as holding "voting and dispositive power" over the Bain-owned stock.
Hmmmm ... wouldn't you like to see his tax filings now to know what other jobs Mr. Romney deemed to be a profitable investment opportuntity ?
BTW … some good reads
ReplyDeleteFrom the Washington Post Mystery Bermuda-based company and other undisclosed Romney assets hint at larger wealth
Based in Bermuda, Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors Ltd. was not listed on any of Romney’s state or federal financial reports. The company is among several Romney holdings that have not been fully disclosed, including one that recently posted a $1.9 million earning
And from Vanity Fair Where the Money Lives subtitled : The Caped Avoider! Investigating Mitt Romney’s Offshore Investments, Tax Loopholes and Mysterious IRA.
Bain today has at least 138 funds organized in the Cayman Islands, and Romney himself has personal interests in at least 12, worth as much as $30 million, hidden behind controversial confidentiality disclaimers. Again, the Romney campaign insists he saves no tax by using them, but there is no way to check this.
In 2010 and 2011, Mitt and Ann paid $6.2 million in federal tax on $42.5 million in income, for an average tax rate just shy of 15 percent, substantially less than what most middle-income Americans pay. Romney manages this low rate because he takes his payments from Bain Capital as investment income, which is taxed at a maximum 15 percent, instead of the 35 percent he would pay on “ordinary” income, such as salaries and wages. Many tax experts argue that the form of remuneration he receives, known as carried interest, is really just a fee charged by investment managers, so it should instead be taxed at the 35 percent rate. Lee Sheppard, a contributing editor at the trade publication Tax Notes, whose often controversial articles are read widely by tax professionals, is nonplussed that the Obama campaign has been so listless on the issue of carried interest. “Romney is the poster boy, the best argument, for taxing this profit share as ordinary income,” says Sheppard.
The issue should be tax fairness … is it right that Joe the Plumber pays taxes on his working wages while Mitt the Investor pays on his passive investments at a much lower capital gains rate ?
Sadly, the Democrats do not promote this issue and they should … it would play well with hard-working families.