Do We Really Want A Dishonest President? October 31, 2012 I’m frankly at a loss to square this. Mr. Romney appears to be an upstanding guy in so many respects and is unquestionably a leader in his church . . . yet there he was working to help tobacco companies sell a product his church abhors (Monday’s post), and here he is authorizing messages he knows are simply not true. What kind of man does that? According to this tally, 533 lies in 30 weeks — and that list goes only to August 29. And, yes, you might toss out two or three or even four hundred of them as not rising to the level of actual knows-better falsehoods. But as I pointed out yesterday, just one of them . . . the claim that his proposed tax cuts will not disproportionately advantage the rich or explode the deficit . . . should be enough to have disqualified George W. Bush, when he told it, or to disqualify Mitt Romney, who’s telling it again. At least that’s my view. # # # On a lighter note: LISTEN TO THIS MESSAGE FROM THE GREATEST GENERATION [Warning: explicit language.] Two minutes. # # # And finally, since I mentioned “my beloved beach shack” yesterday: STORM UPDATE My dune and deck were swept away, but — after fearing it would all be gone — seeing a photo of my brave old beach shack rising defiantly to the sky reminded me (no disrespect) of the Star Spangled Banner: tattered, but still there by the dawn’s early light. I am elated. How on earth did my home and all the others in my community survive 20 foot waves on top of a storm surge and high tide? I only wish everyone in Sandy’s path had been so fortunate.
The Emperor’s Clothes October 30, 2012October 29, 2012 I think my beloved beach shack may be washing away as I type this but there’s nothing I can do about that and, truth be told, I’d rather lose the house than the Supreme Court. So (hoping you, too, are warm, dry, and safe) here goes: WE’RE GOING TO WIN Obama backers should find these early indicators from Field Director Jeremy Bird encouraging. BECAUSE . . . This time, we’re not gonna fall for it. The last time a Harvard-MBA-’75-former-governor-son-of-a-prominent-Republican ran for president promising A HUGE TAX CUT THAT WOULD NEITHER ADVANTAGE THE RICH NOR EXPLODE THE DEFICIT, we got President Bush, whose huge tax tax wildly advantaged the rich and exploded the deficit. (I wasn’t keen on his humble foreign policy, either.) Now another Harvard-MBA-’75-former-governor-son-of-a-prominent-Republican asks for our vote promising A HUGE TAX CUT THAT WOULD NEITHER ADVANTAGE THE RICH NOR EXPLODE THE DEFICIT — and I believe fewer are of us are going to buy it. (Or be thrilled that 17 of his 24 foreign policy advisers were recruited from the Bush team.) The truth is, you can’t fail to advantage the ultra-rich when you cut their estate tax from 45% to zero. You can’t fail to advantage the ultra-rich when you cut their tax rate by 20%. And you can’t fail to explode the deficit when you cut taxes by nearly $5 trillion over ten years and ramp up military spending by a further $2 trillion. The idea that you can offset that $7 trillion by cutting loopholes and deductions is just silly. Not to mention that cutting the mortgage deduction would tank the real estate market, while cutting the charitable deduction would devastate non-profits. (And by the way? The ultra-rich don’t even bother with mortgages — why would they? It’s the middle class and upper middle class that do.) You obviously can’t offset a $2 trillion hike in military spending by cutting Big Bird and Planned Parenthood, either; yet these are the only two programs Mitt has named. And every time someone asks whether he’d cut something else — education? veterans’ benefits? benefits for current seniors? — he quickly takes those off the table. It’s so ridiculous, the only reason I think he gets away with it with almost half the electorate is that no one can imagine an emperor literally walking around without clothes. What emperor would do that? We can’t imagine that guys like George W. Bush or Mitt Romney — guys who went to Harvard Business School for crying out loud! — would tell us something so massively bogus. Would fail so massively to make their numbers add up. As for the magic of “growth” that’s supposed to make all this work — cut taxes for the rich and economic growth will explode — who you gonna believe? Mitt Romney (who’s looks so much like a President, for Pete’s sake)? Or our real-life experience of the last 10 years, when that exact approach failed spectacularly? On the flip side, the Republicans warn that raising taxes on the best off will cost jobs. They say it with such conviction and authority you’d surely buy it . . . were it not that Bill Clinton did it in 1993 — without the support of a single Republican — and produced 23 million new jobs and a balanced budget. Sure don’t want that again, says the emperor with no clothes. And