There’s a lot of talk lately about how well Mitt Romney is doing, and very little about how he and his party is moving to the middle.
Take Marco Rubio, a Romney supporter who recently said this:
“There will be a very helpful debate about whether things like the charitable deduction, the health insurance premium, the home interest deduction should be part of the deal,” Rubio told a crowd of journalists at a Bloomberg View event. “I don’t think that those, especially the home interest deduction, [reducing that] is troubling, because it really helps the middle class. Do you really want to hurt charitable giving in a country when you are saying that you want to rely less on government and more on private institutions to deal with these issues? And how are you going to raise taxes on people on their health care premiums when you are saying you want there to be a system in place where folks can have more control over their own money?”
Now this could be a cya move on the part of Republicans who are not doing well in the state by state polls. But to be so openly critical of the Romney/Ryan tax plan seems — I don’t know — risky if Republicans want him to win. We know that there really is no plan, so we are forced to go with the only plan that has passed the Republican house and that has one of the two men’s names on it (that would be the Ryan plan).
We know the Ryan plan has savage cuts in social programs and deductions in order to give tax breaks to the wealthy. But no politically savvy Republican would endorse a plan that has real cuts to it. Cuts to social security, medicare, medicaid or a limit on mortgage interest deduction or charitable giving. No. What they want to do is use the tried and true dog whistle of cutting welfare, the NEA, NPR, PBS and Sesame Street.
So the cut in the deficit Romney is proposing comes from old fashioned trickle down economics. You give rich people tax breaks, they will spend it on hiring people and building things and the economy will grow. It’s Ronald Regan’s top down trickle down economics once called Reganomics.
So imagine my surprise when, thanks to the HuffPo, we have an article written by the very man who was part of the Regan years. What does Ronald Regan’s budget guru (the man who helped created Regonmics) think of a Romney Presidency? Well in his Daily Beast op-ed, David Stockman describes Romney as “… a master financial speculator who bought, sold, flipped, and stripped businesses.” He goes on to say:
“He did not build enterprises the old-fashioned way—out of inspiration, perspiration, and a long slog in the free market fostering a new product, service, or process of production. Instead, he spent his 15 years raising debt in prodigious amounts on Wall Street so that Bain could purchase the pots and pans and castoffs of corporate America, leverage them to the hilt, gussy them up as reborn “roll-ups,” and then deliver them back to Wall Street for resale—the faster the better.”
With regard to Romney’s “business” experience:
“Indeed, the next president’s overriding task is restoring national solvency—an undertaking that will involve immense societywide pain, sacrifice, and denial and that will therefore require “fairness” as a defining principle. And that’s why heralding Romney’s record at Bain is so completely perverse. The record is actually all about the utter unfairness of windfall riches obtained under our anti-free market regime of bubble finance.”
Wow. Guess Stockman has stopped drinking the kool aid. This is truly fascinating and a challenge for Romeny. The less he says about his tax plan, the more people speculate on it. The more people speculate on it, the less good things they have to say about it. Mind you these are not those great bastions of information, the news reporter. Nor are they liberals. These are Republican public servants. And one was Regan’s budget director @ OMB.
If Obama loses this thing, he would have lost to a weaker candidate then even John McCain.