Multiple Choice Mitt’s Changing Colors on Romneycare

April 12, 2006 is a day that will live on in infamy.  That was the day that then-Gov. Mitt Romney signed his signature socialized healthcare bill into law with Ted Kennedy standing over his shoulder.  It was the first time in American history that government of any sort compelled its citizenry to purchase health insurance.  It served as the catalyst for an individual mandate on a federal level, paving the road for Obamacare.

At the time, John Kerry heaped accolades on Romney, ominously suggesting that “we really need to be doing that on the national level.” Ted Kennedy praised it as “just what the doctor ordered,” and observed that we “may well have fired a shot heard round the world.”  It took less than four years for the shot to metastasize into a bombardment – one that will permanently attenuate our free-enterprise economy.

So how did Romney feel about his signature accomplishment of an otherwise uninspiring one-term tenure as governor?

At the time of its passage, Romney dubbed it as a “once in a generation” achievement.  He referred to his magnum opus, which created subsidies for government run exchanges (larger than those created under Obamacare), as a “landmark” achievement “to get all of our citizens insurance without some new government-mandated takeover.”

From Romney’s perspective, did he consider final passage of MassCare a meritorious ideal or a mediocre compromise watered down by the Democrat legislature?

Well, immediately after he signed the bill into law, he told Newsweek reporter Jennifer Barrett that “the final legislation incorporates about 95 percent of my original proposal.”

At the time, did Romney feel that the framework for his healthcare plan was a virtuous policy endeavor for the rest of the nation?

Result of Iowa: They Didn’t Want Mitt in 2008;They Don’t Want Him Now

The results of the Iowa Caucuses are in.  To the extent that you can draw conclusions from the votes of 123,000 individuals, here are some quick observations.

1) The Media will invariably focus on which conservative candidates should drop out.  They will also focus on the fact that there is nobody who has a definitive roadmap to defeat Romney.  But the larger point they will overlook is how much the Republican electorate dislikes Romney.  He spent million of dollars in 2008 and got crushed by Huckabee.  He spent millions of dollars this year, yet he failed to improve on his 2008 showing (Santorum spent just $30,000 on ads).  The punchline is that 75% of GOP voters are willing to vote for anyone anyone against Romney.

2) It appears that Romney’s base of support is limited to rich secular voters.  That’s not exactly the appeal you want to have going into this election.  There is very little overlap between Romney’s 2008 voters and his current supporters.  In other words, he is last cycle’s McCain.

3) As we head into New Hampshire and South Carolina, I have a feeling that Romney will finally incur aggressive and sustained attacks from multiple candidates.  In particular, Newt is seeking his revenge – to the extent that he wants Romney to lose more than he wants to win himself.

4) With 27% of the electorate being Independent voters, and Ron Paul garnering support of almost half those voters, can we finally end this nonsense of having non-Republicans vote in a Republican primary/caucus?

5) With the prospects of electing a conservative president becoming dimmer by the day, we really need to divert some of our attention to the congressional races.  In a presidential election year, all of the primaries are much earlier, including those for Senate and House candidates.  We need to mobilize for conservatives down the ticket.  Our Republican president will need a strong conservative Congress to prevent a rehash of the 2001-2006 era of compassionate conservatism.

6) The most important observation from Iowa?  Republicans are dramatically underwhelmed by the current field.  In a year when Republicans are fired up to defeat Obama, they barley broke the 2008 turnout record, and when the increase in Independent voters is factored in, there were probably less Republican voters this time around.  Unlike previous elections, there is a huge opportunity for a conservative candidate to enter the race and sweep the field.  Unless someone else gets in, Gingrich appears to be the only one who still has a decent level of national support to drag Romney into a protracted primary battle.

7) On a personal level, I’ve always said that I would support the anti-Romney whomever that would be (except for Paul), just as I would support any Republicans nominee against Obama in the general election.  For now, with Perry headed back to Texas and Santorum with little support outside of Iowa, it appears that Newt is the only hope for those who proudly declare: Mittens Delenda Est.  McCain’s impending endorsement of Romney will only galvanize us to kill (politically, of course) two Republican imposters with one stone.

Romney Fundamentally Lacks Conservative Principles on Healthcare…Or Anything Else

“His only contribution to the party has been his five-year interminable presidential campaign, despite his insistence that he never intended to run for office again after 2008.”

When Mitt Romney was seeking the Republican nomination in 2008, he deflected criticism of Romneycare by blaming its disastrous effects on the liberal legislature in Massachusetts.  That was four years ago, when Romney was attempting to win the hearts of the conservative base as the alternative to John McCain.

This time around, as he seeks to eschew any ideological principles, Romney is pronouncing his signature healthcare reform as a meritorious and quite ideal plan, at least for his state.  In fact, in recent days, he has gone so far as to proclaim MassCare as a fundamentally conservative principle.

