Tag Archives: election 2012

Mitt Romney and taxes, the last word

Posted on by
Reply

The last word on special tax deductions for filers like Mitt Romney

[Update Mon. Nov. 5

Actually the last word on Romney’s taxes may be this Dutch article of today. The Volksrant reports that Romney lessened his tax pay-up by almost a hundred million Euros, by using tax mechanisms routed through the Netherlands as written earlier.]

 

The last pre-election word on Mitt Romney’s own tax arrangements may be this article published by Bloomberg Oct. 29. Overshadowed by Hurricane Sandy, the report–“Romney Avoids Taxes via Loophole Cutting Mormon Donations”–once and for all clarifies how Romney could, indeed, get away with paying no income tax for years on end.

In pertinent part,

“The charitable remainder unitrust, as it is known, is one of several strategies Romney has adopted over his career to reduce his tax bill . . .

In this instance, Romney used the tax-exempt status of a charity — the Mormon Church, according to a 2007 filing — to defer taxes for more than 15 years.”

“In general, charities don’t owe capital gains taxes when they sell assets for a profit. Trusts like Romney’s permit funders to benefit from that tax-free treatment . . .”

“When individuals fund a charitable remainder unitrust, or “CRUT,” they defer capital gains taxes on any profit from the sale of the assets, and receive a small upfront charitable deduction and a stream of yearly cash payments. Like an individual retirement account, the trust allows money to grow tax deferred, while like an annuity it also pays Romney a steady income.”

“CRUTs were more common in the 1990s when capital gains rates were higher. In 1996, when Romney set up his trust in Massachusetts, the federal rate was 28 percent, compared with 15 percent today. At the time, a Massachusetts state resident who sold shares for a gain of $1 million could have faced a combined state and federal capital gains tax of as much as 40 percent, reducing his take to $600,000.

By contrast, if he contributed the stock to a CRUT, and it sold the shares, it typically wouldn’t owe any tax since it is a charitable trust. The CRUT could reinvest the $1 million and earn a return on the full amount.

“The power of this is the tax deferral,” said Jay A. Friedman, a partner at accounting firm Perelson Weiner LLP in New York. “The money is all growing tax free and he only pays tax on what is distributed to him.”

Concerned that CRUTS weren’t sufficiently philanthropic, Congress mandated in July 1997 that the present value of what was projected to be left for charity must equal at least 10 percent of the initial contribution. Existing CRUTS weren’t affected by the new law.”

As mentioned, Romney set up his trust in 1996. Looks as though his financial advisors were keeping an eye on upcoming developments in Congress.

Speaking of those–

Romney’s own tax returns are only one side of the Romney tax story in election 2012. The other side of the Romney tax story is, as ever, the question of what action a Romney-Ryan administration would take on tax policy. On that side of the story, there has been no last word.

We do know that Romney’s silence, and his past actions, have left an awful lot on the table, ‘on the table’ meaning to be carved up by the same harpies who brought us the Iraq war. Much harm can be done to the big middle of the working class in America under the guise of budget-cutting–just as many windfalls accrue to the undeserving few under the guise of promoting growth. ‘Austerity’ and ‘growth’ are two sides of the same bogus coin. A national economy should meet our needs as a nation, not shoot for some target abstraction or imitate the endless game of ever-boosting stock prices as an index of ‘performance’. The Greek root for economy is oikos, the household.

 

The candidate

If the Romney candidacy stands for anything, it stands for exactly the opposite of meeting our needs. It stands for–if anything–boosting torque in a series of boom-and-bust markets, supporting a temporary marketplace rather than supporting the national economy. Right now, we have only inconsistent or evasive statements from Romney on some of the most important middle-class tax breaks–including the mortgage interest deduction on first homes, and the capital-gains exclusion on first home sales–or no statement at all.

 

Capital gains exclusion for home sale

On the other hand, it’s interesting how much we do know about Romney.

We knew back in August that Romney is cheerfully cognizant of tax loopholes for big business. In August, he said with absentminded candor that “big businesses are doing fine” because they can always use loopholes.

 

Romney hitting the marks

We learned in September, when Romney released a couple of partial returns, that in 2011 his own trust received more from the federal government than it paid. Thus we know–again–that Romney is not all that worried about ‘takers’, when they’re people like him. Again we know that Romney is less than worried about the national debt, since he as another purchaser of U.S. Treasury notes was willing to add to it. Here for convenience again are the documents:

The 2011 tax return:

total adjusted gross income:       $13,696,951.

biggest income source: capital gain:         $6,810,176.

next: dividends:                               $3,649,567.

next: interest:   $3,012,775.

 

The 2011 W. Mitt Romney Blind Trust return:

top line: U.S. Government Interest: $652,018.

U.S. Government Interest reported as Dividends: $12,027.

thus a total of $664,045 from our govt.

 

The 2011 Family Trust return:

top line usgov interest: $662,115.

usgov interest reported as dividends: $90,461.

total $752,576.

 

The 2011 Ann D. Romney Blind Trust return:

top line usgov interest: $362,701.

usgov interest reported as dividends: $156,157.

total $518,858.

As written before, the Romneys’ federal interest income comes to one-seventh, or 14 percent, of the adjusted gross income declared on Romney’s IRS return for 2011. Romney’s income tax burden was almost exactly offset by interest income the Romney trusts received from the U.S. Treasury.

Looking at the same thing another way, without the federal interest income, his adjusted gross comes down to $11,239,472–and that’s just the interest on those U.S. government products. The face value of the Treasury bonds, notes or bills does not have to be reported, nor the purchase date or the type of Treasury product.

 

We knew in 2011 that Romney was less than forthcoming on the heated fiscal debate in Congress. Candidate Romney stayed out of the debt-ceiling fight. He stayed out of the disputes between House leadership and mad-dog Tea Party representatives over the federal budget. He stayed out of disputes between the House and the Senate. Remarkably, he even stayed out of most disputes between Democrats and Republicans. He was inconsistent on Paul Ryan’s budget, and statements between the nominee and his pick for vice president have yet to be fully aligned. That is, the two Republican candidates have not bothered to align their differing positions, even for public consumption.

By 2012 we did have Romney’s explicit statement that he would not release his tax returns if he were nominated. Romney stuck to this (one) position even under serious pressure from his own side.

