Back in December, Mitt Romney delivered one of several "major" speeches on economic policy, telling a New Hampshire audience that in President Obama's vision, "everyone receives the same or similar rewards, regardless of education, effort, and willingness to take risk." The Republican added, "Obama believes that government should create equal outcomes."
This was, of course, wildly at odds with reality. As Jon Chait noted at the time, "This is nuts, Glenn Beck-level insane. Restoring Clinton-era taxes is not a plan to equalize outcomes, or even close. It's not even a plan to stop rising inequality. Obama's America will continue to be the most unequal society in the advanced world -- only slightly less so."
I mention this because Romney gave yet another "major" economic speech in St. Louis yesterday, and he once again argued that the Democratic president is somehow hostile towards capitalism.
"Today, government at all levels consumes 37 percent of the total economy or G.D.P. If Obamacare is allowed to stand, government will reach half of the American economy. And through the increasing controls government has imposed on industries like energy, financial services and automobiles, it will soon effectively control the majority of our economic activity.
"One must ask whether we will still be a free enterprise nation and whether we will still have economic freedom. America is on the cusp of having a government-run economy. President Obama is transforming America into something very different than the land of the free and the land of opportunity."
First, it's important that Americans realize that Romney is lying. Reading from his trusted teleprompter -- these weren't off-the-cuff remarks, where it's easier to make a mistake -- the Republican nominee seriously argued that government will soon control most of the economy.
This is garbage, and Romney almost certainly knows it. David Corn recently scrutinized the claim and concluded it's the former governor's "biggest fib," which falls "somewhere between 'ridiculous' and 'stupid.'"
Second, the larger argument Romney is making marks the point at which the candidate transitions from conservative to hysterical.
It's obviously fair game for Romney to attack the president, his ideas, his agenda, and his record. That's what campaigns are for. Challengers tell voters that the incumbent is wrong and offer an alternative.
But Romney is creating a twisted fantasy land, ascribing views to Obama that are simply made up. Government is not poised to control the American economy; the free-enterprise system is not at risk. I care that Romney is trying to deceive the public, but I care even more about how he's trying to deceive the public -- in this case, by peddling incoherent nonsense.
What's the basis for Romney's smear? Obama supports a health care package that mirrors plans from moderate Republicans and which Romney himself embraced at the state level. Obama supports a climate policy that's similar to what McCain/Palin supported just four years ago. Obama supports Wall Street safeguards that were approved with bipartisan support. Obama supports tax rates on the wealthy that were applied in the 1990s -- when the economy soared.
This, in Romney's mind, would mark the end of "economic freedom"? Please.
The notion that Obama is attacking free enterprise is the sort of silliness we might expect from Michele Bachmann or Rush Limbaugh, but Mitt Romney is supposed to be a "serious" Republican. In the 2012 GOP field, this guy was perceived as the grown-up.
If our politics were more sensible, most of the mainstream would hear these hysterical attacks and see Romney as a desperate candidate who's starting to fall apart. Instead, we've become so accustomed to nonsense, yesterday's speech was hardly noticed. This just isn't healthy.
Leave a Comment:
Full employment for all! Starting with jobs at those FEMA detention camps.
Or is that Obama's plan? I'm sooo confused. More speeches, please.
Try to post a comment BEFORE you start sniffing glue, you might make more sense.
Let us get over this idea that Mitt Romney is a serious Republican. Grover Norquist has it right, he is just a body with a pen to rubber stamp a far right agenda. That is what scares me the most, that he doesn't have a backbone to actually stand up to anyone. He is running a campaign by trying to just be the anti-Obama, and not be Romney - and that will work due to the blind hatred in this country against Obama. Romney should not scare people, as he will do whatever he needs to do to win (I personally think he is a moderate, but spineless to admit that) - it is the people pulling the strings that should scare everyone, as he is being guided by the extremes in the GOP.
If the Obama campaign was smart, they would take the craziest things said on the right (won't have to look far), and challenge Romney to take a stance on every single one. The more fire you put directly under Romney to respond, the more wiggling and self-destruction you will see. He is trying to run a campaign without making a stance on anything, so that he can do whatever the GOP wants him to do when elected and not be called out for breaking promises or flip-flopping.
Most excellent commentary! David Brooks will be so proud.
"One must ask whether we will still be a free enterprise nation and whether we will still have economic freedom.
Actually the questions are:
1) Do we want a vulture capital economy where the rich & corporate feast on the backs of the taxpayers?
2) After 30+ years of "trickle down" Friedman economics - exactly how much better off are you?
3) WE have failing schools, crumbling infrastructure, millions out of work, and a broken 2-party system where the GOP is not just being obstructionist, but are bereft of ideas - just cutting spending isn't working - it's time to start raising taxes on the top 10% - exactly why do you believe that WE should go back down that road that led to our near-collapse again?
Just don't pretend that raising taxes on the wealthy does anything for the deficits. The proposed millionaire's tax would only raise enough money to fund two months of the payroll tax cut.
Raising taxes is just pointing fingers to deflect blame from the people in power for the last three and a half years.
Speaking of taxes, when is Romney going to release his tax returns?
Government controlls 100% of our economic activity. Various degrees of regulation, taxes and tarriffs, roads and other infrastructure investments, and general maintenance of the civil order all allow free trade to occur.
Perhaps Mr. Romney would like to see all those burdensome government intrusions gone.
Were that the case, fatcats like Romney would be the first to be killed and eaten.
Romney "killed and eaten."
