News Archives: Tagged mitt romney

VIDEO: Republican Congressman Chip Cravaack Dodges Question About Mitt Romney’s Plan To Dismantle FEMA   

Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-MN)

As millions of Americans continue to deal with the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, they expect their government to be there to respond to the effects of the storm. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s solutionto the federal response to the super storms is to simply devolve the Federal Emergency Management Administration and let the states take care of themselves — a disastrous plan that would be particularly destructive to poorer states without the resources to respond to emergencies.

Embattled Republican congressman Chip Cravaack (R-MN) was asked about Romney’s plan during a debate with his bold progressive Democratic opponent Rick Nolan. He

MODERATOR:Where do you stand on Mitt Romney’s stand on turning over FEMA and federal government disaster relief to the individual states?

CRAVAACK: I’d have to take a look at that proposal a little bit more. There’s nothing really hard in stone, what now of course with the Dulluth floods FEMA responded pretty well. [...] I’d really have to defer and wait until I see some hard language [...]

MODERATOR: Mr. Nolan?

NOLAN: No, I’d be strongly opposed to that. What we’re witnessing here in the northeastern united states, what we witnessed here in northeastern Minnesota, what we witnessed in Louisiana, New Orleans, clearly requires a federal government response.

Watch it:

Minnesotans deserve a congressman who can clearly condemn a radical plan like dismantling FEMA and turning its responsibilities over to individual states.

Click here to sign up to make calls for Rick Nolan.

 

Posted on November 2, 2012 at 9:26am by . Posted in , , , . Leave a response.

Mitt Romney Announces ‘Military Advisory Council’ That Is Packed With Defense Contractors   

(Photo credit: Flickr user Adam Glanzman)

Today, Mitt Romney announced a “Military Advisory Council” of retired military officers who support his campaign. “I am deeply honored to have the support of so many of our most accomplished military leaders,” said Romney during the announcement.

While many of those on the Council are clearly decorated veterans, one curious aspect of the list is how many of these military figures left the government only to become highly paid consultants and board members to major weapons makers. Given that Romney wants to increase the military budget by $2 trillion, these military officials who later became part of the defense industry have a monetary incentive to back Romney that has nothing to do with whether they approve of his wider foreign policy philosophy or not.

Here’s a list of some members of the Military Advisory Council who are also profiting from the defense industry:

  • Retired General James Conway: Conway is a retired four-star general. Last year, he was named to the Board of Directors of Textron, which manufactures helicopters and other aircraft and products for the military.
  • Retired Navy Admiral James B. Busey: Busey served in the Navy until 1989. After leaving the federal government in 1992, he joined the Board of Directors of defense contractor Curtiss-Wright and left in 2008.
  • Retired former commander of United States Strategic Command James O. Ellis: After serving his country, Ellis decided to make a fortune by working for the defense industry. He serves in the leadership of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations and also has a board position at Lockheed Martin.
  • Retired Air Force General Ronald Fogleman: Fogleman serves on the boards of Alliant Techsystems, AAR Corporation, Mesa Air Group, Inc., and World Air Holdings.
  • Retired General Tommy Franks: Franks, who led the disastrous invasion of Iraq, has his own consultancy called Franks & Associates LLC that specializes in “disaster recovery.” He also works for a private firm that pitches itself as able to respond to a viral pandemic.
  • Retired Air Force Commander William R. Looney III: Looney actually campaigns on behalf of for-profit colleges that are under fire for abusing military veterans. Those colleges actually are a huge beneficiary of dollars from the Veterans Administration, and thus represent an often under-looked form of defense contractor welfare.
  • Retired Navy Admiral Henry Mauz: Mauz is on the Advisory Council of Northrop Grumman Ship Systems.
  • Retired Navy Vice Admiral Mike Bucchi: Bucchi was named president of homeland security contractor Ocean Systems Engineering Corporation in 2005.

We only looked at a small sampling of the list Romney’s campaign provided — those officers with the highest ranks — and found numerous conflicts of interest. It appears that Romney assembled a list of former military officials largely composed of those who are now profiting off of the defense industry, and they are excited to see the candidate offer them more money in the form of a $2 trillion spending splurge that the Pentagon hasn’t even asked for.

Posted on October 18, 2012 at 3:30pm by . Posted in , . 9 comments. Leave a response.

Here’s Proof That Mitt Romney Does Believe Government Creates Jobs   

An image from a Romney ad.