As to the Romney track record on fiscal management, its main component is Bain Capital. We have long known that Bain Capital benefited from taking over debt-ridden companies. We knew that Bain profited from big employee layoffs, from the bankruptcies of other companies, and from off-shoring. We have long known that Romney himself is aware of the political liabilities in his track record, as his varying accounts of his relationship with Bain Capital indicate. He had fielded questions about Bain before running for the White House. He has been only somewhat less evasive about Bain than about his own taxes, and only somewhat less evasive about his own taxes than about his preferences on future tax policy.

Regardless of any differences on detail, as we know, by the end of March Rep. Ryan endorsed Romney. Ryan could read the map on demographics. There was no possibility of a Santorum win. 

There was a little more mystery in Romney’s choice of running mate. Maybe not all that much, though. We saw Romney come out with the Ryan announcement after being blitzed over a few days by the Wall Street Journal, National Review writer Rich Lowry, and the Weekly Standard, all urging him to pick Ryan.

So much for tacking to the middle.

So much for winning, as far as that goes. In choosing Paul Ryan, Romney did not play to the electorate. He played to some rightist media personalities and to officeholders who are future lobbyists.

To sum up: The foregoing does not add up to a candidate with a vision of government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

In honor of Sunday morning, a prediction about Sunday morning

Posted on by
Reply

In honor of Sunday morning, a prediction about Sunday morning

It’s Sunday morning, and we can expect that today’s morning talk shows will not be terse about the much-touted close and/or ‘tightening’ election. Close election is the moral indifferents’ ground game. It was their calling card; now it is their mantra. If it happens, it will be a defeat for the public.

Hence this article:

It is a given that pre-game armchair quarterbacking is going to be weaker than post-game ditto. But with due respect to some of the established journalists who get on air while people like me never do,* I still cannot  understand the excessive chatter about a 2012 ‘close election’. If a close election is such a given, why do they talk about it so unceasingly? –They don’t keep reminding us that we have two major parties, one Democratic, you know, and the other Republican.

Sigmund Freud

Professor Sigmund Freud and I hypothesize that in fact the hysterical insisters on a ‘close election’ fear that it might be, or might have been, otherwise. As Gertrude said, Methinks somebody doth protest too much.

(Freudian slip: When you say one thing but mean your mother.)

Summary analysis, so far as I can figure it out:

Some Washington insiders (as Chris Matthews called them, without irony) are making common cause with the Republican noise machine, up to a point.

A close election is a GOP win

They’re doing so not because they have a committed belief that rich-get-richer is the best fiscal policy, not because they have any fantasy that Mitt Romney will produce ‘jobs’, and not because they want all abortions, etc., illegal; quite the contrary. They are simply afraid on grounds of short-term self-interest to call an issue for the guy who’s winning it. Like other established but under-qualified persons, they’re not eager to see merit rewarded. It’s the gut response, when you don’t have guts.

Thus, while no one in his right mind could think that a Romney-Ryan administration would be other than economic disaster, we still have serious news people treating the GOP ticket as though it embodied gravitas. The same people insist on a close election.

Electoral map, 2008

As to the election, predictions are vain, of course. But we do have ‘facts on the ground’, a phrase deferred to ad nauseam in lip service, less in accuracy. Among tangibles, we have a popular incumbent president. Incumbency in every other national election in memory has been considered a fundamental by the national political press. The guys on the bus accorded incumbency fundamental status even with the troubled administration of George W. Bush. (They unceasingly touted GWBush’s ‘likability’, too.) In 2012, the incumbent is being challenged by a discredited party–the Republicans continue to lose in party identification. At the top of the ticket, the minority party has a lackluster candidate who has never been a powerful national figure. Romney’s unfavorables, for people who track that kind of thing, are near-record. The candidate has proven himself so willing to say anything, depending on audience, that virtually every adult citizen knows about the propensity. His defining visual, the Etch-a-Sketch quality, is a staple for late-night comics. Again, in any other election years the guys on the bus would have made a big deal of this kind of thing. (On the other hand, Romney’s flip-flopping has become such a given that it’s in danger of becoming passively accepted, and thus acceptable.)

Then there’s Romney’s vice presidential pick. The fact that Paul Ryan is still running for Congress suggests that he doesn’t see the upcoming election as a win for Romney.

 

Ryan gets pans for washing clean pots

Clearly, what should be reported most about the election is what it means for the country. A Romney win would be disaster, given the foreign-policy recklessness and domestic reverse-Robin-Hood the candidate has upheld during the campaign. Thus most political reporting is a loss from the get-go.

Even in narrowly political terms, however, the trend of much political reporting recently has been disturbing. Recent signs of the times have gone unstated or understated. Early voting is up in 2012–up even over the strong early vote of2008–and analysis of early voting consistently gives the advantage to Obama and the Democrats over Romney and the GOP. Swing state polls continue to give Obama the edge. Gaffes and missteps continue for the Romney-Ryan campaign. Opinion polls on the second debate give Obama the win, rightly. One poll is linked here; the consensus is advantage-Obama, from immediately post-debate to the present. Vice President Joe Biden is universally considered to have won in his appearance with Paul Ryan. Numbers from number man Nate Silver continue to give Obama the lead, as they have for months. A short article from Silver on occasions when Gallup has been the outlier is linked here. Virtually every electoral college map gives the win to Obama, and has for months, even while published opinion polls continue to undercount some demographics including cell-phone users. Even the published polls indicate that Obama sweeps the youth vote.

Yet with all the plus factors touched on here, and more, the Obama campaign itself has started doing what the John Kerry campaign did in 2004–focusing too much on a few swing states. This is a tactic too politically transparent and too liable to breed cynicism. It brings a danger that people will forget that the president governs, watching him campaign. There is a margin of diminishing returns. Look how it worked for Kerry.**

It’s great for the president to visit Florida, which needs all the help it can get. But the president should also come to Baltimore (and to Prince George’s County, Md.), go to Richmond, to New Mexico, and to North Carolina, time permitting. Also, Obama’s team is undervaluing the incumbent. Let him spend more time governing: New Orleans also needs all the help it can get. So does Arizona. So does New Jersey, for that matter. Look at N.J.’s governor. So do all the states and localities where vote suppression tactics are taking hold.

 

Lining up to vote early

Obviously I do not belong to the brigade of highly paid experts with a track record of winning (or losing) national campaigns. My views are offered here simply as those of a voter, a writer and journalist, and an observer. I am offering them not to fill up air time but because I think I’m right. Viz.: People in the rest of the U.S. don’t appreciate being ignored because a few less than truthful pundits are again pretending to consider ‘undecided voters’ seriously. The rest of the country doesn’t appreciate being ignored while up-and-down voters keep wobbling with every opinion poll. For that matter, it doesn’t make a handful of states feel all that special to be wired like paramecia under a microscope, within days of a national election. The nation is more important than they are, as on some level they themselves know.

