May 16, 2012

Tisei Campaign Admits To Cooking The Books In Their Poll

By admin
Topics:
John Tierney

Discuss it:
No Comments »

 

Richard Tisei uses outrageous, deceptive campaign tactics to mislead the 6th District

Peabody, MA –  Tisei’s pollster admitted in an interview published today that Tisei’s poll massively over represents Republicans and under represents Democrats. Assuming Democrats and Independents turn out at the same rate as in 2008, Republican turnout would need to be 152% to achieve the party breakdown in Tisei’s biased poll. What does this mean?  Given the registration makeup of the 6th District, even if every single registered Republican in the district votes in November and half of them vote TWICE, that still won’t be enough to match the sample in Tisei’s biased poll.

“This is a very misleading trick by a very desperate campaign,” said Matt Robison, Tierney’s Campaign Manager.  “Inventing non-existent Republican voters won’t change the outcome of this election or the strong support that John Tierney has earned from Democrats, Republicans, and Independents for his years of fighting for the middle class. “

“Maybe the Tisei campaign has been taking accounting lessons from their Wall Street friends at JP Morgan,” Robison added. “Richard Tisei has shown that he will do or say anything to get elected. He has unethically manipulated a poll, and he does not want voters to know he opposes the payroll tax cut that is helping the middle class.”

Yesterday, Richard Tisei released internal polling numbers without providing any context or details for the poll.  His campaign claimed that Tisei currently holds a slight lead over incumbent Congressman John Tierney.

Shortly after the Tisei campaign released its polling numbers, Tisei campaign pollster John McLaughlin admitted that the poll is significantly skewed to favor Republicans.

The Salem News reported that:

“In fact, the GOP poll does have elevated Republican representation.” – 5/16/2012

“The actual makeup of registered voters in the district is 13 percent Republican, 30 percent Democrat and 57 percent independent. But their poll respondents were 22 percent Republican, 29 percent Democrat and 49 percent independent.”- 5/16/2012

The most accurate polling in this race has Congressman John Tierney ahead of his Republican opponent by a double digit margin.

May 15, 2012

Romney is no economic savior

By admin
Topics:
Notice

Discuss it:
No Comments »

 

By Eugene Robinson, Published: May 14The Washington Post

Republicans say they’re eager for the presidential campaign to turn away from “distractions” and focus instead on the economy. Someone should warn them that if they’re not careful, they might get their wish.

It is true that voters’ unhappiness with high unemployment and slow growth poses a challenge for President Obama as he seeks reelection. But for Mitt Romney and the GOP to take advantage of this potential opening, they’ll have to do more than chant the word “economy” like a mantra. They have to make the case that their policies will work better than Obama’s.

And what might Romney’s proposed economic policies be? Why, they’re basically the same as those of George W. Bush, only worse.

Just as Obama owns the recession and the slow recovery, Bush owns the financial crisis that sent the slumping economy over a cliff. But for all his sins — the gratuitous tax cuts, the off-budget wars, the defiance of basic arithmetic — Bush at least demonstrated a certain empathy for Americans who struggle to make ends meet. One of his budget-busting initiatives, for example, was expanding Medicare to cover prescription drugs without worrying about how this much-needed new benefit would be paid for.

It’s safe to predict that Romney would never make such a gesture out of compassion for the beleaguered middle class. To this day, he refuses to take back his criticism of Obama for bailing out General Motors and Chrysler — even though letting the companies fail would have meant the extinction of the U.S. auto industry and the elimination of hundreds of thousands of jobs.

It is a measure of Romney’s ideological stubbornness that, even with Chrysler rebounding under new ownership and GM reporting record profits, he still insists that his view — let the companies go bankrupt so the “creative destruction” of capitalism could work its magic — was correct.

Romney is something of an expert on creative destruction, I guess, having orchestrated a good deal of it while running the private-equity firm Bain Capital. The Obama campaign recently released an ad about one of Bain’s less successful acquisitions, a small steel mill in Kansas City called GST Steel.

