LAR: Is Mitt Romney out of touch?X
Inbox X
show details 1:19 PM (38 minutes ago) |
 |
Feb. 3, 2012
To answer charge that he is insensitive to the poor, the former Massachusetts governor proposes automatic minimum wage increases indexed to inflation.
Video: Obama/Biden Fundraising...Show Them The Money! It seems the Obama/Biden ticket is good at raking in the dough. Too bad they're not worried about how to help businesses rake it in, too.
The horrors of campaign finance The fear of special interests destroying elections or corporations buying candidates is quite overblown.
Did the CBO fire an employee for not pushing a rosy view on the banking and housing sectors? Is Mitt Romney out of touch?
By Bill Wilson
Within hours of his big win in Florida, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney again raised questions about whether he is in touch with the American people, telling reporters, "I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it."
Really?
The nation has 13 million unemployed, another 4 million who have given up on looking for work, and another 10 million who can't find full time work. As a matter of fact, millions of Americans are becoming poor, but Romney's not concerned because there's a "safety net"?
The welfare state will not even pay for a basic mortgage, as evidenced by the millions of Americans still facing foreclosure. But even if it could somehow ever be adequate or repaired, is that really what helps people get ahead? Which is better: welfare or the dignity of a real job?
At this stage in American history, of course, Americans need jobs, not welfare.
But let's leave that aside. Giving Romney the benefit of the doubt, presidential candidates meet with thousands of reporters, and are bound to make some gaffes. It's to be expected. Just ask Barack Obama, who was visiting 57 states on the 2008 campaign trail.
What is perhaps more important is how Romney dealt with his gaffe.
Did he talk about what it would take to create millions of jobs here? No. At the first sign of trouble on sensitive economic issues, Romney renewed his support for automatic hikes in the minimum wage indexed to inflation, something that has never been attempted before at the federal level.
That means Romney's first instinct was to run to the left and to pander, in this case dangling higher wages for jobs that no longer exist in this country.
Get full story here. Obama/Biden Fundraising...Show Them The Money!
Video by Frank McCaffrey
Get permalink here. The horrors of campaign finance
You can set your watch by the media stories that always come out in each election bemoaning the amount of money that is spent by campaigns. It's always the same, no matter the changes in laws that seem to happen rather routinely. There is always too much money being spent and serious reforms to limit that money would make elections more palatable, the media elites claim.
But is this so? Is there really too much money being spent to win elected office?
Consider the election for the presidency. If one becomes President, they immediately are perceived to be the most powerful man in the world. The winner becomes the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. armed forces and can deploy the military wherever they please — whether or not that is spelled out in the Constitution is another debate — but nonetheless, the winner controls the world's most powerful military force. The winner also gets to veto any legislation they want from Congress and has the potential to change the landscape of the Supreme Court. And you also get to live in the White House.
All of the above and many more powers and perks can be yours for a price of about $1 billion and enough support from the electorate. And the $1 billion comes from donors, not all of it is from your own bank account!
If you ask me, that seems like a remarkable deal!
Consider what companies spend to run a successful marketing campaign. When McDonald's launches a new product, they spend hundreds of millions of dollars just to get people in the store to purchase the latest McSandwich. When Microsoft rolls out their latest products, they spend hundreds of millions of dollars to make sure you upgrade your computer. And who even knows the price tag for running a successful marketing campaign for Coca-Cola.
But when it comes to becoming the most powerful man in the world, we are supposed to believe that money should not be a factor in attaining the power of the presidency?
Get full story here  ALG Editor's Note: In the following featured commentary from Zerohedge.com, the Congressional Budget Office's analyses may be influenced by special interests pushing their own agenda: Is The CBO Merely Another Manipulated Front For Wall Street To Dictate Washington Policy?
In the past, when discussing the goalseeking C-grade excel jockeys at the Congressional Budget Office (or CBO), we have not been technically full of reverence. After all when one uses a phrase such as this one: "What do the NAR, Consumer Confidence and CBO forecasts have in common?" If you said, "they are all completely worthless" you are absolutely correct", it may be too late to worry about burned bridges. We do have our reasons: as we pointed out last year, following the whole US downgrade fiasco when the Treasury highlighted the CBO's sterling work in presenting a US future so bright, Timmy "TurboTax" G had to wear shades, we said "according to the same CBO back in 2001, net US indebtedness in 2011 would be negative $2.436 trillion, the ratio of debt held by the public to GDP would be 4.8%, total budget surplus would be $889 billion, and GDP would be $16.9 trillion." As we know now they were off only by a modest $17.5 trillion on that debt forecast. Yet we never attributed to malice and bias and outright corruption, what simple stupidity and gross incompetence could easily explain. Until today that is, when following a WSJ article, we are left wondering just how deep does the CBO stench truly go and whether its employees are far more corrupt than merely stupid?
As a reminder, the CBO is "a nonpartisan arm of Congress—employs analysts and economists who are charged with trying to estimate the potential financial impact of proposed policies and legislation." So far so good - they also happen to be beyond worthless at their job, and if they were in the private sector they would be fired with extreme prejudice. Of course, they are government workers, so anything goes. Which is where the problem arises: because while as the WSJ says, the CBO should be impartial, it turns out it is anything but:
"Republican staffers on three Senate committees are pressing a congressional office that scrutinizes federal budget issues and proposed legislation over how its assessments are compiled. The inquiries of the Congressional Budget Office, which haven't been made public, concern the CBO's analyses of some of Washington's most complex and controversial measures, including bills on financial regulation, health care, small-business lending and efforts to aid the housing market, said people familiar with the matter.
"As part of the inquiries, some Republican committee staffers are examining whether CBO officials adequately monitored and disclosed the role of Wall Street banks, academic researchers with government ties and other outside advisers, the people said. They are pushing for greater transparency in the CBO's dealings with advisers, to shed light on the role of outside interests in shaping the office's views, the people said."
Get full story here. |
No comments:
Post a Comment