I see the left isn't any more civil these days. Will I see any pushback or just tacit acceptance of the eliminationist sentiment?
Oh Shooter - You are clearly not smart enough to have any clue as to what I'm talking about.
Please stop the shouting. Government controls about 24% of the economy. If you're going to argue, get the facts straight first. I agree with the original post concerning the problems we face. Let's not have any talk about eating Republicans...they'll probably taste awful and since they're so full of fat, they'll be bad for my cholesterol.
I think the point of the 100% claim is that government regulation of business is a form of government control. In which case, it's pretty close to true.
Heck, we've seen extreme examples where lemonade stands get shut down because they don't have a business permit.
Conflating regulation with control is the goal of this speech. The proper response, I think, should be... yes. Almost all business is government controlled, what do you suggest?
The ONLY alternative is eliminating almost ALL regulation. Make him endorse the strictest form of libertarianism and point out the serious drawbacks of such a system. Liberals would do well to support removal of regulations that have no appreciable effect on consumer safety and often better serve the needs of large business to squash upstart competition. My favorite example being cosmetology licensing. If you get a bad haircut, the world doesn't end. http://www.instituteforjustice.org/about/component/content/801?task=view
No he isn't. I've been wondering where this meme of Romney/liar is bubbling up from, and now I know.
Shooter242 is a clown who hangs around liberal blogs to defend republican and libertarian positions. No republican statement or position is too extreme for his/her cheerleading and vigorous defense. He/she hasn't a single fiber of objectivity, certainly not enough to discern basic facts from a distortion field of tribal allegiance.
First of all - edoc - I often disagree totally with Shooter242.
But when I scan through posts I always look at his/hers. At minimum I get an idea about what the counter opinions are and how I need to respond.
What the heck is wrong with posting to a blog to defend your positions? Do you only want to talk with people who agree with you? What fun is that!?
For crying out loud!
Back when I posted to the Fox News blog I would get the same response. Finally gave it up - spitting against the wind.
And yes - I do know and can recognize a troll. But I don't think Shooter qualifies.
Shooter --
I know Romney is lying because I do my own fact-checking and have found data that shows that what he says is not based on the facts.
My favorite sources are the CBO (www.cbo.gov) and the Financial Management Service (www.fms.treas.gov/mts/index.html) and Bureau of Labor Statistics (www.bls.gov)
We don't have to agree on what the facts mean or what the facts tell us about what we should do in the future. But by making statements that are demonstrably false, all hope of having productive debates is destroyed.
"Spreading the wealth around is good for everybody"
Apparently shooter242 takes this statement as evidence of some socialist plot to turn America into a Marxist paradise. One can infer, one can imply, but that is just "spin" or "interpretation".
Of course it would be good for everybody if everybody had some "wealth". Or does shooter think otherwise, feel that we should have a permanent underclass of serfs. Because that works so well in India, with their Untouchables".
shooter says that Romney isn't lying. What is it called, then, when the words do not match the facts?
"First, it's important that Americans realize that Romney is lying." They won't because it takes too much effort to look for the truth (and the Press is no help). Romney knows this, is counting on this, and this is why he grins when asked about his lies and half truths, and never attempts to correct his half truths. In short, lying works for him and his campaign, and as such there is no reason to change. Conscience you ask. Please see BAIN CAPITAL. Any conscience that may exist is stored in a closet someplace for future use, or for him to figure out how it works.
I hope this made it into the LIES OF THE WEEK
Romney's mind-boggling untruthfulness aligns well with what some Mormon theologians and critics of Mormonism alike refer to as "Lying for the Lord." If the facts would impair the effectiveness of the white-shirted proselytizer on the streets, it's biblically okay to lie to the potential convert's/mark's face. Many observers of late have wondered at the psychological makeup of someone who lies as gleefully, prolifically, unashamedly and even needlessly as Mitt Romney. Perhaps the answer lies with this doctrinal license to falsify? Or is it just that he will read whatever his handlers put in front of him?
Look, it's not going to do for Democrats to just play defense on these sort of lies of Romney. What they have to do is go on offense and, instead of allowing Rmoney to create the fear and this silly meme in the head of the public that capitalism is under attack, they should create the fear of a nation under complete Republican rule whose answers to the mess they created with 30+ years of failed ideas is the same failed ideas. Then, and only then, should Obama and Democrats pursue a positive message along with building a (legitimate) fear of Republican rule.
How hard could that be? Look at the damn mess they caused.
Fear works. Democrats need to understand that.
I realize you're trying to scare us Mitt, but in the end you're just a boring evangelistic Republican who's policies are....say, wait a minute, what are you're policies and plans anyway? Maybe that does scare me a little, come to think of it. Not the fact that you aren't articulating them, but the fact that your base really doesn't care so you don't have to formulate any.
For a businessman who claims to understand the economy he certainly doesn't understand economic lingo.
"Consume" has a specific meaning in economics. Total "Government consumption and investment expenditures" are only 20% of GDP.Transfer payments make up most of the additional expenditures.
Does Romney really believe that Social Security checks are government consumption? Or unemployment insurance, or food stamps? They are transfers where individuals decide what, where, and when to consume.
I'm actually a little amazed that Romney doesn't use the loaded term "redistribute", that's what a good socialist government is supposed to do, isn't it?
BTW, Medicare and Medicaid are also considered by economists to be social benefit transfer payments. The government may pay the bills, but in the words of the Tea Party, government must keep their hands of seniors' Medicare.
The dishonesty is striking. And yes, the hysterical hyperbole makes it all the more troubling.