The company, which was more than 100 years old, failed after a decade under Bain’s ownership; GST’s 750 employees lost their jobs, pensions and health benefits. Bain, however, made money, investing $8 million in the company and taking out $4 million in profits and $4.5 million in management fees. The Romney campaign contends that GST, with its unionized workforce, could not compete with cheap foreign steel being dumped on the market. The Obama campaign alleges that Bain burdened GST with crushing debt while sucking the company’s coffers dry.

Is this the genius of free markets at work, or is it “vulture capitalism” run amok? Let’s have that argument. Please.

Let’s also have a long, detailed discussion of Romney’s economic plans versus Obama’s. Romney wants to make tax rates for the wealthy even lower than they are now; Obama wants a small increase for those making more than $1 million a year, whom he challenges to pay “their fair share.” Romney’s entire economic plan, basically, involves tax cuts and deregulation — in other words, a repeat of the Bush-era policies that led to the crisis.

Does Romney have any fresh ideas? Well, when he was governor of Massachusetts, he was smart enough to see that universal health coverage would not only improve the lives of the uninsured but also help rein in runaway medical costs. He found the solution in an innovative idea developed in Republican-leaning think tanks: an individual health insurance mandate.

It worked. In fact, it was Romney’s greatest policy success as a public official. But now he doesn’t talk about it much.

My guess is that Republicans won’t want to talk about the past or the future in much detail. They’d like to keep things blurry, so that we only see Romney in broad outline: a successful businessman who’ll put us back in business. For details, we’ll mail you the prospectus.

I can’t help but think of the “prosperity theology” movement, or scam, in which preachers persuade congregants that God’s will is for Christians to be rich — and that the way to become rich is to put lots of money in the collection plate. It’s not believable unless the preacher looks and acts the part. Maybe he lives in a mansion. Maybe his wife drives “a couple of Cadillacs.”

Actually, it’s not believable even then.

May 14, 2012

Elizabeth Warren on JPMorgan

By admin
Topics:
Notice

Discuss it:
No Comments »

CBS This Morning: Warren: Bank self-regulation “wrong and dangerous”

 

“We have to say as a country, no, the banks can not regulate themselves,” Warren said in an interview with “CBS This Morning,” adding “what has happened here is not just about JPMorgan Chase.”

“They are financial institutions that run the risk of taking down everyone’s job, run the risk of taking down everyone’s pension, run the risk of taking down the entire economy and that means it is appropriate to have some government oversight,” she said.

To read more and watch the interview, click here.

 

The Huffington Post: Elizabeth Warren: Jamie Dimon Should Resign From New York Fed Board

 

Elizabeth Warren called on JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon to resign from his post on the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s board, citing the need for “responsibility and accountability” in the financial industry.

Dimon, who disclosed a $2 billion loss by the banking giant last week, should “send a signal to the American people that Wall Street bankers get it and to show that they understand the need for responsibility and accountability,” Warren said in a statement following Dimon’s Sunday appearance on “Meet the Press.”

 

To read more, click here.

CNN: Elizabeth Warren on Jamie Dimon: NY Fed. role poses conflict of interest; ‘this is about accountability’

 

Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) appears on Starting Point to discuss why she thinks JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon should step down from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Warren says, “Banks have been loading up on risk and they don’t want to be accountable. Jamie Dimon not only is CEO of JP Morgan Chase, he holds this position of public trust, advising the New York Fed. on how to regulate risk for these large financial institutions, like his own financial institution.”

To read more and watch the interview, click here.

 

Springfield Republican: Elizabeth Warren calls on J.P. Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon to resign

 

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren has called on J.P. Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon to resign his position with the New York Federal Reserve Bank, after J.P. Morgan lost $2 billion in a trading mistake.

Warren said a resignation by Dimon would demonstrate some accountability. “The importance of Jamie Dimon leaving the New York Fed is that it’s a public acknowledgment that he is in a position of trust,” Warren said, speaking on CBS’s This Morning. “He holds a position in which he’s advising the New York Fed about the appropriate oversight of banks like his bank. One way he takes responsibility for what went wrong is to resign from that position.”

To read more, click here.

