via Bloomberg Businessweek
Mitt Romney chatted with Bloomberg Businessweek Editor Josh Tyrangiel for a good-but-brief interview, which was published today, and which turned out to be quite informative (thanks to Tricia McKinney for the heads-up).
Tyrangiel asked, for example, about the famous Bain Capital photo featuring Romney and his colleagues posing with cash, and what Romney thinks of the image now. "Oh, that was a moment of humor as we had just done what we thought was impossible," he said.
The editor also tried to ask the tax-return issue in a new way: "If you're an investor and you're looking at a company, and that company says that its great strength is wise management and fiscal know-how, wouldn't you want to see the previous, say, five years' worth of its financials?" Romney dismissed the comparison, saying, "I'm not a business."
I was also delighted to see Tyrangiel ask how Romney intends to balance the budget without raising taxes, without cutting defense, and without touching Social Security. Romney responded by talking about eliminating "Obamacare," which, of course, would make the deficit worse, not better.
But what I found most interesting was an exchange that probably won't get as much attention. Tyrangiel asked a fantastic question about the economy: "One thing that distinguishes this recovery is that public sector jobs, government jobs, have already fallen by 650,000. Given the conservative goal of shrinking government, is this a positive development or a negative one?" Romney didn't get a straight answer, but his take was nevertheless illustrative of a larger point.
"Well, clearly you don't like to hear [about] anyone losing a job. At the same time, government is the least productive -- the federal government is the least productive of our economic sectors. The most productive is the private sector. The next most productive is the not-for-profit sector, then comes state and local governments, and finally the federal government. And so moving responsibilities from the federal government to the states or to the private sector will increase productivity. And higher productivity means higher wages for the American worker. All right?
"America is the highest productivity nation of major nations in the world, and that results in our having, for instance, an average compensation about 30 percent higher than the average compensation in Europe. A government that becomes more productive, that does more with less, is good for the earnings of the American worker, and ultimately it will mean that our taxes don't have to go up, that small businesses will find it easier to start and grow, and we will be able to add more private sector jobs."
It's far from clear that Romney's correct about the federal government being the "least productive of our economic sectors," but for the sake of conversation, let's say that's true. Let's just assume that those rascally federal bureaucracies are just too darned "unproductive."
This is still a deeply misguided policy position.
Remember, the question from Tyrangiel has to do with the economic recovery: is it good or bad that America has been trying to dig itself out of a brutally-deep economic hole while simultaneously laying off 650,000 public-sector workers -- on purpose.
Romney's response is about a long-term vision -- a more efficient and productive federal sector will eventually be good for the private sector. That may or may not be true, but the Republican is badly missing the point: how can the economy get better in a hurry if we're deliberately putting 650,000 out of work? The answer is, we can't, but apparently Romney doesn't much care.
For that matter, Romney may struggle with the details of basic economics, but it's disconcerting that he doesn't realize who these people are. "The federal government is the least productive of our economic sectors"? What does that have to do with school teachers, police officers, and firefighters who've been laid off in droves in communities nowhere near the Beltway?
Leave a Comment:
"And higher productivity means higher wages for the American worker. All right?"
This would be a good place for that wonderful chart that graphs the dramatic increase in productivity over the last few decades while wages remained flat.
Yes!
And I really question his claim that American workers are paid 30% more than European workers.
Europeans pay more in taxes to get those extra benefits they get. We can hardly survive on what we are paid. It just does not add up.
"Romney dismissed the comparison, saying, "I'm not a business."
Huh? I thought with the Supreme Court Citizens United ruling that corporations were people too!?
Doesn't exactly grant the vice versa, you have to file for that...
I always love watching a moron too stupid to know he's a moron, acting as if he's a genius. Once again, Mittwit proves you understand his religion by removing the second "m".
"I'm not a business." Right, you're a presidential candidate who needs people to invest in you. The American people don't get what you would have given a Bain investor? Oh, I forgot, you got money when you did that, and money is your real religion.
"I'm not a business."
Hmmmm. So, corporations are people. But people are not corporations. But what about all those corporations that are also people? Not sure how that works.
"the federal government is the least productive of our economic sectors" Is there some way of quantifying that? It's a totally meaningless comparison. Apples, meet oranges.