because we’ve added only 5 million private sector jobs over the past 31 months since the Bush near-Depression bottomed out . . . (everyone wishes the recovery had been more vigorous, and it would have been if the Republicans had not worked so hard to stunt it) . . . and because we’d love to believe Gov. Romney really does have some sort of magic jobs wand (who doesn’t love a magic wand?) . . . a lot of voters who can’t imagine that an emperor really would walk around with no clothes suspend disbelief and applaud. Never mind that with the same magic wand as Governor of Massachusetts Mr. Romney took the state from 37th in job creation down to 47th — near dead last — and left office with a 34% approval rating. (Yes, he left the state with the highest math and English test scores in the nation, but he fails to mention that this was the result of his predecessor’s reforms. And he fails to mention that he left the incoming governor with a $1 billion deficit — and the citizens of Massachusetts with the highest per capita debt in the nation.) Mitt’s magic wand at the Winter Olympics? The magic came in negotiating the largest federal taxpayer bailout ever — larger than all previous U.S. federal Olympic subsidies combined. How’s that for the magic of private enterprise? The emperor is very bright, very confident, very rich, and very ambitious — I’m pretty sure he doesn’t much care either way about most of the issues he flips and flops on, he just wants to be president — and I have no doubt he can be a gracious, generous, caring person. But he has no clothes. His tax plan is even more spectacularly irresponsible than Bush’s was. And this time — I hope, I hope, I hope — we won’t fall for it.
Mormons for Romney. Really? October 29, 2012 First off, I’m not dead. When I wrote Friday “if there’s column tomorrow you’ll know [the yogurt] didn’t kill me” I forgot it was Friday — and that there’s never a new column Saturday. But here I am, all but equine in my healthiness. And to those of you who asked what I was doing with yogurt from 2007 in the first place, the answer is simply that it was way in the back of the refrigerator, with other things I never eat, but that to make room for a cantaloupe Thursday, I had to rearrange things . . . and who can resist a little raspberry yogurt? Waste not, want not. Second, here’s wishing those of you/us on the East Coast the best with the hurricane. I’m afraid it may be a really, really big problem for a lot of people. If there’s no column tomorrow — or if there is, but you lack the electric power or Internet connection to read it — it’s not the yogurt, it’s the storm. *WOMEN* FOR ROMNEY??? REALLY? Millions of them apparently . . . even though the President has tripled the number of women on the Supreme Court (hey: how cool would it be to get to a majority by the end of his second term? after two centuries — why not?) and has stood up for women at every turn . . . running against a party that OPPOSED Lilly Ledbetter, OPPOSED extending health coverage to children, OPPOSED the health care act that removes “being a woman” as a preexisting condition . . . a party 12 of whose Senate candidates — and whose own Vice Presidential nominee — say that “a woman who wants to have a baby through in vitro fertilization CAN’T but a woman who doesn’t want to carry her rapist’s baby to term MUST,” as Rachel Maddow put it. FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS WOMEN *AGAINST* ROMNEY From USA Today: “Clear eyes, full hearts, can’t lose,” was the battle cry for the high school football teams of Dillon, Texas, on the TV show Friday Night Lights for five seasons. But the show wasn’t just about football. And “Clear Eyes, Full Hearts, Can’t Lose” wasn’t just about winning games. Rather, it was a rallying cry of hope and optimism in a community where everyone had a fair shot — no matter their background, no matter their parents, no matter their gender. And no matter their politics. So it has been surprising that the phrase has been usurped and co-opted by Mitt Romney and his campaign for their gain. And it got us thinking: What would the women of Dillon think about this? . . . In a word? They think it stinks: . . . Dillon is a classic American town filled with hard-working, middle-class Americans, who just want to lead productive, healthy lives. And the women we represented on the show — the women we are in real life — are like the millions of women across the nation. Women who want to make our own health care decisions. Women who want to earn equal pay for the work we do. Women who want affordable health care. . . . Which brings us to: MORMONS FOR OBAMA. REALLY? Okay, well, so I’ll grant this is a heavier lift than Jews For Romney. Really? or Gays for Romney. Really? — or Women for Romney. Is there anything surprising about Mormons favoring one of their own? A nearly lifelong Mormon