Bainport, Illinois

Let the ground game take up some of the slack on the campaign trail. Admittedly, some who perceive themselves as strategists could perceive limiting swing-state visits as a disadvantage. GOP opponent Mitt Romney, after all, doesn’t have to spend his time and energy governing. He could visit Florida another twelve times. But that’s because Romney hasn’t been elected to anything lately. Let Fox News have its polls, let the same crew of Washington insiders who boosted the Iraq war boost ‘centrists’, a ‘close election’, and ‘undecided voters’. These are not people to be influenced by. After all, if we actually have a close election in this country, the press will have failed the public.

To sum up, the administration has a good record, and should run on it. One of the uglier examples of the big lie in election 2012 has been Romney’s pretense that the Obama record is one to run away from. The GOP, in contrast, has an execrable record. Any good television ad campaign could condense the mortgage-derivatives crisis in a few spots. We’ve got upside-down mortgages because we had an upside-down Wall Street. Financial insiders touted disastrous products for the public and got out with billions themselves, everybody else paid the price, and Romney-Ryan and the congressional GOP have banded together to protect the privileged. Their slogan: Prevent improvement.

 

*I have not tried to get on television.

**Qualifier: Kerry won Ohio in 2004. He thus won the electoral college vote; most of the same media figures touting a close election this time swept Ohio under the rug in 2004.

Benghazi , binders and birthers

Posted on by
1

Benghazi , binders and birthers

With any luck, last night’s town-hall presidential debate will quell some unseemly attempts to exploit the attacks on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya. It will not end the topic, since the perpetrators have not been caught yet. When they are caught, that will be the point at which right-wingers of the Koch-brothers persuasion quit mentioning Benghazi. We will then hear no more from them about ‘Benghazi’ than we now hear from them about Osama bin Laden. Almost the only times the right/GOP mention bin Laden are to tongue-twist his name with that of President Obama.

A dead bin Laden generates no contracts.

Meanwhile, GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s worst (regarding Benghazi) has been caught on videotape.

 

Romney corrected by Crowley

Here is the White House transcript of the president’s address in the Rose Garden, the day after the attacks. Here is the president’s explicit reference to terrorism:

“As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.”

It should be noted that the entire address comprised a tribute to the heroic American victims, a pledge to fight back, and repeated characterization of the attacks as what they were–attacks. Obama referred to “attack” and “attackers” throughout the Rose Garden address.

Obama’s entire address was dignified. The right can’t stand that. The segment of the right that jokes about turning the Rose Garden into a watermelon patch especially can’t stand it. Furthermore, every tumult in the Middle East occurs in the global context of an improved image for America, because of the switch from George W. Bush to Barack Obama. The right really can’t stand that.

Thus the spiteful glee with which some congressional Republicans have pounced on the Benghazi attacks. It’s we’ll-show-you-where-your-peace-gets-you. Falsely, Romney’s smarmy comments in last night’s debate suggest that the Obama administration has been characterizing the killing of four Americans as some kind of ‘spontaneous demonstration’. Basically, this kind of accusation is the petty revenge of worse against better, Romney behaving like a petty character in an old Brian de Palma movie instead of boosting the dignity and unity of the U.S. for global viewers.

But wait; there’s more. The gold-selling anti-Obama crowd is trying to refute even the fact that the president did indeed refer to the attacks as terror. How? By drawing an artificial distinction between the words terror and terrorism. An example:

“In tonight’s presidential debate President Obama maintains that he called the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi a “act of terror”, which turns out to be accurate.  However, the President is using a play on words.  The full transcript below supports that assertion, which the moderator, Candy Crowley vehemently confirmed the President did do.  However, the legal term of “act of terrorism” is never used.”

These are the people who claim that President Obama’s birth certificate is phony because it is titled (by the state of Hawaii) CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH rather than “Birth Certificate.”

 

[Update]

Daily Kos presents the video moment on Benghazi here.

Talking Points Memo does it here.

Think Progress treats it here.

Biden wins VP debate, Ryan gulps water

Posted on by
Reply

VP debate: Biden wins, Ryan gulps water

 

C-Span is great. A recommendation for future debate watchers: C-Span is the way to go. Public broadcasting is the way to go. They’re the channels for navigating between the false split-the-dif mindset on the networks, on one hand, and the self-caressing party-time mindset on cable, on the other.

As to last night’s vice presidential debate between Vice President Joe Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan, you can tell that the Democrats won when commentator-propagandists like WashPost’s Dan Balz call it a ‘draw’. It will be interesting to know where Mitt Romney stands on further benefits (styled ‘education reform’, aka standardized testing) to Kaplan Inc., the Washington Post Co. subsidiary so large it has all but subsumed the parent corporation.*

Signs of the times

But enough said on the horse race.

As to my question in yesterday’s post—whether Ryan would say anything clarifying Romney–Ryan gave a couple of answers relating to abortion.

1)      Speaking for a Romney-Ryan administration, Ryan said, “We don’t think that unelected judges should make this decision.” Seems pretty definitive, that Romney would push legislation and regulations–but does not preclude appointing anti-abortion judges, though it does not promise to do so.

2)      Ryan said clearly that a Romney-Ryan administration would oppose all abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is at stake. This one, assuming it’s accurate, is newly definitive—and another shift of position–though it leaves cases of the mother’s health, in any situation short of death’s-door, unresolved.

 

Chart: deductions

Notably, Ryan still did not address the question of the mortgage interest deduction. Even when asked directly by moderator Martha Raddatz whether the budget “loopholes” Ryan referred to several times would include the mortgage interest deduction, the congressman ducked.

Somewhat more clearly, Ryan did attack Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, accusing him of “equivocation.”

Interesting choice of words, given the source. Ryan reassured the public several times that “we” “agreed” with the Obama administration on foreign policy choices—even while criticizing the choices. He also criticized the administration for an alleged lack of clarity in foreign policy, either omitting or indirectly acknowledging that strategy and tactics sometimes demand some tacking.

A lot of GOPers fall into that one. The blood-thirstiest ones never seem to recall that it might be wise not to give potential attackers a road map.

 

President and Mrs. Reagan, 1983

Meanwhile, Ryan’s repeated references to “Marines” re Benghazi were an unhappy reminder of the Marine barracks in Beirut.