"And higher productivity means higher wages for the American worker. All right?" No. Higher education usually is the best indicator of higher wages.
"America is the highest productivity nation of major nations in the world, and that results in our having, for instance, an average compensation about 30 percent higher than the average compensation in Europe. " Is any of this true, esp. taking into account European state sponsored benefits, like health care, more vacations, etc etc.?
"And higher productivity means higher wages for the American worker. All right?"
No - as productivity has risen real dollar wages have dropped.
As far as the highest compensation - Maybe Romney was thinking about Executive compensation. It sure isn't true for the average Joe out here.
Those productivity and wage figures represent the results of the entire American work agreement: You want something, you work to pay for it. You want more, you work more. The dignity of work and all. Independence. Self-responsibility. Well, increasing worker productivity represents that "work more" and wages relative to that productivity represents "pay". However, since 1973 worker productivity has doubled while wages completely flattened. The difference being increased profits for employers, the large corps and wealthy, with the middle class getting nothing commensurate to their productivity as had been historically the same rate of climb before 1973. All this has happened during Dem and Rep majorities and administrations. So where is the debate around this?
that "all right" tic of his is becoming as annoying as his hahahaha and his smarmy smile
Tyrangel is either mistaken or lying. While state and local job losses have been roughly 640,000 since the beginning of 2009, the Federal government has added a little over 140,000 so the government job losses overall have actually been about 400,000 or a tiny fraction of the private sector jobs losses:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/government-jobs-loss-president-obamas-catch-22/
The reason that state and local governments HAVE to layoff is that legally most of them must balance their budgets, unlike the Federal government.
So bannedagain, from the article you linked:
Logically, this means that the lagging economic recovery is more the GOP's fault than Obama's. He's doing what he should be to help the recovery (increase jobs), while states refuse to collect enough revenues to keep teachers, police and firefighters employed.
Thanks for helping point out who's really causing the problems.
"while states refuse to collect enough revenues to keep teachers, police and firefighters employed."
The number of teachers police and firefighters that have been laid is a small percentage of even the headline number of 400,000. When they speak of layoffs in education, they aren't actually speaking of teachers per se as Glenn Kessler points out:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/spinning-the-number-of-teacher-layoffs/2012/06/12/gJQAgAMdYV_blog.html
Furthermore, I'm very sure that all these states would be happy to "collect enough revenues" if they could do so, no matter which party affiliation is involved. This is not actually a partisan issue as the state in the nation in perhaps the worst financail difficulty is the president's own Illinois, long controlled by Democrats
"Illinois Budget Deficit Worst In The Nation: State Is Reportedly $43.8 Billion In The Red"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/22/illinois-budget-deficit-w_n_1618469.html
"Illinois Pension Reform: Gov. Pat Quinn Urges Delayed Retirement, Upped Worker Contributions"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/20/illinois-pension-reform-_n_1441449.html
excuse me should read 500,00 not 400,000
Wow - the paid troll is back again. What's it like to work from home?
You folks know this fellow is a paid troll - right? He's paid to be on this blog by the fringe right.
fave:
I do believe you have given it your best shot in responding to mine. Thanks for the effort
fave:
Aren't you the guy you usually writes "Bwahaha" in reply to me? (forgive me if it's not you) Were you in a hurry this time?
Yes fave:
bb is indeed a paid troll who lives to post troll like posts. He is having his butt handed to him but still insists upon posting.
I say let him.
People need to see the perfect example of why robme and the gop has to be voted out.
donna
you haven't written anything yet other than that you personally think I am wrong with nothing more offered.
As a poster you're the functional equivalent of a Fox viewer.
bb,
I have written plenty of posts that shows that you are wrong.
There have been many others who have done the same as well.
And everyone can tell that you are getting your information from fox news, so I guess that the old saying of "it takes one to know one" is true.
you have written I am wrong as your own opinion, you have brought nothing but verbal abuse to back it up.
I am surprised that this blog turns out to be the functional equivalent of a bad high school where the response to challenging the staus quo with factual information is bullying by junior grade thugs
I, as well as others, have given you plenty to show that your "opinions" are bull@!$%#.