friend of mine is one of Gov. Romney’s top bundlers and his enthusiasm for his candidate (a fellow Harvard B-School alumnus) is entirely understandable. Still, because I’m as down on cigarettes as any Mormon, this TruthOut report surprised me. In small part: . . . To understand the latest and worst chapter in Romney hypocrisy, one must first appreciate how abhorrent smoking is to Mormons. As a person who grew up immersed in the Mormon culture, served a Mormon mission just like Romney did and held a significant supervisory position during my Mormon mission, I know well what Mormons think of smoking. While Mormons put a premium on “clean living” and exemplary “moral” behavior, in the eyes of Mormons, nothing distinguishes them more from non-Mormons than their unique prohibition on smoking. It is considered not just a health proscription, but also a moral imperative. . . . [Yet] Philip Morris quickly became one of Bain’s most important clients. In the United States, Bain helped develop a strategy to lure smokers into switching to Philip Morris brands and increasing their overall sales. Within a few years, Bain helped the cigarette maker fend off rising public sentiment against tobacco and increased pressure from federal regulators, as well as defend smokers’ rights. But an even larger source of Bain’s profits came through its unique role in helping Big Tobacco get millions of Russians hooked on cigarettes. In fact, Big Tobacco became Bain’s financial savior when it was still struggling to avoid insolvency. . . .Romney knew of and approved the “let’s get Russia smoking” strategy and was the immediate boss of Bain’s Russian collaborators. That strategy was successful in increasing the rate of smoking among Russians by 300 percent in only a few years. The smoking rate among young Russians is now among the highest in the world – a public health catastrophe. Bain management allowed some of its employees to opt out of the project if they had moral objections to it. But Mitt hardly opted out; he was the ringmaster. Many people, if not most, would have a moral objection to making a living as, essentially, a drug dealer for “killer” tobacco, which was known at the time to be more addictive than heroin. But for a widely revered and high-level Mormon official who was already fabulously wealthy to condone and profit from tobacco investments and addicting millions of people to a destructive and deadly habit prohibited by his own beloved church is the Mount Everest of hypocrisy. . . . But look: he was trying to increase his fortune, for Pete’s sake. Gov. Romney may have a different take on this story — I expect he does and would be happy to post it if any of you can find it. (For one thing, it cannot be accurate that “smoking among Russians increased 300% in only a few years,” as virtually all adult Russians already smoked. Or surely more than half. So it must be gtheir smoking of Western brands that tripled.) But it seems that at roughly the same time I was in Moscow annoying the entire former Soviet Union with anti-smoking ads that I was reading off a makeshift Teleprompter night after night in my dreadful high school Russian, trying to warn their youth of the onslaught of American and British tobacco companies (“Dyeti: nye stanovityes rabami tabachnikh companiyi, kak vashi rodityli!” — “Kids: don’t become slaves to the tobacco companies, like your parents”), Mitt was on the other side of the trade helping to addict them.
Gays for Romney. Really? October 26, 2012October 26, 2012 EAST COAST RESIDENTS: Today would be a smart day to stock up on all the food and drink and candles and batteries and medicine you’d need in case Hurricane Sandy shuts things down for a while. Seriously: Better safe than sorry. Ideally, none of what you buy will be needed, so be sure it’s mostly nonperishable. Speaking of which, guess what I ate just now. DANNON LIGHT & FIT RASPBERRY YOGURT DATED OCTOBER 19, 2007 Tasted fine. If there’s a column tomorrow, you’ll know it didn’t kill me. (I voted early just in case.) JEWS Yesterday, I offered: “Jews for Romney. Really?” If you have any Romney leaning friends — whether Jewish or not — perhaps it would speak to them. (Couldn’t hoyt.) And here’s an update. An interview in Foreign Policy with the head of Mossad under three Israeli prime ministers. In very small part: . . . I think many of the statements made by the Republican candidate are very undesirable as far as Israel is concerned. I remember an article of Governor Romney’s in the Washington Post in March where he advocated dispatching American warships to the Eastern Mediterranean. Shooting from the hip on these matters is a very dangerous sport to be engaged in. And I think that drawing Israel into this campaign is detrimental to Israeli interests, and I regret that one of the candidates is doing this. Meanwhile, one of you sent me this by Sally