My Problem With Mitt.

| | Comments (1)

My problem with Mitt Romney is that he opposes nearly all of the successful Obama administration's results. President Obama has disappointed me on a number of occasions, but, those disappointments do not blind me to his administration's successes. This puts me and Mitt in different camps.

The auto industry bailouts saved 10's of thousands of jobs and hastened the recovery from the Recession. I oppose corporate bailouts generally, because of the moral hazard it creates for those corporate leaders. However, not all bailouts are created equal or occur under the same circumstances. The facts are, the auto industry bailouts were a success for the American people and our economy's recovery. Mitt says he wouldn't have done it. Is that because he didn't know how to turn such a policy into a success, or because his ideology blinds him to even consider the possibilities?

Mitt tried to co-opt Obama's success here, by saying he would have proffered a "managed bankruptcy" just like Obama. Problem is, Mitt's managed bankruptcy wouldn't have used taxpayer dollars, and at the time, there were no private sector entities willing to bailout out the Big Three in Detroit. It takes a small minded person to try to take credit for another person's actions while criticizing that other person's actions, at the same time. (Mitt Romney Is Taking Credit For The Auto Bailout)

The Government Accountability Office said taxpayers could ultimately net $15 billion net gain on the AIG bailout, according to this CBS report. Mitt Romney said he would have opposed any such bailout. Again, Mitt's ideology or potential incompetence would have prevented him from achieving these same positive results.

The majority of Americans wanted health care reform. The majority of Americans did not get the kind of health care reform they sought, but, they did get reform, which others have talked about doing for decades. Obama got it done. It leaves a lot to be desired still, since the majority of Americans wanted the Public Option. But, Obama did succeed in providing health care reform and similar to that which Romney himself endorsed for the people of his own state as Governor. Now, Romney bashes the very health care reform policy that both Obama and Romney got passed in their respective roles as executive. This is an insane position for Mitt Romney to have put himself into and, it goes without saying, it defies understanding by the majority of Americans.

Mitt Romney's stated absence of a position on illegal immigration this week, stands in stark contrast to his previous flip flops on the issue, as discovered by McCain. At this moment he is for "self-deportation" by denying illegal immigrants the benefits of residing in America like jobs, education, and residences. I personally think the law should be enforced, and those who are here illegally by choice, should not be allowed to remain here (unless the law is changed), while legal immigrants have to pay for the privilege in a number of ways. However, that is not the Mitt issue for me. The Mitt issue for me is that Mitt will say anything at anytime to any audience that further his own personal goals. That is not the leadership this country needs. That is the kind of leadership that fascists provided during prior to the end of WWII.

Mitt Romney states he supports the Paul Ryan economic plan. That plan would benefit the wealthy and corporations enormously while impoverishing 10's of millions of Americans for a generation or more. In reality, if the Paul Ryan plan was followed, the American people, by a huge majority, would reject it and its consequences upon them, once experienced.

The United States of America is not a for profit corporation, to be dismantled and auctioned off to the highest bidders, foreign or domestic. Mitt Romney has no experience or understanding of non-profit organizations, which is what the United States is - the largest non-profit organization in the world, and so far, still the most successful.

There is no question that our economic future is in jeopardy. But putting production ahead of demand, which is what both Ryan and Romney propose with their economic plan defies the laws of economics. The person that creates a product for which there is no demand is soon bankrupt. The key to salvaging our economic future lies with shoring up the growth of both the middle class and its consumption (demand), which in turn, will expand business production to meet that demand growth, increasing revenues and profits. The Ryan plan would shrink the middle class, increase poverty, and decrease demand for businesses for a very long time. That is not a prescription for restoring our economic future.

Here again is a case of ideology blinding Romney to reality. Romney's ideology says that if the wealthy get wealthier or more numerous, then their investments in production will drive innovation and demand. There is a set of circumstances in which that ideology will prove to be true, and those circumstances are when capital is hard to come by, and the economy slows due to production failing to meet demand, driving up costs and putting products out of reach to even more consumers.

But, those are not the circumstances our economy currently finds itself in. Capital is abundant and cheap. The lack of demand both foreign and domestic is the source of our economic slow growth at this time. Romney's view makes no provision for expanding consumption by the public or the size of the consuming middle class. Ergo, Romney's ideology will only further damage our economic prospects. 

Given Romney's need to appease those whose support he seeks, he has demonstrated an enormous capacity to flip and flop on positions depending upon his need. Romney said he would have made the same decision as Obama did to take out Bin Laden. But, previously, he said he would not violate an allies' territory to seek out terrorists. Given the fact, that at the time the actionable intelligence became available, most advisors advised against the risks of invading Pakistan's territory to take out Bin Laden on intelligence that could not be confirmed 100%, I doubt Romney would have taken such a risk with his own presidency in the same circumstances. Romney leaves me with the impression that he is all about Mitt Romney and using money to fulfill his own personal ambitions first and foremost.

Romney has catered to the extremist minority Tea Party right, in his bid for the presidency. I can find nothing in his record to preclude his willingness to accede to extremist minorities if it will further his own ambitions, as president. Obama, for all his faults and failures, has repeatedly rejected the extremists on the Left from refusing the Public Option pressures in the health care reform policy to their demands on him to constrict fossil fuel usage in policy and enforcement. I don't want to follow a leader who is really just a follower of those who can further his own personal agenda.

I will close with something positive and negative about Mitt Romney. I have every conviction that Mitt Romney is a wonderful father, husband, and loyal friend to family and friends. His record of success in the business world is true and well earned. But, there is something called the Peter Principle, which states that in a competitive environment, people will aspire for ever higher levels of responsibility and succeed until they reach their level of incompetence. At that point, they fail to meet expectations and their performance becomes dogged by failures. I believe Romney's level of competence lies in the financial for profit world and that the presidency would elevate him to a level of incompetence. We don't need another G.W. Bush proving the Peter Principle in the White House.

If nearly half of those in his own party are unsure of his ascendency to the office of president, why should I, as an independent voter take it on faith that he would make a good president to lead our nation out of the challenging dilemmas we find ourselves in?

That, in a nutshell is my problem with Mitt.
Enhanced by Zemanta

1 Comments

it should have been ankle irons raehtr than platinum parachutes with the level of corrupt practices the previous govt performed, not that the current one has changed anything much for the benefit of the people who want create jobs, and help rebuild our once great little nation and get us back into the top 20 OECD nations again.Why is it Holden that you assume right wingers hate science and knowledge? Is it a blanket hatred? Or is it just a hatred of corrupted scientists and their phoney results?Are you basing your knowledge on the bible belt of America and some of those people having a belief in Creationism, and categorising them as right wingers? Would you consider a muslim capitalist a right winger? Their holy book describes embryology and cell structures and all manner of biological science. Is someone who believes in evolution too intelligent to be a right winger? Are all those capitalists who developed every advancement e.g. medicines, treatments, computers, software, fertilisers, efficiency enhancing or problem solving devices etc. and took them to market for the betterment of mankind whilst earning a buck for their efforts, are they all left wingers because they believed in a piece of science or knowledge, and hence they were obviously too bright to be Right winger creationist Neanderthals?

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Contact

Monthly Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.25

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by David R. Remer published on May 8, 2012 5:12 PM.

Our Democracy Sucks was the previous entry in this blog.

Tea Party Becoming Politicide Party is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.



Offsite Links