I could care less if you think my responses to you constitute verbal abuse.
I am surprised that this blog doesn't delete your troll comments.
And you know nothing about "challenging" the "status quo." You are a right wing troll who wants to try to influence the people who visit this site and don't post. You know you are going to get called out on your bs by the regular posters here.
I just call you out on your bs and what you are doing. And others have as well.
This man has developed a new language RomneySpeak - takes both sides of an issue and never directly answers a question. Remember - "Corporations are people too my friend" so therefore people are Corporations and "I'm not a business." is a lie based on your own definition of Corporations. I really do get whiplash with this man.
Mitt the Twit strikes again!
BTW a great deal more public sector pain is coming, regardless who wins in 2012. The public sector has been promised impossible pensions which cannot be paid as local government like San Bernadino and Providence have found out.
CALPERS for instance, probably the best run public pension in the country, returned one percent last year while using an annual projected rate of return of 8% in it's calculations. Some governmnet entities use even higher fantasy rates. Even in a great economy, these rates of returns are very unlikely as the recent piece from the NYT pointed out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/28/nyregion/fragile-calculus-in-plans-to-fix-pension-systems.html?pagewanted=all
Big changes are coming to the public sector. It's unavoidable.
shush!!! it's your nap time
LOL! Good one, eruhWHAT!!!!
so much for intellectual discussion.
This blog is like a mirror image of Limbaugh's show
Yes, bb,
And you are Limbaugh's personal mouthpiece.
donna:
do you ever write anything but an insult?
are you capable of any more thought than this?
Yes I do.
But your posts don't warrant anything else but insults.
Are you capable of any independent thought other than what fox news tells you?
It's far from clear that Romney's correct about the federal government being the "least productive of our economic sectors," but for the sake of conversation, let's say that's true.
It is true, at the very least from a cost perspective. Very little in the government makes money. There are some areas and agencies where revenue and profit is a part but the vast majority of positions cost money (which they should, they are being paid for with taxpayer dollars.)
So, government worker A gets a 30,000 dollars salary and 12,000 dollars in benefits. They then pay, let's say, 5,000 in taxes. The net "loss" to the government is 27,000 dollars.
Private sector worker A makes the same with similar benefits and pays 5,000 in taxes. The net "gain" to the government is 5,000 dollars.
Now, granted, there are services only the government can provide and the cost is more than warranted. But from a simple business perspective, the government is the least productive (setting aside there are some services only the government can do).
You are a person of diminished cognitive abilities . The service that the government worker provides will need to be replaced with a contract employee , probably at a greater cost .
I think the mistake here is in measuring "productivity" of the Federal Government in terms of profit and loss. The Federal Government is not a for profit business. It is a governing body with a fiduciary responsibility to its Citizens. Buy it's definition it is supposed to carry out the function of collecting revenues and provided services to the People and the States which they cannot provide to themselves individually (such as interstate infrastructure, commerce and transportation, etc )as well as uphold its duties charged to it by law (provide for the common defense and general welfare of its citizens).
The Federal Government has never been charged with making profits. If you do not consider the effectiveness of these services and duties as compared to their cost then you are not deriving a measure of effectiveness.
P.S. Can we please stop with the "diminished cognitive abilities" and similar digs? "RobDon" was just making a case. We should make ours and see where the facts lie.
The obvious solution is to close down (and sell off) those parts of the Federal government that are not profitable. That would very likely start with the military, right?
The government made a profit off the money loaned to corporations in the stimulus plan. Just a point of fact though, yes, government is a non-profit.
RobDon,
While I know it is "fun" to demonize government workers because they aren't allowed to speak up in their defense (especially for bullies like Romney), I'm sorry but your "analysis" is extremely "simplistic":
How do you know what a "government worker" does? It is as varied as what any worker does in the private industry, and how do you know what their "economic benefit" is?
For instance, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency has about 4000 workers that oversee over 100 nuclear power plants (AND that is not ALL that they do!). Do you really think that the nuclear industry would be as safe without them? What was the economic cost of Chernobyl? You will note that didn't happen here! Nor did Fukushima (yea, I know, earthquake, tsunami, etc, but it was made MUCH worse because Japan WASN'T overseeing what Tepco was doing!!!) TMI was as bad as it got here, and no one died and no one was banned from living near the plant after the initial "fright" was over. Don't you think that like Tepco, they would think that something like "that" couldn't happen because "it never happened before"?