Here is what he had to say today on Fox and Friends [video]:

“I’m happy to stand by the things that I believe. I’m not going to change my positions by virtue of being in a presidential campaign,” Romney said. “What we did was right for the people of Massachusetts, the plan is still favored there by three to one, and it is fundamentally a conservative principle to insist that people take personal responsibility as opposed to turning to government for giving out free care.” [emphasis added]

Romney owes Republican primary voters answers to two questions; one ideological and one political.

1) If Romneycare is built on such inviolable conservative principles; if Romneycare has been such an auspicious healthcare reform plan, then what is so terribly offensive about Obamacare?  Yes, we’ve heard that dubious distinction between state governments having the ability to promulgate tyranny, whereas the federal government is constrained by the constitution.  But why not amend the constitution so we can implement Romneycare (Obamacare) on a federal level?  Why not share your paramount success with the rest of the nation?

Mitt Romney: Leader of the Pale Pastel Wing of Party

During Saturday night’s GOP debate, Mitt Romney demonstrated once again why he is failing to gain traction with the conservative base.  He continues to muddle the distinction between Obama’s policies and true free-market doctrine.  Romney consistently invokes progressive policy doctrines, while tempering them with banal flavors of conservatism.

We must remember that every time a candidate failed to draw a sharp intellectual distinction between himself and the Democrats, that candidate was relegated to the ash heap of history.  So far, Republican voters appear to have internalized that lesson.

Here are some examples of Romney’s insipid expression of ‘conservative’ policy.


Taxes/Class System

“His [Gingrich's] plan in capital gains, to remove capital gains for people– at the very highest level of income is different than mine. I’d– I’d– eliminate capital gains, interest, and dividends for people in middle income. So– we have differences of viewpoint on– on some issues. But– but the real difference, I believe, is our backgrounds. I spent my life in the private sector.
I– I understand how the economy works. And I believe that for Americans to– to say goodbye to President Obama and elect a Republican, they need to have confidence that the person they’re electing knows how to make this economy work again and create jobs for the American middle class.” [...]
“And– and in my view, the place that we could spend our precious tax dollars for a tax cut is on the middle class, that’s been most hurt by the Obama economy. That’s where I wanna eliminate taxes on interest dividends and capital gains.” [emphasis added]

Romney goes on to criticize Gingrich for not joining him in recognizing a class system and spending “our precious tax dollars” only on middle class taxpayers.  This is exactly what we mean when we say Romney is Obama-light.  He doesn’t believe in raising taxes on the rich, but he believes in the pale pastel alternative of tax cuts only to certain “classes”.  Worse, he views tax cuts as a means of “spending” as opposed to a means of returning wealth to its original owners.  Accordingly, he believes that those “expenditures” should be granted to the right people.

A Conservative Look at Perry's Economic Plan

When Herman Cain proposed his 9-9-9 plan, many conservatives became energized, despite their misgivings with the fine print of the plan.  It wasn’t so much the details of the proposal that excited the base, as most conservatives intuitively recoiled from a consumption tax; it was the boldness of the plan that resonated with them.  Cain’s 9-9-9 brought some excitement to a race that was defined by a frontrunner who offered 160 pages of banal fluff.  Nevertheless, his plan was too flawed to be utilized as a viable rallying cry in the general election.  Perry appears to have proposed both a viable and bold economic plan, albeit with some inevitable flaws.

Here is a synopsis of all of the major components.

Tax Plan

The centerpiece of the plan is a flat individual income tax of 20%.  This would serve as a vehicle for massive economic growth, as it offers a huge tax cut for job-creators who currently pay as much as 35%.  However, unlike the traditional Steve Forbes flat tax, this proposal would keep the deductions for mortgage interest, charitable contributions, and state and local taxes for those earning less than $500,000 (over 99% of taxpayers).  It would also offer a standard deduction of $12,500 per household members.  Consequently, a family of four earning $50,000 would have a zero tax liability.  Update: Phillip Klein reports that the employer tax exclusion for healthcare would remain until Obamacare is repealed.

Moreover, the entire system would preserve the option to remain under the current tax code.  As such, the 47% who have zero tax liability and the 29% who have a positive tax liability (as a result of the EITC and Additional Child Tax Credit), would have no incentive to move to the flat tax.  Accordingly, there would be two shortcomings to this plan:

Chris Christie is Intellectually Dishonest

Earlier today, Chris Christie endorsed Mitt Romney for president, describing him as “a real hero in Republican circles.”  During his announcement, he disparaged conservatives who oppose Romneycare, by suggesting that any attempt to compare it to Obamacare is “completely intellectually dishonest.”  Governor Christie might want to look in the mirror or step down as a prominent spokesman for the Republican Party.
Any attempt to suggest that the two healthcare plans are fundamentally different is completely intellectually dishonest.