Back to that channel-selection guide, up top. A very few minutes’ worth of cable commentary last night was enough to convey that too many commentators a) focused on their notion of ‘style’; b) used ‘style’ as a tool for the usual double-standarding; and c) didn’t bother about accuracy. Biden’s mocking smile was criticized. Ryan’s doing the same thing was not.

Ryan’s smile wasn’t as broad.

Oddly, given the way some of the tea-leaf readers home in on the smallest detail, no one noticed that Congressman Ryan gulped water some ten times in the debate. Or at least that’s my count, according to my notes. The first time was at the beginning; he kept returning to that life-giving fluid at tense moments; and he ceased only when the end was in sight.

Update Friday:

None of the on-air commentary I caught mentioned Ryan’s need for lots of water, but I am not the only person who saw it. So did Bill Maher and others; see thread.

 

*I was the sole journalist in the DC region who reported the Post Co.’s financial stake in GWBush’s ‘education reforms’ under the Bush administration. Neither the ‘left’ nor the ‘right’ picked it up and shared the information with the broader public. Nor did the Washington Post newspaper.

A question for tonight’s VP debate

Posted on by
Reply

A question for tonight’s VP debate

 

I have no prediction about tonight’s vice presidential debate between Vice President Joe Biden and GOP nominee (and congressional nominee) Paul Ryan. I do have one question beforehand, and it’s whether Ryan will say anything that will shed light on Mitt Romney. Listened to closely, Ryan might say something–intentionally or otherwise–that will clarify Romney’s own positions, will widen the window onto a hypothetical Romney-Ryan administration.

 

Neo but not new

This comment should not be misconstrued to suggest that what Romney offers is entirely unclear. Broadly, Romney offers what the top echelon of the GOP always offers–reverse-Robin Hood at home, and contract-generating bloodthirsty incursions abroad. (If you think this summary sounds reductive or harsh, try to rebut it. Try to remember one time in the past two years that Romney has called for kindness and moderation abroad, has counseled restraint rather than intrusion, or has commended the president for boosting a more favorable view of America around the world.) The mere fact that the disgraced neo-cons and PNAC alumni left over from the Bush administration have gravitated to Romney should be clue enough.

For quick thumbnail illustration, try this short-short-short film, working title These Guys:

http://tinyurl.com/bmq6stf 

If you want more trillion-dollar wars and more trillion-dollar redistribution of wealth to Wall Street, less prosecution of mortgage fraud at home and less budgeting for embassy security abroad, Romney’s your man.

 

Talking tough is one thing, paying for embassy security another

Wars abroad, regression at home. End of story–except for the horrible specifics including cost, yet undisclosed by Romney; and except for the consequences.

But the clarity of the big picture does not illuminate the corner that is social policy. Ironically, even while Romney-Ryan social policy has been discussed and ventilated out of all proportion to what Romney and Ryan plan for this country and the globe, I for one have no prediction as to what Romney would actually do about abortion, if he made the White House.

This is not to be stubborn. I know that Romney has pandered to the right wing in every conceivable way, in every venue, on social matters. I also firmly believe that Romney’s flip-flopping on economic and fiscal matters will leave unaltered his bedrock rich-get-richer core. Thus the most recent flip-flop on abortion and birth control–Romney’s remarkable statement this week that he doesn’t know of any legislation (connected to him) that would change things–cannot be taken as an earnest of anything. It is certainly not a sign of true, bedrock moderation under all the foaming at the mouth. Someone whose bedrock is peaceable could not stomach all the blood-and-guts Romney has been spilling on the campaign trail, in either foreign policy or social policy.

That said, a prediction as to which way Romney would actually go on Roe v. Wade, in the Oval Office, is impossible. It all depends on what’s in it for him.

No matter how hard I try, I cannot imagine Romney’s standing up to defend fundamentalist anti-abortionists, if doing so took political courage. Likewise, I cannot imagine Romney’s standing up to defend women, if it took political courage. When has he ever done either one, if–again–it took political courage to do so?

Here is the only way to project what a chief executive Romney would do. What’s in it for him? What is the over-all deal? What deal does the anti-abortion/pro-choice/fill-in-the-blank position seal? Or sweeten?

 

Big Bird turnaround artists

Posted on by
Reply

A Big Bird round-up

For fun, or not

Big Bird costumes are hot sellers for Halloween this year. It happened you-know-when.

Not every comic can top that.

Big Bird in the news

But then it’s not all comedy.

Pathos

Not all history is in the past, either.

Romney would end unemployment lines. No more unemployment compensation

This might be a good time to remember that the Party of Romney, while dwindling, is the party that has shown itself unabashedly willing to use fiscal cliffs for blackmail.

Look back in anger

 

It’s the same party that has worked for decades to cast doubt on any publicly funded program that could in any way benefit children.

Generations

This is the same candidate who has expressed support for shedding blood around the globe–except when the shedding was done in a measured, limited way, to take out the main coordinator behind the attacks of September 11, 2001.

War room

This is the same candidate who has repeatedly expressed willingness to cut education funding, with a sop to ‘choice’ in vouchers for poor families.

Reading, fun and information

He is also the candidate whose corporate turnarounds succeeded more for a comparatively small group of investors than for employees in companies his firm bought in fire sales.

Investment

 

Note: There is probably some spinner out there right now, attempting to reassure the public that Mitt Romney didn’t mean it about firing Big Bird. To do the man justice, I believe he was sincere.

 

Debating against an Etch-A-Sketch

Posted on by
Reply

Debating against an Etch-A-Sketch

How could cutting federal programs and cutting taxes ‘grow the economy’?

It was Gov. Mitt Romney who said, last night, that he would not reduce taxes for high-income individuals. It was Romney who said, “I’m not looking for a $5 trillion tax cut.” Romney repeatedly said he does not favor a tax cut for the rich. It was Romney who first said, “We have to have regulation” in the financial sector, adding that we can’t have people opening up a bank in their garage. Romney said, “I’m not going to cut education funding.” It was Romney who repeated–shades of George H. W. Bush’s “read my lips”–that he would not, underscore not, pursue any tax cut that raises the deficit. Romney’s own words: “My plan is not to put in place any tax cut that will add to the deficit.”

Romney, before first debate

Let’s set aside for a moment any questions about the truth content of the statements. The immediate observation for me last night–watching the televised debate, with estimable moderator Jim Lehrer, on C-Span–was Romney’s acute defensiveness.

