MISCHARACTERIZATIONS AND WORKING ACROSS THE AISLE (PER ROMNEY)

MISCHARACTERIZATIONS AND WORKING ACROSS THE AISLE (PER ROMNEY)

The “debate” conducted last night between Romney and the president was not particularly edifying as both relied on a distillation of the talking points of their respective campaigns, points we have been hearing for months. However, something was gained in hearing their claims and denials, and two are salient:

(1) Romney criticized the president for not working across the aisle, and reminded us that when governor of Massachusetts with an 87% Democratic controlled legislature, he worked across the aisle and that if president he would work across the aisle with Democrats just as he did in Massachusetts. Romney neglected to point out that with such an overwhelming Democratic legislature, he had no choice since he had no veto power. With those numbers, all vetoes would be overridden. The legislature effectively ran the governor’s office. Romney gave speeches to visiting conventions and cut ribbons at openings of new shopping malls. He played the role of liberal republican because he had no choice.

He claims the health care plan in Massachusetts is his. With 87% of the legislature controlled by Democrats, it plainly is the legislature’s “health care plan.” If he had vetoed the final bill, it would have been easily overridden by the legislature. As a template for the Affordable Care Act, Romney has had trouble with the tea party element of his party in explaining how he would now get rid of the Affordable Care Act, an act very similar to the one in Massachusetts which he claims as his own, and hence the flip-flop, a frequent antic he employs (depending upon the audience).

Romney also neglected to point out that his work across the aisle in Massachusetts was with people who wanted to govern – and did. The president’s across the aisle efforts have been totally impeded by a group of tea party people who put ideology above governing. This element of the republican party came to town with a plan to impede the process rather than participate in it. Romney did not have that problem in Massachusetts, as Democrats wanted to govern – and did so very successfully. To hear Romney take the credit for such good government in which he had no choice but to preside over is disgusting. It was the Democratic legislature in Massachusetts which did the governing by reason of their huge majority, not Romney. The legislature made the laws and there was nothing Romney could do about it since his veto power was easily overridden and thus a meaningless constitutional artifact.

(2) The president pointed out that the Romney-Ryan plan would reduce 5 trillion in taxes for the rich and corporate class and add 2 trillion to the Defense budget (an increase the Defense Department did not ask for), further complaining that in order to balance the budget, the middle class would have to suffer a tax increase. Romney twice said that that was a “mischaracterization.” In other words, he was telling us what it was NOT. He never once told us what it IS.

Romney says that he would balance the budget through closing loopholes in the tax code but he did not flesh out just what or whose loopholes he would close. Such loopholes, so far as we can know in view of his and Ryan’s silence on the topic, could range from corporate welfare for Big Oil to removal of the deductibility of interest on home mortgages. We don’t know, and Romney and Ryan are telling us just to vote for them and trust them to do the right thing without telling us what they think the “right thing” is. (Apparently the dodge is on – when you don’t want to talk about something, just call it a “mischaracterization” and go from there.) The president should have said, “O.K., if it is a mischaracterization, then characterize it for us. Tell us what it IS, not what it IS NOT. It’s either 5 trillion or it is not. What is it?”

Romney did not at any time during the debate admit or deny the 5 trillion he and Ryan have planned as tax cuts for the rich and corporate class (in addition to the Bush tax cuts!), but then it doesn’t matter for those of us who are paying attention. It’s in the Ryan budget, and we can read and do arithmetic. The fact is that calling a 5 trillion dollar tax cut for the rich and corporate class along with the Bush tax cuts a mischaracterization was and is totally evasive, not to mention the further evasion of not telling us specifically how he and Ryan propose to pay for it.

I for one do not trust Romney and Ryan to “do the right thing,” and that’s because Ryan’s budget plan as approved by Romney DOES reduce taxes by 5 trillion for the rich and corporate class and gives more money to a Defense Department that doesn’t even want it. Defense has so much money now that (as I recently blogged) they have asked congress not to sent them any more Abrams tanks (at 6 million per copy) because they have 2,200 tanks in service and another 3,000 tanks rusting out in the desert at an army base in California. The republican chair of that committee overrode the army’s “please, no more” request with the appropriation for tanks anyway on grounds of “national security.” Give me a break! Doesn’t the congressman think the Defense Department is interested in “national security?” (How about “forcing” more money on Medicaid or hot lunches for schoolchildren, Mr. Big Spender?)

The president will probably be reelected, but should Romney ascend to the Oval Office, good luck in working across the aisle with a Democratic Senate (and possibly House) in giving 5 trillion plus Bush tax cuts to Wall Street and their ilk and 2 more trillion to a Defense Department for, among other things, more tanks to rust, tanks they don’t want and can’t use.

In summary, it appears that we are to be in awe of Romney’s ability to work across the aisle in a state where Democrats comprised 87% of the legislature and where his veto pen was useless? What choice did he have? We are also expected to swallow his 5 trillion dollar tax cut for the rich and corporate class (plus renewal of Bush’s trillion dollar cuts) and 2 trillion dollar increase in Defense appropriations and the proposition that he will somehow balance the budget without raising taxes on the middle class?

I was born at night, but it wasn’t last night. I am not buying the worst of all worlds – trickle down for the poor and middle class and tax cuts for the already engorged rich, thank you very much! We are not voting for candidates; we are voting for their ideas on how to govern – and I am not into a candidate’s views when he won’t flesh them out or when caught, calls it “mischaracterization.”

How about some straight talk, Mitt? We can’t afford even hints of 5 trillion dollar “mischaracterizations” a minute longer. When you remove 5 trillion dollars from the pot as a giveaway to Wall Street banksters and the rich and corporate class, tell us how we poor and middle class have a bigger share in what’s left in the pot (if anything). Why are you still in trickledown mode? We tried that with the Bush tax cuts. It didn’t work then and won’t work now. Put down the flag and look at the numbers – then in the mirror. You have to know better. Pandering to a given class exacerbates class warfare. Think about it.

I will be voting for the president come November, and invite you to join me.  GERALD  E