Romney on Romneycare


“Let me tell you this about our system in Massachusetts: 92 percent of our people were insured before we put our plan in place. Nothing’s changed for them. The system is the same. They have private market-based insurance.  We had 8 percent of our people that weren’t insured. And so what we did is we said let’s find a way to get them insurance, again, market-based private insurance. We didn’t come up with some new government insurance plan.” (FoxNews-Google Debate, Sept. 22)

Reality


Like every egregious government intervention in the private sector, MassCare drove up total health insurance costs in Massachusetts by $4.311 billion.  Massachusetts individual health premiums are now the highest in the nation.   The other 92% are being forced to pay higher premiums for what is no longer “market-based insurance.”  The 8% that are “uninsured” were put on government programs, primarily Medicaid.  That’s exactly what Obama seeks to do with Obamacare.  The costs will be even higher once the federal government stops subsidizing Romneycare through extra Medicaid grants.

Romney Finally Getting Hit on Romneycare

While there is much needless focus on whether a Mormon can be elected, there is much less focus on whether the man who created the antecedent to Obamacare can win the Republican nomination.  Until recently, the Republican presidential field has largely left Romney unscathed.  That is about to change, as Rick Perry goes full throttle on Romneycare.  Here is his latest ad:

All You Need to Know About Mitt Romney

in his own liberal words:

After a half century of robust growth in the conservative movement, it would be a travesty to nominate this guy.

The Bipartisan Social Security Demagoguery Must End Now

The source of the 76-year old monstrous lie 

The recent Social Security demagoguery that has been propagated by Mitt Romney and other big-government apologists is truly repugnant.  Accusing those who desire to preserve and expand personal retirement – of eliminating Social Security for seniors is akin to an arsonist blaming firefighters for fanning the flames.  It was the very big-government statists like Romney who obfuscated and corrupted the original intent of Social Security; it is the modern day constitutional conservatives who desire to solve the SS insolvency – with a solution that corrects those vices.

On October 29, 1936, in a campaign speech that was rife with virulent class warfare, FDR spoke at length of his one-year old Social Security Act.  He told the assembled crowd of blue collar workers in Wilkes-Barre, PA that their payroll taxes would be “held by the Government solely for the benefit of the worker in his old age.”  He referred to Social Security as an insurance program numerous times throughout the speech, concluding that “in effect, we have set up a savings account for the old age of the worker.” (emphasis added)

It’s a shame Congressman Joe Wilson wasn’t around during the speech.  He would have bellowed out an emphatic “YOU LIE.”  As Walter Williams noted, from the inception of Social Security, its advocates lied to the American people by categorizing the program as a secure savings account or insurance plan, with a defined distribution commensurate to the original contribution, which would be guaranteed as an irrevocable right.  The original government pamphlet on Social Security promised that “Beginning November 24, 1936, the United States government will set up a Social Security account for you. … The checks will come to you as a right.”

It is conservatives – those who criticize its current stewardship as a Ponzi scheme – who seek to preserve and restructure the program to reflect the way it was originally advertised.  Unfortunately, the original Social Security Act was written by malfeasants who deliberately misled the public about the true nature of the law.

Romneycare: A Microcosm of Obamacare, According to Conservative Study

Does government have the right to take over the healthcare sector, thereby infringing on liberty, killing jobs, reducing income, destroying investment, and driving up costs to consumers?  Well, as long as it is promulgated by state government, Mitt Romney thinks there is nothing wrong.

The conservative Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University has done a comprehensive study surveying the devastation of Romneycare – and it’s not pretty.  The study, which was obtained by the Boston Herald, analyzed trends in healthcare costs and employment data before and after passage of this unconstitutional behemoth.  Here are some of the key findings of the Romneycare devastation:

• cost the Bay State 18,313 jobs;

• drove up total health insurance costs in Massachusetts by $4.311 billion;

• slowed the growth of disposable income per person by $376; and

• reduced investment in Massachusetts by $25.06 million.

Additionally, the study found that much of the higher costs were subsidized by the federal government (national taxpayers) through a Medicaid waiver program.  A previous Beacon Hill study found that Romneycare cost Medicaid $2.4 billion and Medicare $1.4 billion.  It is these very costly state programs that are causing federal Medicaid expenditures to rise from its current level of $280 billion to $574 billion in 2020.  It is these very state mandates that have spiked the cost of private health insurance for years.

