Posts tagged mitt romney

A thing that I did got covered in The Economist. Woot woot!, etc.

A thing that I did got covered in The Economist. Woot woot!, etc.

mittromney:

Today only, you could win the chance to join Mitt and Paul Ryan in Ohio on Tuesday for a day on the road. Make sure to enter before midnight! http://mi.tt/RNccCz

If I win, can I bring an audio recorder and ask them policy questions?

mittromney:

Today only, you could win the chance to join Mitt and Paul Ryan in Ohio on Tuesday for a day on the road. Make sure to enter before midnight! http://mi.tt/RNccCz

If I win, can I bring an audio recorder and ask them policy questions?

Tax questions for Mitt Romney, from the unnecessarily snarky and unfair to the incredibly serious and necessary

  • You have repeatedly referred to people with extraordinarily high levels of wealth as “job creators.” Have you ever hired a full-time worker and paid them a livable wage with money out of your own wallet? Have you ever witnessed any wealthy person do so?
  • Can you articulate why you think it is acceptable for income derived from investments to be taxed at a far lower rate than income derived from working?
  • You’ve repeatedly said there are politically damaging things in your income-tax returns. What are they?
  • If you were advising the Obama campaign on how to win the general election, would you press yourself for your income tax returns?
  • Are you a billionaire? Is your net worth, inclusive of assets and investments, more than one billion dollars?
  • You recently said you have not paid taxes at a rate of less than 13 percent. What, exactly, has your effective income tax rate been for each year throughout the past decade? No one cares what your marginal income tax rate was.
  • Have you ever received a reprieve from the IRS for felonious tax evasion?
  • Have you ever failed to file a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR)? Were you a participant in the IRS’s recent amnesty program for reporting previously undisclosed foreign bank accounts?

Forbes.com: Is Mitt Romney A Liability For The Private Equity Industry?

Private equity is used to touting non-correlated returns and other arguments for its investing activities. Firms will find, however, that the conversation has shifted away from profits and toward social responsibility. Stakeholders want basic questions answered, the same ones being raised by political reporters, voters and campaign managers. They want to know, is private equity greedy and bad? Does it value wealth more than jobs? Are there better ways to save and restructure companies? And why should I trust anyone in the world of private equity?

Private equity firms need to be able to supply answers that go beyond defenses of capitalism and free enterprise. To make a deal successful, a company will have to articulate not only the benefits for investors and the company but also for the community and employees.

It’s hard to step into the spotlight after years of avoiding it. It’s even more difficult to craft an effective message when that’s let loose in the middle of a sophisticated presidential campaign.

But if you’re in private equity, you have to engage the Joe Soptics of the world during this race. Firms will have to clearly and accessibly explain their missions and actions at least until November. And most likely this conversation will continue for years to come.

Disclosure: This was written by the founding partner of a firm I do work for, and I totally agree with all of it.

Did Romney deliberately court the NAACP’s scorn?

squashed:

So Mitt Romney was booed at the NAACP. A lot of people on the left are arguing that he deliberately drew the scorn of the NAACP to shore up support from the more racist part of his base. Initially, I was inclined to disagree. Isn’t speaking to a group you know is likely to oppose you the principled thing to do?

Except … when has Romney every done the principled thing? Romney is the sort of guy who likes every kind of music—particularly the kind you like. It is a bit weird that the only people Romney seems inclined to voluntarily alienate are the NAACP. And the alienation was definitely voluntary.

If you’re speaking to the NAACP—you’ve got to know that Obama is personally popular. You could make a pitch that says you think Obama just hasn’t gotten the job done and it’s time to give somebody else a chance. That makes sense. But Romney threw out the term “Obamacare” when he could have used any of a dozen alternatives that didn’t directly and deliberately tie Obama to the thing he was trying to disparage. If he was trying to make friends, that was a pretty serious blunder.

Of course, maybe Romney just wanted to avoid the accusation that he had refused to speak to the NAACP. Maybe he knew he wouldn’t win anybody over but wanted to make a gesture at trying.

Except, then there was this:

By the way, I had the privilege of speaking today at the NAACP convention in Houston and I gave them the same speech I am giving you. I don’t give different speeches to different audiences alright. I gave them the same speech. When I mentioned I am going to get rid of Obamacare they weren’t happy, I didn’t get the same response. That’s ok, I want people to know what I stand for and if I don’t stand for what they want, go vote for someone else, that’s just fine. But I hope people understand this, your friends who like Obamacare, you remind them of this, if they want more stuff from government tell them to go vote for the other guy-more free stuff. But don’t forget nothing is really free.