He’s right to be defensive, of course. Romney and Paul Ryan, his running mate, have between them produced hundreds of utterances exactly the reverse of the foregoing. A quick run-down, quickly pulled off the top from a mountain of examples:

  • Ryan’s tax plan as originally published supports eliminating the capital gains tax entirely–along with all taxes on interest, dividends, and inheritance
  • Romney’s own tax plan, updated under fire, retains the George W. Bush tax cuts for the wealthy
  • Romney’s tax plan additionally cuts individual income tax rates in yet-unspecified ways
  • Romney’s tax plan, like Ryan’s, also eliminates taxes on investment income, eliminates any taxes raising revenue in the health reform legislation, and eliminates the estate (inheritance) tax–a provision that benefits himself greatly
  • Romney and Ryan have both repeatedly proposed lowering the corporate income tax rate, claiming that U.S. corporations pay higher taxes even when news reports and other analysis show top companies paying no income tax in a given year
  • as to education, both Romney and Ryan want to repeal the American Opportunity tax credit for higher education
  • Romney’s tax plan calls for repealing the refundability of the child tax credit and for repealing the expansion of the earned income tax credit (EITC)
  • in another sop to private companies making money off students and parents, Romney supports allowing students receiving federal aid, such as students with disabilities, to use their aid to pay for private schools (“school choice”)

 

Romney

The truth content of any statement by Romney on the campaign trail is up for grabs. The bigger the audience, the more up for grabs.

A reasoned assessment of candidate Romney’s statements as harbingers of future policy under a Romney-Ryan administration might note some of the things Romney did not say.

  • Although Romney said last night (defensively) that he would close loopholes in the tax code, as President Obama pointed out, Romney did not clarify what loopholes or deductions he might close. Romney implied that he would close loopholes or eliminate deductions that benefit the wealthy but did not say which.
  • Romney did not mention George W. Bush. Romney’s repeated assertion that he will not “cut” taxes for the wealthy leaves in place the previous cuts passed under the Bush administration.
  • Romney said that he would “replace” Dodd-Frank but did not say how he would replace the legislation or with what.
  • Romney did not mention congressional Republicans, by name or by specific policy. This was politic. Candidate Romney cannot castigate the president for ‘slow’ economic recovery from the worst economic event since the Great Depression, if people remember that everything the Obama administration has tried has been opposed by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.).
  • Come to think of it, Romney did not mention by name any top Republicans now running for office or for reelection. He did not mention even his own running mate, Paul Ryan–also running for Congress–until the president mentioned him in connection with Ryan’s Medicare proposals. Possibly Romney less than pleased with some of Ryan’s recent criticisms of his gaffes.

Ryan and Medicare

As said, more than a trifle defensive, and understandably so. By all accounts, Romney came into last night’s debate pretty much on his own–though he will benefit from the predictable spin by the right-wing echo chamber, always ready to scare the timorous. (A glance at headlines shows they’re already double-standarding the president on defensiveness.)

Diagram of weather vane

Back to the debate–before leaving this quick sketch of not-mentioned’s, one final item.

On reducing the deficit, candidate Romney said, “I have my own plan.”

From the transcript:

LEHRER: Governor, what about Simpson-Bowles? Do you support Simpson-Bowles?

ROMNEY: Simpson-Bowles, the president should have grabbed that.

LEHRER: No, I mean, do you support Simpson-Bowles?

ROMNEY: I have my own plan. It’s not the same as Simpson- Bowles. But in my view, the president should have grabbed it. If you wanted to make some adjustments to it, take it, go to Congress, fight for it.

OBAMA: That’s what we’ve done, made some adjustments to it, and we’re putting it forward before Congress right now, a $4 trillion plan . . .

ROMNEY: But you’ve been — but you’ve been president four years…

(CROSSTALK)

This is a perfect example of (some of) the most infuriating GOP tactics. It’s Romney’s kind of syllogism. One, the president should have supported Simpson-Bowles. Two, I am not supporting Simpson-Bowles and am not saying how I differ. Three, the president should have supported Simpson-Bowles.

No mention, no mention whatsoever, of congressional Republicans’ obstruction of every social and fiscal proposal for the last four years. No mention of their stated determination to keep Obama from doing anything to improve the economy or to reduce the deficit–since that would enhance his chances of reelection.

Mitch McConnell

It is a relief, in a sense, to turn from Romney’s omissions and outright lies to some moments of clarity. Here are a few:

Romney stated repeatedly that he will support “no tax cut that adds to the deficit.” He also referred repeatedly to balancing the budget. “My plan is not to put in place any tax cut that will add to the deficit. That’s point one.”

When Obama said, “Romney has ruled out revenue” in deficit reduction, and Lehrer asked Romney to respond to the statement, Romney agreed.

Romney repeatedly referred to shifting federal programs to the states. Romney stuck with the idea of turning even Medicaid over to states, even when Obama rightly criticized it.

Fifty fiscal cliffs?

Obviously, if you push the costs of federal programs on to the states by turning over federal programs to states, you–so to speak–reduce the federal deficit. You also produce a 50-state version of the fiscal cliff. I am hoping no sane person anywhere to the left of Louis XVI goes along with this. Romney’s idea, in case anyone missed it, amounts to turning health care over to the states, turning veterans’ benefits over to the states, turning Medicaid over to the states. Does anyone envision the state of Alabama, or South Carolina, getting insurance companies to provide actual health care coverage–either for poor people or for anyone else? How about the state legislatures of Tennessee or Kentucky? Have they made the insurance industry play ball? When? Are they provided with the laws-with-teeth it takes to exact sizable fines from large companies committing fraud, including insurance companies that defraud? Do they even have the resources to prosecute multi-state fraudsters?

On Medicare, another moment of clarity. From the transcript:

LEHRER: All right. Can we—can the two of you agree that the voters have a choice—a clear choice between the two . . .

ROMNEY: Absolutely.

LEHRER: . . . of you on Medicare?

ROMNEY: Absolutely.

OBAMA: Absolutely.

Explaining

Now to some clearer statements from Romney.

From the transcript:

“I don’t want to cost jobs. My priority is jobs. And so what I do is I bring down the tax rates, lower deductions and exemptions, the same idea behind Bowles-Simpson, by the way, get the rates down, lower deductions and exemptions, to create more jobs, because there’s nothing better for getting us to a balanced budget than having more people working, earning more money, paying more taxes. That’s by far the most effective and efficient way to get this budget balanced.”

From the transcript:

“So how do we deal with it? Well, mathematically, there are three ways that you can cut a deficit. One, of course, is to raise taxes. Number two is to cut spending. And number [three] is to grow the economy, because if more people work in a growing economy, they’re paying taxes, and you can get the job done that way.