Neustadt, who marvels at the notion of Jews voting for Romney. She concludes, “The time has come to think about how our Jewish values apply to the decisions we make. If not now, when?” When indeed? (I believe I’ve already linked you to the widely circulated Yiddish Curses for Republicans.) GAYS Today, noting that the Log Cabin Republicans have endorsed Mitt Romney, I ask: Gays for Romney. Really? For starters, President Obama has done more to advance equality for LGBT Americans not just than “any other president in history” but “than all other presidents in history combined.” (So let’s fire him?) But for finishers, Governor Romney favors amending the Constitution to take away rights for only the second time ever (the first being Prohibition, which was repealed); would appoint the kind of Supreme Court justices least likely to support equal rights; had an “insensitive” record as Governor of Massachusetts; and is the only member of the group that pinned an effeminate classmate to the ground and cut off his hair so untroubled by the incident that — even though he was the leader of the pack and personally wielded the scissors — he has no recollection of it. So, fine: none of my gay Republican friends disputes that Obama would be better on equality. Their point — and I agree — is that there are more important issues. In my case, I might start by mentioning the future habitability of the planet. That is not their issue. Their issue, for the most part, is money. Well, I like money, too. But the irony is that if they get Romney, they will also get a global depression — because the Republicans are wedded to an austerity budget that would out-Hoover Hoover. And if our economy goes over the dam, there goes Europe and the rest of the world. Gays for Romney. Really? BEST ANTI-GAY SPEECH EVER “Missouri Pastor’s Fiery Speech Against Equal Rights for Homosexuals Has Stunning Twist Ending“– under three minutes. Have a great weekend.
Jews For Romney. Really? October 25, 2012October 25, 2012 The idea that anyone would abandon tikkun olam because they want lower taxes is . . . depressing. The idea that anyone would abandon tikkun olam (the Jewish calling to “heal the world”) because they think Romney is better on Israel is . . . arguably even worse. Because it’s just not true. I’ve linked to clips before; but take a minute, if you doubt the President’s commitment to Israel, to watch this one. As for the idea that a vote for Romney is NOT a vote to abandon tikkun olam — well, please: Does anyone seriously think the world will be healed by by firing teachers and moving backwards on health care? By cutting back environmental regulation? By adding an unrequested $2 trillion to the military budget and re-installing the Bush foreign policy team? By moving our Supreme Court even further right, handing yet more power to the ultra-wealthy and powerful? By cutting taxes yet further for the rich? At the end of the day, most Jews will vote for Obama. Even Ed Koch, who backed Bush in 2004, is back on board. But not all. If you have friends leaning toward Romney because the President has not visited Israel, ask them to watch this clip. If you have friends leaning toward Romney because they think the President is unfriendly to capitalism, remind them that the stock market has doubled in the last three years and that corporate profits are at record levels — and that the Obama Administration has issued fewer regulations than the Bush Administration in a comparable time period. And if you have friends leaning toward Romney because their feelings are hurt — they feel under attack for their success or for the financial collapse or for “not paying their fair share” — tell them you feel their pain, but that the President hasn’t been talking about them, or about any of the other thousands upon thousands of highly successful people who agree the Bush tax cuts went too far (and that the financial system and its regulators failed us) — he’s been talking about those millionaires and billionaires who oppose sensible, necessary measures to right the ship. To note, as the New Yorker did, that 93% of all the gains from the 2009-2010 recovery went to the top 1% — or that, indeed, 37% went to the top one-hundredth of 1% — is not to wage class warfare. It is simply to note that things are out of balance. Governor Romney and his party are committed to throwing them even further out of balance: cutting taxes on billionaires while cutting programs that aid the middle class and the poor. This will not help to heal the world.
Winning With 22% Of The Vote October 24, 2012 DID YOU WATCH? Giuliani, McCain, Santorum, Colin Powell, Britt Hume, and others, opine on Mitt Romney. THE ELECTORAL MAP Want to play with it? See how it’s changed since 2008 or 2004? Visit 270towin.com. WINNING THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WITH 22% OF THE VOTE Here.