From a review of a number of serious accidents that were predictable and could have been prevented, from Challenger to Deepwater Horizon, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE COMPANIES SAY: "We didn't put in the safety factors because it never happened before so we didn't think it could happen!"
Would you fly if you didn't know FAA was regulating the airspace and helping your pilot land the plane? Would you REALLY TRUST the "free-for-all" that would happen if each airline had to hire its own air traffic controllers? What is the economic benefit of not having planes crash into each other?
What about the trucking industry? In 1975 the fatalities due to large trucks was 5.51 per million miles driven. In 2010, it was down to 1.79 fatalities per million miles driven. Don't you think the state truck inspectors had something to do with that? What was the economic benefit of those less deaths to our economy? What is the economic cost to our economy when a fuel tanker rolls, spills gasoline all over the place and into storm drains, kills the driver or some hapless small car driver and closes a major highway for hours?
What about food and drug safety? What was the economic cost of all those cantaloupe that had to be destroyed because of the listeria contamination from the Colorado incident (not to mention 33 deaths in 28 states)? How many MORE deaths would we have if we didn't have FDA and CSPC?
I know it is difficult to estimate the economic benefits of something that DIDN'T happen, but it is never ZERO and really DOES need to be included in the "cost" and "productivity" of government workers. Odd that it never is by people like Romney!!!
Let me start with the last comment and work my way up.
Oncearepublican, I was not trying to demonize nor impune the work ethic or productivity of government workers. I've been one. I was strictly speaking from an economic standpoint (acknowledging there are government services that only the government can do and private sector can not do without).
Stimulus spending is meant to, through government work, grow the private sector. Why? Because private sector jobs are what runs the economy.
You might compare the government to the HR department of a company. Generally, the HR department is not profitable unless you consider what the cost to the company would be without it. Safety issues, lawsuits, etc.
Bottom line: most government workers like other employees are hard working individuals.
bluesmoke, point taken (and I thought I noted), thanks.
DC, can't do without government.
dfabs, I agree with everything you said. I think Romney's point is that when you are talking about adding jobs, you want private sector jobs. The economy can only support so many government workers but could use almost unlimited private sector jobs. Why? Because they grow the economy.
Lastly, there is a catch 22 of sort. Private sector jobs (wages) are what pays for government workers. The private sector (and the workers) need service that only the government can provide.
RobDon,
I don't think you are "demonizing" government workers, but Romney is!! I think you are believing what you want to believe about Romney thinks:
Fact: This was said by Romney:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/26/romney-government-workers-just-look-for-places-they-can-interfere/
Fact: This was said by Romney:
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/romney-complains-federal-employees-make-more
Fact: This was said by Romney:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/romney-government-workers-don-t-get-business-challenges-20120723
Fact: This was said by Romney:
http://mashedpotatobulletin.com/2012/06/08/playing-politics-with-government-workers/
Fact: This was said by Romney:
[Government workers aren't American??????
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/mitt-romney-we-dont-need-more-cops-firefighters-or-teachers/2012/06/08/gJQAvOgDOV_blog.html
I probably could find more if I spent a little time searching ....
oncearepublican, you make the case well. Anything I try to add will probably seem like an excuse rather than an explanation.
Bottom line: I do not think Gov. Romney is a bad uncaring man. I do not think President Obama is a bad uncaring man. Nor do I think either of them are perfect and free from self interest.
Gov. Romney does think too much government is bad and interfering. President Obama does think more government is needed in many areas and will be beneficial.
Lastly, point taken. Excellent examples, we just interpret them differently.
who pays for the salary and benefits of the public sector worker? when a govt employee is replaced by a public sector employee, in a govt sector, say for example, prisons, the govt gets bids from private companies - the company makes a profit, and pays the salary from what the govt pays them for taking care of the prison. so if govt employed 10 ppl, and the private company agrees to provide same service with 10 ppl, now the govt pays pretty much the same plus the profits. if the company takes same amount as govt would spend, it tipically employs less skilled workers and pays them less, the govt gets much worser service for the same money.