The presidents would—president would prefer raising taxes. I understand. The problem with raising taxes is that it slows down the rate of growth. And you could never quite get the job done. I want to lower spending and encourage economic growth at the same time.

What things would I cut from spending? Well, first of all, I will eliminate all programs by this test, if they don’t pass it: Is the program so critical it’s worth borrowing money from China to pay for it? And if not, I’ll get rid of it. Obamacare’s on my list.”

For my money, this is the place to arrive, for anyone who wants to evaluate the somewhat slippery Romney’s vision for the future. The statements just quoted come as close as anything can to Romney’s core principles.

They also amount to a Get-out-of-jail-free card for candidate Romney. You see, it’s number [three], ‘growing the economy’, that works the magic. Growing the economy will produce jobs; more jobs will mean more taxes paid by working people–we just recently heard Veep nominee and congressional candidate Ryan expressing concern about that; and more taxes from working people will mean reducing the deficit.

And how will Romney ‘grow the economy’? We’ve heard it before. He will cut taxes and cut federal programs.

This is the game plan. Forget repetitions of the potent word ‘jobs’. Forget touching anecdotes about a few individuals. Forget claims of supporting the middle class. Cutting taxes and cutting federal programs will grow the economy, and that will take care of all our other problems.

And what if it doesn’t work?

[Update]

Romney’s debate performance is spawning numerous fact-based rebuttals. This one  from Daily Kos is representative.

[          ]

 

Romney’s taxes and (almost) everybody else’s

Posted on by
Reply

Which tax loopholes would Romney want to cut?

‘Loophole’ is an elastic term, defined adequately for now by the free dictionary:

“A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance.”

Broadly defined, tax loopholes are legal ways to escape paying taxes.

Easy question: What tax loopholes right now do wealthiest individuals benefit from most?

 

Mortgage interest deduction

Quick answer:

Wealthy individuals receiving income from capital gains, including hedge fund managers, get their income taxed at the capital gains rate, i.e. a top rate of 15 percent. For some reason, buying and selling assets for money is not income the way working for money is. From a public policy standpoint, this means that some of the powers that be consider buying and selling assets more difficult than, say, laying a railroad. Or else they consider the former more socially productive–even after the mortgage-derivatives meltdown.

 

Capital gains tax and wealth

Bringing this tax issue swiftly down to the current presidential race, President Obama has supported changing this policy. There is effectively zero chance that GOP nominee Mitt Romney will support such a change. As previously written, Romney has used the capital gains advantage to great benefit in his own tax returns, and makes no bones about it. Romney’s 14 percent tax rate for 2011–voluntarily higher than it had to be, at that, and maybe temporary–has been widely reported.

Candidate Romney has been vague, to put it nicely, on what tax loopholes he would close. But this helpful article by one of the rightists at The New Republic provides a list of convenient targets. In all probability, a President Romney would look here first. First, note that almost all of these provisions–nine out of ten–benefit individuals rather than corporations (which are “people, my friends”). Furthermore, almost all of them benefit the middle class, people of ordinary wealth, income and assets.

Drum roll, please. Here are some of the top tax ‘loopholes’ in descending order of effectiveness, i.e. in taxes from the middle class lost, so to speak, to the Treasury. Reading each of these knots in the rope for the middle class, ask yourself one key question: Is there any realistic possibility that a President Romney and a Republican Congress would not target it for elimination? Note: If not, why not?

  • Employer contributions for employee health insurance/health care are excluded. Can you see a Romney-Ryan administration not trying to tax these?
  • The home mortgage interest deduction. The GOP platform coming out of the Republican National Convention left this one wide open.
  • Step-up basis of capital gains at death. With all the Republican hue and cry about inheritance taxes as a ‘death tax’, this one may be safe. Currently, capital gains on assets held at the owner’s death are not subject to capital gains tax, regardless of your income. The assets are valued at market on the date of death, again regardless of your income. Here, look out for state or county ‘recording fees’, and bank administrative fees, etc., that regressively burden a small inheritance more than a large estate. Not that one should be over-confident. Reps like Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan are entirely capable of finding additional federal ways to limit the benefit of the step-up for middle-income heirs.
  • 401(k) plans. Really. Seriously. Can you imagine a Romney-Ryan administration boosting, leaving in place or in any way supporting private pension arrangements that might benefit a large number of middle-class workers or retirees?
  • Imputed rental income is excluded. Creates an advantage for owning over renting, thus creates an advantage for stability and greater economic security for middle-class voters. Is there a realistic chance that this one would not be a target?
  • State and local taxes are deducted. Romney himself benefited heftily from this deduction, according to his 2011 IRS filing.
  • Accelerated depreciation of machinery and equipment. Can benefit most the business persons who need it most. See the bull’s-eye?
  • Capital gains. Well, there’s one in every bunch.
  • Deduction for charitable contributions. They’ve already started going after this one, so they can hardly claim they won’t be trying further. Admittedly many wealthy individuals benefit from this deduction–but so do the causes to which they donate, including House of Ruth, Disabled Veterans of America, and countless food banks.
  • Exclusions for employer contributions to employee pension plans. See the first and fourth items, above.

 

The TNR author has a valid point that many, many dollars in tax ‘loopholes’ benefit individuals in the big middle of the U.S. economy. Another way of looking at the same topic–rather than suggesting 90 percent of the population as a giant larder to be raided by the one-percenters–would see most of these exclusions and deductions as reasonable ways to shore up individuals throughout all ranks of society. Thus it would seem to be a key question for campaign 2012: Which tax loopholes, Governor Romney, would you close? Maybe that question will be asked in one of the debates. It has not been effectively posed by the national political press so far, at least not effectively enough to get a clear answer.

Meanwhile, along with the big-ticket items above that allow the middle class to survive, there are some intriguing smaller items benefiting a far smaller cohort.

See for example this piece from Andrew Sorkin, from 2011. As the author points out, an oddity of the tax code benefits day traders and speculators who buy and sell futures contracts–even in comparison with traders in stocks or mutual funds.

“For years, futures contracts, which are essentially bets on the price of commodities, stock indexes and the like, have received a more favorable tax treatment than stocks. A trader who buys and sells an oil contract in less than a year—even in a matter of minutes—pays no more than a 23 percent tax on the profits.

Compare that with the bill for flipping shares of Google, General Electric or even a diversified mutual fund in the same time period. Those short-term investment gains are treated like ordinary income, meaning the rate can run as high as 35 percent.”