I really don’t want to jump to the convenient conclusion that Romney’s campaign is now doing open race-baiting. But … the only part of the Affordable Care Act that Romney has really criticized (recently) is the mandate. When that suddenly switches into “more free stuff from the government” when it’s specificall in the context of the NAACP, I have trouble giving Romney the benefit of the doubt. This looks really bad to me.

If you disagree, please let me know. I’d be happy to post thoughts in either direction. We can call it an open thread or something.

Free enterprise is the way America works. We need to apply that to healthcare.

Mitt Romney, apparently forgetting that the United States is essentially one gigantic insurance company with a profoundly expensive standing military, not exactly a projection of free enterprise.

Most people want the government to subsidize healthcare. If Romney is honest-to-god interested in eliminating the government spending that distorts the free enterprise for healthcare, he should explain to voters what, exactly, that would mean. (A teaser: no more Medicare.) Obviously, don’t hold your breath for that kind of honesty.

The Romney camp has a statement about their candidate’s 2011 tax returns. I had a free 15 minutes, so I wrote them a better one:

Mitt and Ann Romney have made available an estimate of their 2011 tax returns. If you’re reading this yourself, as opposed to having the help dictate it to you while you roll around in piles of money, it’s safe to assume they paid a lower tax rate than you did. It’s somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 percent.

The Romneys (Romnii?) have paid taxes in the full amount that they owe. Additionally, they give money — lots of it! — to “charities.” If you speak IRS, this means they give money to organizations recognized under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. If you speak human, this means they give money to organizations that may or may not be using it to do meaningful things that benefit the needy and less privileged. 

In any event — and we can’t stress this point enough — they don’t own the government anything under current law. If you have a problem with this, perhaps you should direct your anger towards Congress, which can change the laws that keep Mr. Romney’s tax rate so profoundly low relative to everyone else’s whenever they feel like it. 

Mitt Romney is running for president, a position of awesome power and responsibility. However, the president does not write tax policy. If he/she did… oh boy, think of how much easier this would all be. 

As for the notion that a President Romney would bully Congress into passing tax reform that disproportionately benefits the rich: Have you honestly seen our guy? He’s rigid as a totem pole and as intimidating as cat’s mew. As president, he’d sign anything — literally anything at all — you threw in front of him. His 2011 returns aren’t really newsworthy. Move along…

The Romney camp has a statement about their candidate’s 2011 tax returns. I had a free 15 minutes, so I wrote them a better one:

Mitt and Ann Romney have made available an estimate of their 2011 tax returns. If you’re reading this yourself, as opposed to having the help dictate it to you while you roll around in piles of money, it’s safe to assume they paid a lower tax rate than you did. It’s somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 percent.

The Romneys (Romnii?) have paid taxes in the full amount that they owe. Additionally, they give money — lots of it! — to “charities.” If you speak IRS, this means they give money to organizations recognized under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. If you speak human, this means they give money to organizations that may or may not be using it to do meaningful things that benefit the needy and less privileged.

In any event — and we can’t stress this point enough — they don’t own the government anything under current law. If you have a problem with this, perhaps you should direct your anger towards Congress, which can change the laws that keep Mr. Romney’s tax rate so profoundly low relative to everyone else’s whenever they feel like it.

Mitt Romney is running for president, a position of awesome power and responsibility. However, the president does not write tax policy. If he/she did… oh boy, think of how much easier this would all be.

As for the notion that a President Romney would bully Congress into passing tax reform that disproportionately benefits the rich: Have you honestly seen our guy? He’s rigid as a totem pole and as intimidating as cat’s mew. As president, he’d sign anything — literally anything at all — you threw in front of him. His 2011 returns aren’t really newsworthy. Move along…

In Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s The Idiot, the childlike and excitable protagonist Prince Myshkin is told by his sweetheart that the worst thing he could do at an upcoming party is to break an expensive Chinese vase. Myshkin becomes consumed by the thought that he must not break it, and makes a point of sitting as far away from the vase as possible. But “an ineradicable conviction had taken possession of his mind that, however he might try to avoid this vase, he must certainly break it.” And of course, he does—upsetting the vase near the end of the party with one of his wild gestures.
cheatsheet:

Andrew Sullivan is holding a Romney caption contest. This should be fun.

It’s Halloween in the Romney household, and Willard’s putting on his chauffeur schtick again.

cheatsheet:

Andrew Sullivan is holding a Romney caption contest. This should be fun.

It’s Halloween in the Romney household, and Willard’s putting on his chauffeur schtick again.

Ho, ho. Hot air. Get it? (via copyranter)

Ho, ho. Hot air. Get it? (via copyranter)