The Army Needs More Horses October 23, 2012 So I don’t know exactly where Syria is, either — but I’m not proposing to relieve the President of his job. (No, Mitt: Syria is not Iran’s path to the sea. For starters, it doesn’t border Iran; for finishers, if the blue parts of this map represent water, as I’m all but certain they do, then Iran has 700 or 800 miles of Persian Gulf coastline.) I loved the exchange that gets to the core of what would be $2 trillion that Mr. Romney would have us taxpayers cough up for unrequested increased military spending: the part of the debate last night where Governor Romney said our Navy would soon have fewer vessels than in 1917 and the President noted that we also have fewer horses and bayonets — but that the nature of our capability has changed. For one thing, you can actually land airplanes on our ships now. (As Admiral Sestak noted on “Up W/ Chris Hayes” Sunday, it’s not the number of ships that matters, it’s their capability. Improvements in technology have multiplied the air-strike capability of our aircraft carriers nine-fold in just the last 15 years. So in at least some respects, it’s as though we have nine times as many carriers as we did in 1997.) The President was strong and steady last night — it’s in his DNA. Consistent. Deliberate. Clear-headed. Governor Romney? Well, he has a tendency to flip flop. To the extent one can tell, he seems basically to want to replay the Bush years. Build up the military and cut taxes for the rich. Why else would 17 of his 24 foreign policy advisers be alumni of the Bush team? Why else would billionaires be pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into trying to elect him? GIULIANI, MCCAIN, SANTORUM, AND COLIN POWELL ON MITT Watch what they have to say. Tweet! Take viral! It’s devastating. AND, YES, THE PRESIDENT HAS A PLAN FOR HIS SECOND TERM It’s complete nonsense to say he doesn’t — but if the opposition says it often enough, and puts millions of dollars of ad dollars behind the idea, it catches hold. Click here to see the President’s plan (and to drill down on each item).
Scientists and Mormons for Obama October 22, 2012October 21, 2012 TO KNOW HIM IS TO REJECT HIM The three states that know Mitt best are Massachusetts, Michigan, and Utah. What does it say about the former governor of Massachusetts that he left office with a 34% approval rating — during good economic times? What does it say that he trails in the Michigan polls, where his Dad was a beloved governor? What does it say that the Salt Lake Tribune has rejected him? . . . Politicians routinely tailor their words to suit an audience. Romney, though, is shameless, lavishing vastly diverse audiences with words, any words, they would trade their votes to hear. More troubling, Romney has repeatedly refused to share specifics of his radical plan to simultaneously reduce the debt, get rid of Obamacare (or, as he now says, only part of it), make a voucher program of Medicare, slash taxes and spending, and thereby create millions of new jobs. To claim, as Romney does, that he would offset his tax and spending cuts (except for billions more for the military) by doing away with tax deductions and exemptions is utterly meaningless without identifying which and how many would get the ax. Absent those specifics, his promise of a balanced budget simply does not pencil out. . . . . . . our endorsement must go to the incumbent, a competent leader who, against tough odds, has guided the country through catastrophe and set a course that, while rocky, is pointing toward a brighter day. The president has earned a second term. Romney, in whatever guise, does not deserve a first. One can admire Mr. Romney’s intelligence and drive and still not want him to realize his ultimate ambition. A MORMON FOR OBAMA Kristina McCormack: “I’m a quintessential secular humanist, but I agree with this religious woman — ‘My Take: Hard truths matter; I’m Mormon, and I’m voting for Obama‘ — hard truths do matter. Unless we are honest with ourselves about where we are, we cannot make a wise choice about our next step.” ISRAELIS FOR OBAMA Watch. Just two minutes. Send to all your Jewish friends to send to theirs. (Seriously: this is how minds change.) And as many Jews “believe in” science and have respect for Nobel laureates, send them this, too: SCIENTISTS FOR OBAMA Specifically, 68 Nobel Prize winners. Read their open letter to the American public, here. . . . President Obama understands the key role science has played in building a prosperous America, has delivered on his promise to renew our faith in science-based decision making and has championed investment in science and technology research that is the engine of our economy. He has built strong programs to educate young Americans in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics and programs to provide Americans the training they need to keep pace with a technology-driven economy. His opponent supports a budget that, if implemented, would devastate a long tradition of support for public research and investment in science at a time when this country’s future depends, as never before, on innovation. . . . What does it say that when you Google the term “SCIENTISTS FOR ROMNEY” (using the quotation marks) you get 8 hits, but that when you Google “SCIENTISTS FOR OBAMA” (again, using the quotation marks) you get 55,000? # Enjoy tonight’s debate. I assume the President will mention that 17 of Romney’s 24 foreign policy advisers served under George W. Bush. So it’s not just Bush’s disastrous economic vision Romney hopes to reprise — job creation through tax cuts for the wealthy — but his foreign policy as well.