Mitt Romney's Political Platform is a Ponzi Scheme

His transient political views are unsustainable in the GOP primary.
Mitt Romney might feel that entitlement reform is an electoral loser, but it is precisely his unprincipled Mittness Protection Program of a political platform that will lose him the nomination.  Republicans are looking for a leader – and leaders show courage by articulating bold solutions to our most consequential public policy problems, such as retirement security; not by ducking behind them and palavering liberal demagoguery.

You see, Romney's political platform, much like Social Security, is a Ponzi scheme.  His convictions, like the Social Security Trust Fund, are vapid of substance.  He supplies his current political platform with capricious policy stances that serve to sustain perceived political benefits in the future.  In that sense, his is the ultimate career politician, albeit an unsuccessful one.

He thinks that by offering 160 pages of tepid fluff, with a one-sentence oblique reference to Social Security insolvency, he will be served well in the general election.  He is also wagering that spewing Mediscare-style demagoguery will carry him through the primary.  Well, it didn't work for his father against Barry Goldwater in 1964; it certainly won't work in the era of the Tea Party and a mature, well-oiled conservative base.


Republican voters are looking for somebody who will lead public opinion, by turning the tables on Obama's Mediscare tactics.  Our nominee must complete his sentences and explain why the fact that SS is a Ponzi scheme – is reason enough to engender full-scale reform.  He must show how Obama's status quo will lead to draconian cuts, higher taxes, and delayed retirement, while his (or her) plan will preserve and expand retirement security through the empowerment of the individual, instead of government schemers.

What is Karl Rove's Plan for Social Security?

Karl Rove is joining the left-wing/Romney camp alliance against Rick Perry's candid statements about Social Security in his book, Fed Up.  Even Baghdad Jim McDermott is praising Karl Rove's broadside on Perry.  Earlier today, on Good Morning America, Rove had this to say about Perry's condemnation of Social Security as a Ponzi scheme in his book:

What they’ve done thus far is, I think, inadequate. Which is to basically say, “look, we didn’t write the book with the presidential campaign in mind.” Well, okay, fine. But they are going to have to find a way to deal with these things. Because, as you say, they are toxic in a general election environment and they are also toxic in a Republican primary. If you say Social Security is a failure and ought to be replaced by a state-level program, then people are going to say: “What do you mean by that?”

Actually, Karl, the Perry campaign hasn't done an inadequate job of disavowing his stance on Social Security.  In fact, he hasn't disavowed it at all; he has doubled-down on it.  Last week, Perry reiterated his convictions by wisely clarifying his Social Security stance as directed towards younger workers: “It [Social Security] is a Ponzi scheme for these young people. The idea that they’re working and paying into Social Security today, that the current program is going to be there for them, is a lie.  It is a monstrous lie on this generation, and we can’t do that to them.”

We all know that Mr. Rove has a trenchant view of conventional wisdom, but maybe this election won't follow conventional wisdom.  Maybe this time, people are looking for someone to purvey the truth to the American people.

And what is the truth about Social Security?

Mitt Romney: Running for Green Party Nomination?

First it was Romeycare, then it was cap and trade and ethanol subsidies; now it's global warming. 

“I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that,” he told a crowd of about 200 at a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire.

Romney proceeded to extol the virtues of solar and wind power as the next coming of our energy paradise.  As much as I fervently hope Obama is defeated, I seriously wonder if it would be counterintuitive to elect a Republican like Romney.  Either way, nobody who considers themselves conservative should even give him a second look.  Watch the RINO-in-Chief in his on words:

Bottom line:  In 2012, we need a choice, not an echo.

Mitt Romney Still Loves His Ethanol, Especially in Iowa

Corporate cronyism/welfare is not the recipe for success in 2012.

Say anything you want about Mitt Romney, but at least he isn't flip flopping this time around.  Instead of disavowing his support for Romneycare, he fully embraced the monstrosity, albeit on a state level.  Now, amidst the growing disquiet over the outrageous ethanol subsidies, and following Tim Pawlenty's mea culpa on the issue, Mitt Romney is doubling down on his support for this odious subsidy.  Jonathan Weisman of the Wall Street Journal reports:

It was an odd setting for a policy pronouncement, but on the sidewalk outside the Historical Building here, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney embraced ethanol subsidies. It came just days after and blocks from where his rival for the Republican presidential nomination, Tim Pawlenty, said the subsidies should be phased out.

“I support the subsidy of ethanol,” he told an Iowa voter. “I believe ethanol is an important part of our energy solution for this country.” Iowa leads the nation in the production of corn, a main source of  ethanol.

Iowa is certainly the leader in fleecing the rest of the nation with their corn welfare.  Romney definitely gets points for honesty and for his cognizance of the political climate in Iowa.  However, he would be better suited to take his corn show on the road and embark on challenging Barack Obama for the Democrat nomination.  That way, his political calculations would coincide with the policies that he is seeking to represent.