The argument isn't an economic one -- these are people who think of macroeconomics as a branch of moral theology, and if millions must languish unemployed, so that the state can be shrunk still further, so be it.
Recall the Gospel of St. Margaret the Thatcher, the Prodromos to the One True Reagan
You can't refute a theology.
Mitt equates productivity with profit. The public sector proves a service, be it the cop on the beat or Navy SEALs. The cost is spread over a large base- ie, taxpayers-so no one person pays the true cost of the service.
So, let's "privatize" all that gummint stuff. Yearly fire department budget, divided by number of fires. We put your brush fire out, Mitt- and here's the bill: "$72,457.89
Someone stole your car: $87,876.21, please.
DOD made sure you could fill up Ann's Cadillac: $17.99 a gallon.
Just a reminder, if you don't pay your fire department bill...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/t/no-pay-no-spray-firefighters-let-home-burn/#.UCPzzETUDbk
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2010/10/pay-to-spray-fire-fighters-let-house-burn-down/18744/
Romney said "the federal government is the least productive of our economic sectors" that includes Washington, so can we fire Congress - they have been the least productive of anyone.
He goes on to say "And so moving responsibilities from the federal government to the states or to the private sector will increase productivity." When he references state does that not mean "State GOVERNMENT"? and who will be running the private sector that you are transferring jobs to - your Republican Friends? Where will all the "government workers" go - on unemployment that Ryan Budget wants to eliminate?
Romney continues with " And higher productivity means higher wages for the American worker. All right?" Well for almost 30 years we had high productivity and the top 1%'s income grow 240% but the American worker's wages only grow less than 20%?
As usual Romney speaks and there are no details, just sound byts and they show he has no Economic Plan other than President Bush's policies updated. Same policies that got us here.
Yo, Mittiot! Governments are NOT businesses either and, therefore, are not in the business of making a profit. Which is, of course, why we do not need a CEOTUS, but rather a POTUS.
So the flaw in the RoMoneyHood campaign is that he is interviewing for the wrong job.
If the federal government is such a horribly awful thing, why does he want so desperately want to head it?
The TWO key questions will hit when someone in the media becomes smart enough to:
1. Ask the VP selection:
"How many years of tax returns did you HAVE to submit to Gov. Romney's campaign?" (THEN: "Gov. are you so special & privileged that you required XX, your VP choice, to submit X number of years of tax returns BUT you don't have to do the same?"
2. Ask Gov. Romney:
"How many years of tax returns will your cabinet nominees be required to furnish to the Senate?" (And be prepared to actually give him the number followed with: "Why that many returns to be JUST a CABINET Sec BUT only TWO to be the President?").
One of the problems w/ the media is that they do not prepare well for interviews. They want something newsworthy & explosive to happen BUT don't prepare w/ the knowledge & facts surrounding the very questions they ask - so they keep missing easy pitches. McCain submitted his last TWO years of returns during his campaign BUT those two only brought his tax return disclosures up to date. He had been disclosing for quite some time. Had writers or talking heads done a little research after the first time the McCain defense came up they would have been prepared to rebut & embarrass both Romney & his advocates - BUT they weren't prepared & don't prepare so they just watched the perfect home run pitch sail by. Well done guys.
He isn't actually losing votes in keeping his returns secret. Anybody who cares about the matter will vote against him regardless. So he probably has calculated that he has little to gain in releasing them and weeks to responding to questions about what is in his return iether way if he does.
You do not think he could loose Independents? Also Republican voters staying home is loosing votes and aren't there Republicans who would like to know why he is not releasing his taxes - to at least show the same character as his father that he claims to be so proud of.
There are swing voters out there (not here) who won't make up their mind until October. By then, if Mitt's taxes are STILL an issue (meaning he hasn't released at least 2007-2009 in addition to 2010-11) then those voters are not likely to trust the man.
And the longer the taxes are an issue, the less other issues will be discussed. It is clear Mitt's campaign is desperate to change the subject, with all of their flailing about for other topics recently.
bannedagain:
Even Republican primary voters? Voters who were so enthusiastic that they attended a boring Primary debate.