The biggest beneficiaries, Sorkin continues, “seem to be day traders and speculators.  Long-term investors account for only 20 percent of the activity in the commodities future market, according to a report published last week by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the industry regulator.”

Incidentally, the fact that short-term gains can be taxed at a higher rate also means that a short-term (paper) loss can be a significant write-off. As previously written, Mitt Romney has taken full advantage of this one, too.

Romney: “These are people who pay no income tax”

Posted on by
Reply

Romney: “These are people who pay no income tax”

Where did this Mitt Romney come from?

Let’s be clear, up top. Romney’s remarks at a Boca Raton fundraiser did not just link unworthy people, Obama voters, and the number ’47 percent’. Romney linked unworthy people, Obama voters, ’47 percent’, and “people who pay no income tax.”

 

Romney anti-tax button

Who spoke those words?

Why, Mitt Romney, the GOP nominee for the White House:

“There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement … And they will vote for this president no matter what … These are people who pay no income tax … My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

Did Romney miss his entire campaign over the past two years? Since when did he of all people equate paying federal income tax with personal responsibility?

(Note: I do, to some extent. Not he.)

Watching the tape, I found the casual they-pay-no-income-tax comment more jaw-dropping than the rest. (Had Romney just learned that he had to write a check to the IRS for 2011?) The candidate’s unbecoming dismissal of half the population is hardly news–aside from its exposure–nor is his dismissal of peace in the Middle East. This is basically the corporate GOP mindset. These are the same people, after all, who have abortions in their own families if they so choose but who are perfectly willing to subscribe to party platforms illegalizing the procedure if it will help them consolidate policy on matters dearer to them. That those policies do not benefit the overwhelming majority of the population is a point about which most GOP officeholders, or future lobbyists, have repeatedly shown themselves to be indifferent.

But elevating paying your income tax to a moral standard?

Who is this man?

Bob Hope must be spinning in his grave.

Retreating to common sense–it is a truism that no one likes to pay taxes. That’s one reason why this country, with its ideal of widespread literacy, still relies so heavily on ‘hidden’ taxes that are destructively recessive, such as sales taxes and ‘user fees’, etc. No one likes to pay income tax, although some people are patriotically proud of how much they contribute. Anti-IRS jokes have been a staple of a certain kind of humor at least since Bob Hope. Hope’s delivery and diction tended to be mild-mannered, not Tabasco, but could not have been confused with pro-tax. Like Romney’s candidacy early on, they went over well with the white-shoes-white-belt crowd that are Romney’s traditional base.

 

bleahh

Romney himself has acknowledged a lack of fondness for taxes. To do him justice, Romney has said openly–even on the campaign trail–that he himself uses every available mechanism to reduce his taxes:

“ROMNEY: Let me also say categorically, I have paid taxes every year, and a lot of taxes.

My view is I have paid all the taxes required by law. I don’t pay more than are legally due.”

More broadly, the notion that paying taxes is bad is hardly a subtext in this year’s Republican campaign.

The evidence on this point, in fact, gives new meaning to the old phrase ’embarrassment of riches’. See among numerous examples romney’s public remarks on Aug 24:

“In calling for a broader, simplified tax code, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Friday that bigger businesses, in knowing how to utilize loopholes in the tax code, are “doing fine in many places” compared to small businesses.

“We’ve got to make it easier for small businesses,” Romney told a crowd of about 300 people at a high-dollar fundraiser in Minnesota. “Big business is doing fine in many place- -they get the loans they need, they can deal with all the regulation. They know how to find ways to get through the tax code, save money by putting various things in the places where there are low tax havens around the world for their businesses. But small business is getting crushed.””

One looks in vain for criticism in Romney’s comments about big businesses not pulling their weight, feeling entitled, etc., in connection with paying no income tax. It’s no wonder the biggest guns in the GOP, especially some rightwing media personalities, are jumping all over Romney for all of a sudden getting religion about paying your income tax. I don’t remember the last time George Will, Charles Krauthammer or Bill Kristol stepped forward to support same.

Then we have Romney’s choice of a running mate, Paul Ryan (who is also running for Congress in Wisconsin, and has a strong challenger, Rob Zerban).

The Zerbans, Wisconsin

The same day that Romney made his “big businesses are doing fine” comment, Ryan said much the same thing:

“By plugging loopholes, which are uniquely enjoyed by higher income individuals, you’re reducing their ability to shelter their income from taxation . . .”

Needless to say, the Romney-Ryan campaign has not included specifics on what ‘loopholes’ would be cut MORTGAGE INTEREST DEDUCTION.  The Romney-Ryan insistence on extending all Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest, eliminating even the remaining U.S. inheritance tax, and lowering the income tax for corporations does not suggest that the loopholes would be only those enjoyed by the wealthiest among us MORTGAGE INTEREST DEDUCTION.

 

To return to that “they pay no income tax” line–

The problem with Romney’s comments is not only that they were impolitic, inaccurate and mean-spirited. They were also confused. You cannot at one and the same time campaign against taxes, and elevate paying your fair share of taxes as a moral standard. You cannot openly acknowledge that the tax code already favors the wealthy and big businesses–as both Romney and Ryan have done–and then successfully claim that it’s the poorer citizens who are getting away with something.

Except when you’re talking privately to a cluster of wealthy individuals who already tell themselves that.

Orwell lives.

Speaking of impolitic remarks, there was a slideslip into accuracy in Romney’s “big businesses are doing fine” comments, which is one reason they were so widely quoted. Analyses, including this one by CNBC, have corroborated the finding that, indeed, the one percenters are doing fine using available tax breaks. The New York Times summarized some of the ways Aug. 10, the Journal Tribune Aug. 25. Plenty of further information is available.

Not that the one percenters are the only ones, of course. The question of who is not liable for federal income tax under the current tax code is now getting some clarification it has long deserved, thanks to Romney. Here among others is a good run-down by the Christian Science Monitor.

In fact, on why Romney’s conflating non-income-tax payers with 1) Obama voters and 2) unworthy people is as inaccurate as it is ugly, let’s take a leaf from Elizabeth Barrett Browning, and count the ways.

Non- federal income tax payers, by state percentages

Factor Number One: Region or State

The nonpartisan Tax Foundation published a report in 2010 showing that paying federal income tax varies widely by state. The ten states with the largest percentage of non-payers? They include nine states–Idaho, Texas, and southeastern states including Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia–likely to go for Romney. Of the ten, all but one–Florida–is conventionally designated a ‘red state’, and Florida has a Republican governor and legislature.