POLITICO: Elizabeth Warren: Dimon should quit N.Y. Fed

 

…In a later appearance on CNN’s “Starting Point,” Warren accused financial institutions of launching in a “guerilla war” against regulations.

“There’s been a guerilla war out there in which the largest financial institutions have been doing everything they can to make sure that financial regulations don’t get put in place and if they do get put in place, that they’re loaded with loopholes and not very effective,” she said. “There’s been a lobbying army hired by these financial institutions because they really don’t want to have any oversight. They want to take on risks however they want to take on risks and let the rest of us deal with the consequences if something goes wrong.”

 

To read more, click here.

Boston Globe: Democrats inquire about JPMorgan ties to Brown

Elizabeth Warren’s allies in the Massachusetts Democratic Party today called on US Senator Scott Brown to disclose any fund-raising ties he may have to JPMorgan Chase, the Wall Street bank that is under fire for a $2 billion trading loss.

In a conference call with reporters, the party chairman, John Walsh, said Brown must reveal who sits on his “New York City Finance Committee,” an entity that hosted an evening reception for Brown on March 12.

Walsh also pointed to a Globe analysis of Brown’s fund-raising figures that indicated that the Massachusetts Republican received more itemized donations from New York City than from any other city in America during the first three months of the year.

“Massachusetts families deserve to know if Scott Brown stands with them or with Wall Street,” Walsh said.

To read more, click here.

May 10, 2012

John Tierney Stands with President Obama in Support of Marriage Equality

By admin
Topics:
Notice

Discuss it:
No Comments »

 

Tisei Works to Keep In Charge Republicans Who Fight Equality

 

Peabody, MA – Today President Obama announced that he believes that same-sex marriage should be legal.

“I am proud to stand with President Obama and support marriage equality. I have continually supported marriage equality and resisted Republican efforts to undermine the rights of gay couples. I oppose any form of discrimination, and believe all Americans deserve equal rights,” said Congressman John Tierney.

“Unfortunately, my Republican opponent would enable Speaker John Boehner to implement the rigid, right-wing ideology that adamantly opposes marriage equality,” said Tierney.

Richard Tisei is running for Congress to join a right-wing Republican caucus that has worked to block any form of progress for the LGBT community. The difference between congressional Democrats and Republicans on the issue of marriage equality could not be more stark.  Republicans have used their control in Washington and across the country to roll back equality and anti-discrimination measures. An openly gay staffer recently resigned from Mitt Romney’s campaign due to right-wing pressure, and Richard Tisei was silent – he failed to stand up and demand that his Presidential candidate show leadership and resist the forces of intolerance in their party.

“With a Democratic majority in Congress we can continue to work on critical pieces of legislation such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. My opponent cannot say the same if a GOP majority is in Congress,” said Tierney.

Congressman John Tierney was endorsed for re-election by the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBT civil rights organization.

May 7, 2012

Romney’s fishy rhetoric

By admin
Topics:
Notice

Discuss it:
No Comments »
Romney’s Red Herring: Blaming Regulation On Fishing Woes That Smart Regulations Could Have Prevented

Posted: 06 May 2012 08:34 AM PDT (Reposted from Climate progress)

Campaigning in New Hampshire earlier this week, Mitt Romney took yet another stab at the evils of regulation — this time with a focus on fisheries.

Speaking with New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte in the seacoast city of Portsmouth, the two railed against regulations that “burden [companies] with red tape and put them out of business.”

The focus on regulation is no surprise. Even though only 0.3% of reported layoffs across the U.S. economy in 2010 were due to regulation, Republicans are applying anti-regulatory rhetoric to every subject they can think of. Stretching the argument as far as he could take it, Romney tied Obama’s health insurance plan to the woes of the east coast fishing industry:

“It’s a tough time to be in the fishing business in America,” Romney told a crowd of about 200 on the Portsmouth Commercial Fishing Pier. “Not just in that industry, but in many industries. Small business has really felt like it’s been under attack over the last several years.”

“One, of course, is the discussion to put in place Obamacare,” Romney said. “The last thing these businesses want to hear is that they’ve got a new expense they’ve got to pay.”