US election 2012: Mitt Romney booed over tax returns during South Carolina debate
Now, if Republican primary voters are not going to vote for Romney regardless, as you said, how is he going to win the election?
All of the above are good points. It depends on how many voters you believe have still not made up their mind and what their primary issue is.
I happen to believe that late deciding voters work on the economy, but I don't have empirical research to support that.
bb,
More bs as usual.
US worker productivity has been rising steeply for the last 30 years, but wages for American workers has been flat.
So much for Mitt's vaunted mastery of economics.
I think "American worker" must mean corporate executives. It seems pretty clear that for people on the right there is a direct correlation between pay and work: the higher a person's income, the harder they must be working. Executive pay has skyrocketed in recent decades as productivity has increased. I think that's what Romney actually has in mind. The people who are actually driving productivity, the employees, don't factor into his worldview. Credit for productivity must go to the executives. It's the only way in which his assertion about wages makes 'sense'.
the elimination of public sector jobs was done ON PURPOSE TO SABOTAGE THE ECONOMY.
be wary when he describes his idealized world of government layoffs as one where "average compensation" will rise.
as those hundreds of thousands of government workers start competing for private sector jobs, the compensation rate for those jobs will not increase at all -- indeed, supply and demand suggests they may decrease.
but executives -- Mitt's friends -- will make massive profits on the outsourced functions the government once provided, that their private companies will now provide with low wages and no benefits, harming families and communities. So the "average" compensation will rise due to 1%-ers adding new millions to their already outsized take.
anyone not presently a 1%-er who votes for Mitt is an idiot.
A picture is worth a thousand words that picture is worth millions
What?
Interesting body language. Willard is the only man who has not turned his face up to the camera. His eyes are looking up, but his face isn't.
The government made a profit off the money loaned to corporations in the stimulus plan.
These statements by Mitt are standard rhetoric for Republicans. But the real purpose is an excuse to dismantle government functions and privatize them. It has nothing to do with productivity, but is about profits for private businesses. Look at the explosion in third party contracts and the military. That explains why Republicans are trying to restore defense cuts. The military can absorb the cuts by eliminating third party contractors and putting service members to work doing the same jobs. And if this were done on a large scale, we could afford better pay and benefits for the military.
Why would anyone want a man who thinks the whole government apparatus is useless as head of government. Why would you want a man who is so secretive that he hasn't released even one whole year of tax returns, and won't do so until just before the election, if then, as a President? I really and truly do NOT understand.
Why would anyone want a man who considers any mention of his taxes, his policies, his religion (and the effect it would have on his Presidency), his governorship, his offshore accounts and his horse, to be an attack on himself?
This is probably the most secretive person ever to run for public office. He never answers a straight question with a straight answer. The right wing will undoubtedly counter by saying that Obama hides his birth certificate, his baptismal certificate, and his school grades, but none of those bear on the candidates fitness to run the nation. Offshore accounts? No tax returns? Secret money laundering in Luxembourg?
Does he agree with the Ryan Plan, which guts Medicare and Social Security? He won't say. How about equal pay for women doing equal work? His lips are sealed. What about Louisiana's education bill, bringing back school prayer and creationism? He won't comment on what a state does because he's running for federal office.
What a disgusting person.
Interesting how Romney walked out on that Bloomberg Businessweek interview when Tyrangiel started asking him questions he didn't want to answer!!
"If you're an investor and you're looking at a company, and that company says that its great strength is wise management and fiscal know-how, wouldn't you want to see the previous, say, five years' worth of its financials?" Romney dismissed the comparison, saying, "I'm not a business."
So, the Romney quote, "Corporations are people my friend" is apparently another lie from Mr. Rmoney as his corporation is a person but HE is not his corporation? This idiot is a glorious failure. OBAMA 2012 in a LANDSLIDE!
Here's one of the few quotes I've heard from Willard Reversible-Mittens Rawmoney that isn't a brazen lie:
'Nuff said?
;-)
Well, the former executive from Bain, Condon (?), expressed on the Chris Hayes show a few weeks back, how bitter he and his ilk are that there are some salaries in the USA that are 'insulated' from being lowered through outsourcing, specifically mentioning, "doctors, nurses," but including police, teachers, firefighters.