Mitt Romney argued this morning that it's "completely absurd" for Democrats to argue that, if elected, he'll allow more layoffs of school teachers, police officers, and firefighters, just because he said on Friday he opposes President Obama's plan to prevent layoffs of teachers, cops, and firefighters. Oddly enough, as Igor Volsky noted, Newt Gingrich, a high-profile Romney supporter, thinks Democrats are right.
Asked about Romney's opposition to using federal resources to protect teachers and first responders, Gingrich said Americans have to "come to grips" with the policies a Romney administration would pursue: "Does that mean there will be fewer teachers? The honest answer is yes."
This is consistent, by the way, with the Romney campaign's stated position: if Romney's elected, he intends to slash education spending, leading to fewer teachers.
It crystalizes the 2012 race in a straightforward, unambiguous way: President Obama believes the country will benefit if we hire more teachers; Mitt Romney believes the country will benefit if more teachers are laid off. There's not much in the way of gray area -- Romney tried to obscure his position this morning, but both he and his surrogates are making the candidate's position plain. Will be fewer school teachers if Romney has his way? "The honest answer is yes."
Greg Sargent added a good take on the larger political salience: "This underscores again why Romney's original cops/firefighters quote was so problematic and revealing. He singlehandedly reframed this debate as one over whether we should spend federal money specifically on protecting the jobs of cops, firefighters and teachers in order to help alleviate the unemployment crisis. Romney and Republicans need this debate to be about spending on generic Big Bad Government and parasitic bureaucrats, not culturally sympathetic figures that Americans widely identify with and rely upon daily for their safety and the education of their children."
Leave a Comment:
Diogenes Laertius: "The foundation of every state is the education of its youth."
I can hear my GOP relatives now... Federal government has no business in state issues. If a state wants to hire more teachers/firefighters/cops then they can do so anytime! blah blah blah
I never understood the arguement myself. I think the federal government should have their hands in state government - what does that make me? a modern day federalist?
Federal government gives block grants to local schools, fire departments, and police precincts; to cities and states. This money is distributed through executive departments such as HUD, Dep't of Education, Energy Dep't. That is why Republicans want to shut down those departments. They will not longer be able to distribute money and that leaves more to be given to the rich with tax cuts.
They promise this straight out because they think the people are too stupid to notice the money would be missing. And so far they are right. But Republicans are mainly fooling themselves, when the pull this off the blow back will be fierce when the people finally wake up.
The unfortunate part of this, if it happens, is that by the time people realize there's a problem horrible damage will have already happened.
In Illinois, businesses are trying to work with the state and education at all levels so they can get an intelligent workforce.
Of course, uneducated workers means that the Republicans have more voters.
Romney's "gaffe" wasn't grammatical. It was perhaps an honest, tho unintentional, declaration of the Republicans' current determination to financially decimate the public education in this country.
Plan "A" defund schools
Plan "B" complain about how bad the public school system is .
Plan "C" Offer your solution : Privatize- they can run it much better
You may lather and rinse for any number of public institutions , Prisions , raod work ... you name it
This has been their plan all along
Don't forget that the rich already send their kids to private schools so getting vouchers would be free money for them and underfund the public schools by that amount.
Yes, we got the message. The rich are "the American people" ("corporations are people") and since they already send their children to private school, have private security guards, and have house with fire sprinklers and plenty of insurance they do NOT intend to pay for anyone else's freebies and that's that.
Odds are that Mittsywittsy will continue to pretend that he doesn't want to reduce the number of teachers, etc.
Ed Kilgore over at Washington Monthly has a good take on what Romney is up to -- basically trying to hijack federal education dollars and place them in the hands of privatizers who can then turn around and charge you tuition and fees for the schools "they" created (except that it's your tax money creating them, so you get to pay twice. Nice work if you can get it.)
Anyway, Ed's take is much more in depth than my simplistic rendering: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_06/romneys_educational_tax_raid037902.php
Why do I think that Newt had a cigarette after this appearance.
"Does that mean there will be fewer teachers? The honest answer is yes."
What else do you expect? If the people aren't educated they're much easier to be lead around. And if you say "liberty & freedom, patriotism & real Amerikun" 1000 times real fast you might just start to believe it.
"It was the Red, White & Blue making war on the poor
Blind Mother Justice on a pile of manure
Say your prayers and the Pledge of Allegiance at night
And by morning you'll be feeling all right"
Richard Fariña
I really wish someone would read The Life and Letters of Walter H. Page (I keep bringing this up) -- this is the same Southern "forgotten man" pattern he commented on over 100 years ago, and it was old then: "The Pulpit and the Stump:" using religion and jingoistic politics to keep the lower classes uneducated, impoverished, and obedient.
The Deep South was the last frontier of the United States to adopt free primary education, and general education has never had the respect there that it had from the beginning in New England. What we're seeing here is the Southern cultural colonization of the rest of the USA.
I think we can assume that Gingrich is just one of many Republicans who are rooting for Romney to fail. That is why Gingrich speaks truth.
Gingrich has several reasons to want Romney to fail:
Exactly. A Rape-Public-CON gave an honest answer about this campaign??!
I knew the Gingrinch hated Raw-money, I just didn't know how much...
;-)
The Republicans have sniffed the wind in Wisconsin and they believe that teachers are not popular with the public. Hence, they feel comfortable in proposing policies that will result in fewer teachers.
Precisely. Since the rich like Romney send their children to private schools they see no need to spend on dime on anyone else and think everyone else shares that attitude. It's important evidence on how the rich are fooling themselves. Keep it up and the chickens will come home to roost.
Firefighting is socialism. I don't mean the actual physical task of it, but instead how it is applied in the USA. Instead of taxing the entire community to provide for such persons with poor habits like smoking or living in wooden houses, people should be left to their own devices to stock up on whatever fire fighting gear they feel they need to have or hire a contractor company to provide this service.
Now this will of course invite cries of think of the children. But surely it's better for children to burn to death, rather than suffer from socialism all their lives, no? ;-)
Well, this makes sense because under Romney, there will be fewer facts!
I have never heard Romney say one thing that was intelligent. I have heard him say only dumb things. I have seen no evidence that he has any intelligence. If anyone can let me know of anything Romney has ever said that revealed intelligence I'd like to know.
Mitt also lies every time he opens his mouth. See "Chronicling Mitt's Mendacity" by Steve Benen on this site. He is up to vol 20.
And the pathetic excuses in what passes for msm continue to allow him to do so.
We can only afford to borrow money to blow countries up not rebuild infrastructure in America or to pay for teachers to teach our kids. But to send our kids off to war to die - sure - no problem borrow away!