“Then regulation,” he added. “We heard today about fishing regulations. I’ll continue to learn more about those regulations as they affect this industry. But across America, regulators [are] just multiplying like proverbial rabbits and making it harder for enterprises to grow and to understand what their future might be.”

The ironic part of this connection is that Romney’s policies as Massachusetts’ governor laid the foundation for both Obama’s health care plan and National Ocean Policy — both of which Romney now claims are examples of government over-reach.

Romney’s push for mandatory health care as governor has been well documented. But most people don’t realize that Romney also helped create an Ocean Management Initiative to help pro-actively manage commercial, recreational and ecological needs along the Massachusetts coast. The “smart growth” plan resulted in a comprehensive policy for sustainably managing the economic and ecological interests of the ocean.

The current plan supported by the White House uses many of the same concepts developed in Massachusetts under the Romney administration.

The plan, which would develop a comprehensive, science-based strategy to align the economic and environmental priorities for our oceans, is supported by the Pew Oceans Commission (chaired by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta) and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (appointed by former President George W. Bush).

Congressional Republicans have aggressively attacked this plan, repeating their “job-killing” mantra in an attempt to defund the program supporting the plan.

The really frustrating part of this rhetorical exercise is that regulations are being blamed for problems smart, pro-active regulations could have prevented in the first place. For example, in his New Hampshire speech, Romney was referring to catch limits that have reduced the number of fisherman in the state.

But the reason the New England fishing industry has faced financial hardship in recent years has little to do with regulation. Regardless of what regulatory structure fishermen operate under, the New England groundfishery — which once seemed limitless — is struggling to recover from decades of overfishing. We cannot legislate or regulate fish into existence so fishermen can catch them. We can either put in place an efficient regulatory structure to pro-actively address the problem, or we can react to the problem afterward with more stringent rules.

In this case, new rules had to be put in place due to an overfishing crisis in New England. (For an overview of how and why these rules were put into place, check read the latest Center for American Progress report on the issue: The Future of America’s First Groundfishery.)

Since a new catch management system took effect in 2010, the Obama administration has supported the industry with more than $50 million in funding for monitoring, business assistance, and scientific assessments designed to minimize the economic impact of a biological reality — there simply aren’t enough fish.

Appropriate, science-based regulation is a proven way of restoring fisheries in this region. As recently as the 1990s, the scallop fishery was a disaster. The resource was drastically over-harvested, and fishing businesses were racing one other to catch the last scallop in a desperate attempt to remain solvent. Regulators developed a management scheme that put the fishery on a path to sustainability. Today the sea scallop fishery is one of the most valuable fisheries in the U.S. and has made New Bedford, Massachusetts the fishing port with the highest value of fish landings.

Mindlessly claiming that regulations “kill jobs” does little to address the actual problem: Without a solid regulatory plan in place for an industry like fishing, there may be very few jobs left to defend.

Michael Conathan, Director of Oceans Policy at the Center for American Progress, contributed to this story.
May 5, 2012

Elizabeth Warren’s Birther Moment

By admin
Topics:
Notice

Discuss it:
No Comments »

May 4, 2012, 12:33 am
Elizabeth Warren’s Birther Moment
By KEVIN NOBLE MAILLARD, New York Times