Bill Clinton Knows Whereof He Speaks October 19, 2012October 18, 2012 Governor Romney keeps guaranteeing that if we elect him, rich folks won’t pay any less in tax than they do now. Yet if you listen closely, you’ll hear that what he’s actually saying is that they won’t pay a lower SHARE of the overall tax burden than now. What he never admits is that will pay a whole lot less TAX. Let me give you two examples. First example. Say you die and leave your child $1 billion. Right now, $450 million of that goes in tax; your kid keeps $550 million. Gov. Romney wants her to keep the full $1 billion. A $450 million tax cut. It’s just silly to think that taking away your kid’s mortgage deduction is going to make up for the $450 million. And guess what: really rich people often don’t even HAVE mortgages. They don’t need them. Gov. Romney would borrow $450 million from China to pay for this one kid’s tax cut. Or perhaps he’d pay for it by revoking 100,000 other kids’ Pell grants. Or by cutting veterans’ benefits. But however he’d pay for it, there can be no dispute: eliminating the estate tax is a tax cut for the rich. President Obama would leave the estate tax where it is: zero on the first five million, but 45% on large estates. Second example. Gov. Romney says he’s going to cut the income tax by 20% across the board. So if you pay $5 million a year — because you make $15 million a year — you’ll save $1 million. Maybe a little less, because you’ll lose your mortgage deduction (if you even bothered to take out a mortgage). Or because you’ll be taxed on the value of your health insurance benefits at work (if you even work). Or because you’ll lose the deduction you’d get for charitable deductions (encouraging you to give less). Or because you’ll lose the deduction for the state income tax you pay (if you live in a state that has one — Florida and Texas are examples of states that don’t). But it’s basically a $1 million tax cut for someone who’s doing just fine already. Gov. Romney would borrow that $1 million from China each year. Or perhaps pay for your tax cut by laying off ten or twenty meat inspectors. But however he’d pay for it, there can be no dispute: giving really rich people — like himself — a 20% income tax cut is a major tax cut for the rich. He may have persuaded himself that the richest among us will still be paying the same SHARE of the tax burden if he cuts their rates by 20% — because everyone else is paying 20% less, too. But it’s still a gigantic tax cut for the very richest among us. He’s hoping you won’t understand that. Twelve years ago a different former Republican governor – son of a different well-regarded Republican leader — ran for President on the promise that “by far the vast majority” of his proposed tax cuts would go to folks at “the BOTTOM of the economic ladder.” Not to the rich, as the Democrats were charging – to people at the bottom! It was a multi-trillion-dollar lie. Let’s not fall for Version 2.0. HOW TO AVOID THE ESTATE TAX EVEN IF MR. ROMNEY DOESN’T GET THE CHANCE TO ELIMINATE IT Here‘s how he’s eliminated it for his heirs. AT LAST: DETAILS OF ROMNEY’S TAX PLAN Sorry — I assume you’ve seen this ten times. It’s gone viral. But just in case — click here. Just takes a second. And finally . . . A WORD FROM BILL CLINTON At a rally in Parma, Ohio yesterday. In part: This guy ran Bain Capital and is a business guy, and he’s hiding his budget? That ought to tell you something. Well, he’s hiding his taxes, too, but he’s hiding his taxes in the years when he earned ordinary income. He’s given us two years when he was just running for president. And, he’s hiding whether he would have signed the Lilly Ledbetter act. He’s hiding everything. He doesn’t want you to think about him. He wants you to think, ‘Oh this economy is terrible. I’m a jobs guy.’ And as President Obama said in the debate, if I brought you a deal to Bain Capital and I said, fund my new business, I’ll give you the budget sometime in the future, just trust me on that, you wouldn’t give me one red cent, and we should not give him one vote on that. Now take four minutes to watch this part. No one makes more sense. Please: share it with your friends.