Factor Number Two: Age

Florida also has a sizable retired population. As this fuller breakdown by the Tax Policy Center reminds us, one cohort paying less federal income tax is the elderly. Senior citizens on Social Security benefit from tax expenditures that Romney and Ryan have claimed, on the campaign trail, to support. The oldest voters, be it noted, are the only age group of voters among whom Romney bests President Obama.

Factor Number Three: Low Income

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports that the main reason people don’t pay federal income tax, when they don’t, is that their incomes are too low for them to be tax liable. Here Romney is on firmer ground, so to speak. True enough, many of the poorest households do not support him–except when they are also seniors, or Southern whites. A number of them, including households with elderly members or Southern whites, also receive Social Security Supplemental Security Income (SSI), disability aid, Medicaid, WIC, unemployment benefits or some other form of public assistance. So presumably a Romney-Ryan tax plan will try to catch more of the nation’s poorest households in a higher tax bracket. Those are the indications so far, both from Ryan himself and from the 2012 GOP platform.

Factor Number Four: Military Service

Federal income tax on compensation for serving in the military is offset in several ways. Compensation received for service in a combat zone, for example, is not subject to federal income tax. There are also state income-tax exclusions for military pay in various states. By the way, the states with the best exclusions are not necessarily red states. Cash-strapped red states are at least as likely as any other states to limit the income tax exclusions.

Factor Number Five: High-Net-Worth Individuals and Corporations

On not paying taxes at the upper end, you can find copious information in various glossy sources. A quick hint here, but really Romney and Ryan’s own comments–and the scant information so far released in Romney’s own tax returns–give the picture. If you want to have more fun, and enjoy scenic views of golden beaches and sun, you can read up on off-shore tax havens. And of course numerous top corporations make tax avoidance part of their ongoing strategy. They generally poor-mouth while doing it, too. Where are Romney and Ryan on these entities, perennially ready to portray themselves as victims?

Sad to say, some of the households and individuals characterized by Governor Romney as takers will vote for him anyway. Their local newspapers and television news channels may fail to clarify his remarks or to correct the tax arithmetic. Their willingness to believe it’s different when you accept government aid while simultaneously being white will undoubtedly be catered to by the campaign. That these are some of the same households hurt worst by Romney-Ryan policy won’t change their votes.

But the fact remains that the real one-way-streeters comprise those responsible for the mortgage-derivatives debacle, those who benefit financially from it, and those who oppose any process that would lead to retribution or reimbursement. Only racial politics could make the GOP imagine that any large proportion of the country can be made to forget who was responsible for our biggest crash since the Great Depression.

Where did Mitt Romney get his 43 percent figure?

Posted on by
Reply

Where did Mitt Romney get his 43 percent figure?

Move over, Goldilocks. Mitt Romney has fine-tooled your metrics.

As revealed yesterday by Mother Jones, Romney was videotaped at a May 17 fundraiser in Boca Raton giving affluent donors his assessment of the campaign with unbecoming clarity. He was particularly unbecoming about people who don’t vote for him. We’ll get to some of those candid remarks later.

 

Video capture of Boca Raton fundraiser for Romney

For now, it’s Romney’s take on the numbers that intrigues:

“There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them,” Romney said in a hidden-camera video of his remarks at a private fundraiser earlier this year posted on Monday on the left-wing Mother Jones magazine’s website.

“My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents,” he said in remarks convincing donors to write checks for his campaign.”

Most commentary so far has focused on Romney’s ’47 percent’ number, and rightly so; see later. But Romney’s horse-race assessment reveals as much as his version of sociology. Going on to that ‘center’=’independents’ comment that follows, you get more than the inflammatory dismissal of 47 percent of voters. Use Romney’s arithmetic: 47 percent ‘pay no income tax’ etc; 5 to 10 percent are ‘independents’; that leaves 43 percent. Subtracting 47 percent from 100, then 10 percent (of ‘independents’) from 53–thus Obama 47 percent; Romney 43 percent.

Romney clearly thinks he has 43 percent, and only 43 percent, in the bag. Why? Who are the 43 percent? Where did he get that number? –Recent polls? Tax brackets? Income brackets? White voters? GOP registration?

Looks like not.

Where did Romney get his figures? CBS News had put out a recent widely reported opinion poll on the presidential race as of May 17. But it gave Romney the lead, and almost reverses Romney’s numbers:

“According to the survey, conducted May 11-13, 46 percent of registered voters say they would vote for Romney, while 43 percent say they would opt for Mr. Obama. Romney’s slight advantage remains within the poll’s margin of error, which is plus or minus four percentage points.”

The CBS poll, furthermore, was in line with much or most election 2012 polling in the time frame. As this wiki overview of election tracking polls and opinion polls shows, Romney was running fairly often behind and in the forties–but so was Obama. The poll closest to Romney’s numbers came out late April to early May, an Investor’s Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor/TIPP poll giving Obama 46 percent to Romney’s 43–with a helpful breakdown of voter demographics that would tend to jibe with Romney’s sociology.

Only one poll around then has Romney’s exact numbers: an NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll dated May 16-20 gives Obama 47 percent, Romney 43.

The catch is that the NBC-WSJ poll was not out yet, or not publicly.

Republicans, be it noted, tend to emphasize We’re-ahead! slogans when asking donors for money. So if Romney’s buddies in the corporate media shared a foretaste of recent polling with him, Romney knew in Boca Raton that he had some numbers to get out in front of. (Dems tend to use scare tactics–We’re going to lose!–for the same purpose.)

 

Back to a somewhat larger perspective, it’s interesting how closely Romney’s breakdown of the electorate into 1) takers, 2) his own voters, and 3) ‘independents’=’center’ tracks with the punditry most often put out by the larger media outlets (and by Fox News).

Romney’s amateur punditry also tracks closely with the pros on the question of what, exactly, constitutes an ‘independent’:

“What I have to do is to convince the five to ten percent in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not.”

Independent=center. Thoughtful=emotion. Emotion=”whether they like the guy or not.” Orwell could not have said it better.

Eric Arthur Blair, pseud. George Orwell

Mr. Romney has been called many things, but he is truly typified by Aldous Huxley’s model of the affluent businessman who, when he opens up, turns out to be filled with comfortable hogwash.

more to come

Update Sep 20:

Speaking of the Wall Street Journal, Media Matters now has this piece on Romney campaigners who write op-eds for WSJ–without having their connection to the Romney campaign clarified.

Looks like a two-way street.