If you are 1/32 Cherokee and your grandfather has high cheekbones, does that make you Native American? It depends. Last Friday, Republicans in Massachusetts questioned the racial ancestry of Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic Senate candidate. Her opponent, Senator Scott Brown, has accused her of using minority status as an American Indian to advance her career as a law professor at Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Texas. The Brown campaign calls her ties to the Cherokee and Delaware nations a “hypocritical sham.”
In a press conference on Wednesday, Warren defended herself, saying, “Native American has been a part of my story, I guess since the day I was born, I don’t know any other way to describe it.” Despite her personal belief in her origins, her opponents have seized this moment in an unnecessary fire drill that guarantees media attention and forestalls real debate.
This tactic is straight from the Republican cookbook of fake controversy. First, you need a rarefied elected office typically occupied by a certain breed of privileged men. Both the Presidency and the Senate fit this bill. Second, add a bit of interracial intrigue. It could be Kenyan economists eloping with Midwestern anthropologists, or white frontiersmen pairing with indigenous women. Third, throw in some suspicion about their qualifications and ambitions. Last but not least, demand documentation of ancestry and be dissatisfied upon its receipt. Voila! You have a genuine birther movement.
The Republican approach to race is to feign that it is irrelevant — until it becomes politically advantageous to bring it up. Birthers question Obama’s state of origin (and implicitly his multiracial heritage) in efforts to disqualify him from the presidency. They characterize him as “other.” For Warren, Massachusetts Republicans place doubts on her racial claims to portray her as an opportunistic academic seeking special treatment. In both birther camps, opponents look to ancestral origins as the smoking gun, and ride the ambiguity for the duration.
Proving Native American ancestry is a complex, bureaucratic process. It’s more than showing up at the tribal enrollment office with a family bible and some black and white pictures. Many people are rejected, even when family lore tells them otherwise. Tribal citizenship depends on descent from an enrolled ancestor, and every tribe has its own requirements.
In the Cherokee Nation, there is no minimum blood requirement, which would allow someone with as little as 1/128 Cherokee blood to enroll (that would be a great-great-great-great-great grandparent). Finding that remote relative is not conclusive, however. The ancestor may not have enrolled himself. Or he could have favored assimilation and counted himself as white. Or her application was rejected or she became ineligible for citizenship.
Like Elizabeth Warren, I am a law professor who was born in Oklahoma. I am enrolled as a member of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, which, along with the Cherokee Nation, has recently experienced great strife in defining what it means to be Native. In the past year, the arguments have escalated nationwide. Some members say that tribes should be composed only of members with high degrees of Indian blood. Others say it should be geographically based. And some others say citizenship should be based on history and culture, regardless of blood or residence. In my personal opinion, it’s whether you have a fry bread chef-lady as a relative. (In my family, I’m that “lady.”)
Even within Indian Country, the meaning of race and citizenship is contested. And now the Brown campaign wants to dictate Warren’s own belief in her identity. According to the Brown campaign, Warren could not be Indian because she is blonde, rich and most of all, a Harvard law professor. Her 1/32 Cherokee ancestry, sufficient for tribal citizenship, is not enough for the Republican party. To most people, she appears as white as, well, Betty White, but to the Scott Brown campaign, she is just Dancing With Wolves.
The Brown campaign asserts that Warren knowingly classified herself as Native American in the 1990s when Harvard weathered sharp criticism for its lack of faculty diversity. During this time, they argue, Warren relied upon this classification to enhance her employment opportunities and to improve Harvard’s numbers. Her faculty mentors at Harvard deny this and assert that the law school hired Warren without any knowledge of her ancestry.
Admittedly, news of Elizabeth Warren’s Cherokee and Delaware ancestry comes as a surprise. There simply are not enough places in legal academia for Native American professors to hide. The community is tight and small. It’s like “Peyton Place,” but with academic arguments over subject matter jurisdiction. According to the Association of American Law Schools, Native law professors are only .5% of all law faculty — about fifty people out of 11,000.
Native faculty are familiar with “box checkers”: those students and faculty who become Native for the temporary moment of admissions or employment. As soon as the application is mailed or the interview completed, the candidate returns to life as usual. The Cherokee Princess Grandmother served her purpose, and her memory is revived at convenient times.
This merits a reexamination of the difficult question of what it means to be Native. Does that make the Chickasaw kid from Buckhead in Atlanta any less Native than the Navajo faculty candidate from Windy Gap? What does a Native even look like? It’s more than long black hair, feathers and beads. At the same time, it is more than checking a box.
Someone’s subjective opinion about her heritage may conflict with tribal requirements for membership. The standards are not constant, and they may change with new tribal governments. This happened in my tribe in 2002, when the new chief decided that some members were not “Indian enough.” Even at home, the tribal government falls into stereotypes.
For the Cherokee Nation, Warren is “Indian enough”; she has the same blood quantum as Cherokee Nation Chief Bill John Baker. For non-Natives, this may be surprising. They expect to see “high cheekbones,” as Warren described her grandfather as having, or tan skin. They want to know of pow wows, dusty reservations, sweat lodges, peyote and cheap cigarettes. When outsiders look at these ostensibly white people as members of Native America, they don’t see minorities. As a result, Warren feels she must satisfy these new birthers and justify her existence.
Looked at from the inside, however, the Warren controversy is all new. When the Brown campaign accused Elizabeth Warren of touting herself as American Indian to advance her career, this was news to Native law professors. We have a good eye for welcoming faculty to the community and identifying promising scholars. We know where people teach, what they have published and we honor them when they die. Harvard Law School named its first Native American tenured professor? Really? In our small indigenous faculty town, we would have heard about it already.