Quick Takes October 18, 2012October 18, 2012 I promise you, the billionaires are coming; but . . . there’s so much else crowding them out: 47 As others have noted: it’s both the percentage of Americans for whom Mr. Romney feels contempt (“I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for for their lives”) and the job creation rank to which Massachusetts fell under his stewardship (down from 37th when he took office). Not good either way you look at it. And let’s not forget 34: the Governor’s 34% approval rating upon leaving office in Massachusetts. If he did a good job, why the Bush-like approval rating? NOT BIPARTISAN It turns out Governor Romney was NOT particularly bipartisan in Massachusetts. Read it here. And even better, here: . . . Bipartisanship was in short supply; Statehouse Democrats complained he variously ignored, insulted or opposed them, with intermittent charm offensives. He vetoed scores of legislative initiatives and excised budget line items a remarkable 844 times, according to the nonpartisan research group Factcheck.org. Lawmakers reciprocated by quickly overriding the vast bulk of them. The big-ticket items that Mr. Romney proposed when he entered office in January 2003 went largely unrealized, and some that were achieved turned out to have a comparatively minor impact. A wholesale restructuring of state government was dead on arrival in the legislature; an ambitious overhaul of the state university system was stillborn; a consolidation of transportation fiefs never took place. Mr. Romney lobbied successfully to block changes in the state’s much-admired charter school program, but his own education reforms went mostly unrealized. His promise to lure new business and create jobs in a state that had been staggered by the collapse of the 2000 dot-com boom never quite bore fruit; unemployment dropped less than a percentage point during his four years, but for most of that time, much of the decline was attributed to the fact that any new jobs were being absorbed by a shrinking work force . . . REPUBLICAN DEATH PANELS A lot of Americans now seem to think that if someone dies for lack of health insurance (as someone does every 20 minutes), well, tough luck. Obamacare will save their lives. Mr. Romney has pledged to repeal it. As Nick Kristof argues here, “To feel undiminished by the deaths of those around us isn’t heroic Ayn Rand individualism. It’s sociopathic. Compassion isn’t a sign of weakness, but of civilization.” DAVID STOCKMAN ON MITT Former Republican Congressman and Reagan Budget Director David Stockman argues in his new book that “Bain’s billions of profits were not rewards for capitalist creation; they were mainly windfalls collected from gambling in markets that were rigged to rise.” Nevertheless [he continues], Mitt Romney claims that his essential qualification to be president is grounded in his 15 years as head of Bain Capital, from 1984 through early 1999. According to the campaign’s narrative, it was then that he became immersed in the toils of business enterprise, learning along the way the true secrets of how to grow the economy and create jobs. The fact that Bain’s returns reputedly averaged more than 50 percent annually during this period is purportedly proof of the case—real-world validation that Romney not only was a striking business success but also has been uniquely trained and seasoned for the task of restarting the nation’s sputtering engines of capitalism. Except Mitt Romney was not a businessman; he was a master financial speculator who bought, sold, flipped, and stripped businesses. He did not build enterprises the old-fashioned way—out of inspiration, perspiration, and a long slog in the free market fostering a new product, service, or process of production. Instead, he spent his 15 years raising debt in prodigious amounts on Wall Street so that Bain could purchase the pots and pans and castoffs of corporate America, leverage them to the hilt, gussy them up as reborn “roll-ups,” and then deliver them back to Wall Street for resale—the faster the better. That is the modus operandi of the leveraged-buyout business, and in an honest free-market economy, there wouldn’t be much scope for it because it creates little of economic value. But we have a rigged system—a regime of crony capitalism—where the tax code heavily favors debt and capital gains, and the central bank purposefully enables rampant speculation by propping up the price of financial assets and battering down the cost of leveraged finance. So the vast outpouring of LBOs in recent decades has been the consequence of bad policy, not the product of capitalist enterprise. I know this from 17 years of experience doing leveraged buyouts at one of the pioneering private-equity houses, Blackstone, and then my own firm. I know the pitfalls of private equity. The whole business was about maximizing debt, extracting cash, cutting head counts, skimping on capital spending, outsourcing production, and dressing up the deal for the earliest, highest-profit exit possible. . . . LOBBYISTS “Lobbyists ready for a comeback under Romney.” Here, in Politico: President Barack Obama’s gone further than any president to keep lobbyists out of the White House — even signing executive orders to do it. But the mood on K Street is brightening. Industry insiders believe that Mitt Romney will unshackle the revolving door and give lobbyists a shot at the government jobs their Democratic counterparts have been denied for the past four years, a dozen Republican lobbyists said in conversations with POLITICO. . . . And can I just say — because it’s cost us probably close to $100 million — the Obama campaign from the get-go, and the DNC from the minute he became our nominee more than four years ago, has not taken a dime from federal lobbyists or PACs. Even though it’s legal and even though our competition does. (And even though there are lots of wonderful lobbyists, many of them lobbying for admirable causes.)