Kevin Noble Maillard is a law professor at Syracuse University and a member of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma. He is the co-editor of “Loving v. Virginia in a Post Racial World: Rethinking Race, Sex, and Marriage,” which will be published later this month.
•

May 2, 2012

Massachusetts is creating “green jobs”

By admin
Topics:
Notice

Discuss it:
No Comments »

Over the last year, green jobs have become a political punching bag. But in many states throughout the country, the industry is gaining traction. In Massachusetts more than 64,000 workers have found jobs in the sector. The Center for American Progress visited the state to learn how they’re doing it, and to tell the real story about the clean energy economy.

May 2, 2012

Massachusetts Green Jobs Video

By admin
Topics:
National Politics

Discuss it:
No Comments »

May 2, 2012

Fantasy economics

By admin
Topics:
Notice

Discuss it:
No Comments »

Romney’s fiscal fantasy plan

By Lawrence Summers, Published: April 26The Washington Post

Lawrence Summers, a former economic adviser to President Obama, was Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration. He writes a monthly column for The Post.

Political arithmetic is always suspect, and one should always examine carefully the claims of those seeking votes. Smart observers have learned to distinguish between the claims of political candidates and their advisers and proposals that have been evaluated by independent scorekeepers such as the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

This principle was aptly illustrated by the “budget analysis” Mitt Romney’s chief economic adviser, Glenn Hubbard, recently put forward. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week, Hubbard constructs a budget plan that he imagines President Obama might propose someday, engages in a set of his own extrapolations and then makes assertions about it. He does not discuss the actual Obama plan or how it has been evaluated by the CBO. Nor does Hubbard invest his credibility in defending the claims that Romney has made about his own fiscal plans. He simply states that “Yes, President Obama and Mitt Romney have budgets with competing visions. But Gov. Romney’s budget makes tough choices” — without delving into the specifics or trade-offs that Romney’s “tough choices” entail.

The president put forward a planthis year that would reduce deficits by more than $4 trillion over the next decade. It would bring federal discretionary spending to its lowest levels since the 1960s. It includes $2.50 in spending cuts for every $1 in additional revenue. It also asks everyone to pay his or her fair share of taxes, repealing the Bush tax cuts for families making more than $250,000 a year and closing loopholes and shelters such as preferences for private jets, hedge fund managers and offshore investments.

The independent CBO confirms that the Obama budget would stabilize the debt as a share of the economy — returning us to a tenable fiscal path. It would do that while allowing increased investments in education, research and infrastructure that are critical to stronger, shared economic growth in the years to come. By focusing on building a strong economy, the budget expands the tax base and reduces pressures for future tax increases.

Rather than criticize this approach, Hubbard ignores it — and instead chooses to invent assumptions that bear no relationship to the president’s actual policies. His figures are not explained, but they apparently arbitrarily assume that the president must raise taxes to pay for spending above a level of Hubbard’s choosing.

Rather than filling imaginary gaps in the president’s budget, which has been spelled out in sufficient detail to permit evaluation by independent experts, Hubbard should perhaps address some of the many gaps in Romney’s plans.

Start with the taxes. The Romney campaign has been very clear about what the former governor is promising: $5 trillion in tax cuts on top of extending the Bush tax cuts, with those benefits heavily weighted toward the country’s wealthiest taxpayers. Romney himself has acknowledged the lack of details, stating in reference to his tax plan that “frankly, it can’t be scored.” I have been party for many years to searches for “high-income tax shelters” that can feasibly be closed. I know of no reputable expert in either political party who would find that there is anything even approaching $5 trillion in potential revenue to be generated from this source.

Romney has also proposed a massive defense buildup, even while he says he will cut spending deeply enough to balance the budget. I think it’s clear why he won’t tell voters which cuts he would make: In the past, disclosing his planned budget cuts was politically damaging.

We have seen this movie before. When President Bill Clinton left office, our country was paying down its debt on a substantial scale. I was privileged as secretary of the Treasury to be buying back federal debt. George W. Bush campaigned on a program of tax cuts supported by economic advisers who were not subject to the rigors of official budget scorekeeping. The results — trillions of dollars of budget deficits — speak for themselves.

This is a consequential presidential election. As the country continues to recover from the largest economic crisis in generations, we need to strengthen the job market, address big fiscal challenges and build an economy that is based on sustainable, shared economic growth. Voters should have a chance to choose between clear alternatives. Obama — consistent with his obligations as president — has laid out a multiyear budget embodying his vision for the future, and it has been evaluated by independent experts. It is time for Romney to do the same.

April 27, 2012

We are not stupid

By admin
Topics:
Presidential Election

Discuss it:
No Comments »

April 25, 2012, 9:41 pm

We Are Not Stupid

By CHARLES M. BLOW, NY Times

It’s still about Mitt Romney, and we’re not stupid.

After his primary wins on Tuesday, Mitt Romney delivered a nice speech with some punchy lines, and the pundits jumped and flipped like a troupe from Cirque du Soleil.

But it was all about framing an argument. It was tactical.

I don’t give two cents about tactics at the moment. I prefer to keep my eyes squarely trained on the issues and where the parties and their candidates have either demonstrated or indicated that they plan to take the country.

That reveals their values. That reveals a contrast so stark that no theatrical triumph or failure can disguise or ameliorate it.

Romney is still Romney and he’s still running as the head of a party that has spent the last few years pursuing a profoundly regressive agenda.

Romney tried Tuesday night to frame the debate largely around economic issues, but as the 2010 midterm elections showed, economic issues are something of a Trojan horse for the right.

Let’s just get this out of the way: Times are tough. But most people are smart enough to know that these tough times were long in the making and will be long in the fixing. There are no magic words or silver bullets or emerging bubbles that will quickly and easily return us to a pre-recession, pre-collapse sense of prosperity.

That is because we were all complicit in a lie. The government spent too much (on tax cuts and wars), many banks gambled too much and many people borrowed too much.  That was the economy. All that money swirling around lulled us into a false sense of security.

When it all fell apart, an overextended government had to help overextended banks and overextended borrowers. The money stopped swirling. Jobs that flourished during the boom became scarce.

The debt grew and the economy shrank.

The government underestimated the crisis and underfinanced the stimulus package aimed at fixing it. So things got worse before they slowly began to get better.  And structural economic issues, like the deflation in the housing market, remain.

In an oversimplified nutshell, that is what happened: a complex mix of poor choices and inadequate responses. Now we have to ask ourselves if things have fundamentally changed forever.

The president tried to help fix a mess that he didn’t make, but the fixing has come slowly. Is that failure? Romney and the Republicans say yes.

And, if they can keep framing it as a failure, they can push for, and maybe even push through, their brutal budgets, which cut programs that help the poor and struggling and benefit the rich.

And while they push their budgets, they make savage attacks on a broad range of issues: voting rights, women’s rights, gay rights, immigration, etc.

This is the trick: Run on fiscal conservatism; bring social conservatism along for the ride. The Trojan horse platform.

Mitt Romney has made clear during this primary season that he was willing to be neither moderate nor independent — but rather “severely conservative” — in seeking the Republican nomination. He was willing to court the far-right wing of his party and advance its agenda — a frightening fiscal agenda and an even more frightening social agenda.

Yes, this election is about the economy. Every election is to some degree. But it is also about priorities and values and the social direction of this country. This is about the uniquely different visions of our country as presented by Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, and about which man is most likely to be effective and fair.

No number of tactical speeches will make us forget that. We are not stupid.

« Previous Entries