Last night, during the presidential debates, Mitt Romney responded to Barack Obama talking about government investment in the economy by mocking the idea that “government creates jobs”:

 

 

OBAMA: And when we talk about deficits, if we’re adding to our deficit for tax cuts for folks who don’t need them and we’re cutting investments in research and science that will create the next Apple, create the next new innovation that will sell products around the world, we will lose that race. If we’re not training engineers to make sure that they are equipped here in this country, then companies won’t come here. Those investments are what’s going to help to make sure that we continue to lead this world economy not just next year, but 10 years from now, 50 years from now, a hundred years from now.

MS. CROWLEY: Thanks, Mr. President.

Governor Romney —

MR. ROMNEY: Government does not create jobs. Government does not create jobs. (Chuckles.)

Watch it:

Later in the debate, Obama failed to defend the notion that government creates jobs. He replied, ” I think a lot of this campaign, maybe over the last four years, has been devoted to this notion that I think government creates jobs, that that somehow is the answer. That’s not what I believe.”

But it’s very easy to defend the idea that government creates jobs. Just turn to one of its proponents — Mitt Romney. Here’s an ad he’s running in Virginia. It claims that Obama’s defense cuts — actually defense cuts caused by possible sequestration that Republicans themselves helped bring on — “threaten over 130,000 jobs”:

The only way that defense cuts can threaten jobs is if government creates jobs. Mitt Romney is clearly being hypocritical, and he knows as well as anyone else that government in the right hands can be a real driver of the economy.

Posted on October 17, 2012 at 10:23am by . Posted in , , . Leave a response.

The Presidential Debate Commission Is Chaired By Corporate Lobbyists, Funded By Corporations   

(Photo credit: Flickr user DonkeyHotey)

Americans have faith in the presidential debates to be wide-ranging discussions that probe the candidates’ views and hold them accountable to the public. And for much of recent history, that’s what these debates were. From 1976 to 1984, the League of Women Voters held debates renowned for their fiercely independent moderators and transparent process.

But in more recent years, the debates have been held by an organization called the “Commission on Presidential Debates,” (CPD) which tightly controls the process by choosing moderators and questions.

Here’s one little known fact about the CPD — it’s chaired by corporate lobbyists. One of the chairmen is Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr., who was once a Republican National Convention chairman but now works as a gambling industry lobbyist. The other chairman is Michael D. McCurry, who is a former press secretary for Bill Clinton. He now works as a “partner at Public Strategies Washington, Inc., where he provides counsel on communications strategies and management to corporate and non-profit clients.” Given the loopholes in our lobbying laws, McCurry doesn’t even have to disclose his clients, but we do know that in 2006 he spearheaded the Hands Off The Internet campaign that was designed to kill net neutrality on behalf of big telecom companies.

Every year, CPD also opens up the debates to corporate sponsors. Here’s the list of this year’s sponsors:

Anheuser-Busch Companies
The Howard G. Buffett Foundation
Sheldon S. Cohen, Esq.
Crowell & Moring LLP
International Bottled Water Association (IBWA)
The Kovler Fund
Southwest Airlines

With a sponsorship list like that, don’t be surprised if we don’t see questions critical of the industries listed. But this year’s list is relatively tame. In the past, the tobacco industry, AT&T, and others have all been sponsors.

Here’s one last interesting tidbit about the debates. Remember the section of the vice presidential debate where moderator Martha Raddatz falsely claimed that Medicare and Social Security are going broke?

That question had us scratching our heads. But if you look at the list of CPD leadership, you’ll find that Alan Simpson — the same Alan Simpson involved in a corporate CEO-run campaign to cut Social Security, and who is a former corporate lobbyist himself — is on its Board of Directors.

Americans want their debates to be both open and transparent. As long as the debates continue to be closely controlled by a group including corporate lobbyists and corporations, it’s difficult to say that they will be. For more on the closed process that creates the presidential debates, see this morning’s Democracy Now! interview with democracy activist George Farah.

Posted on October 16, 2012 at 10:53am by . Posted in , , . 5 comments. Leave a response.

Five Important Issues That Haven’t Come Up Once In The Presidential Debates   

Will Obama and Romney be asked about any of these issues? (Photo credit: Flickr user DonkeyHotey)

Last night’s vice presidential debate marked the second debate between the Romney-Ryan ticket and the Obama-Biden campaign. There are two presidential debates left to go, and both will be between Obama and Romney.

These debates are supposed to serve to educate Americans about the differences between the candidates. But we’ve done a review of the questions asked at the debates and we’ve found five important issues that have yet to come up at all. Here’s the list, in no particular order:

  1. Labor Unions: In the three hours of debate so far between the two campaigns, labor unions have not come up once. In a question related to education, Romney didn’t even resort to his normal teacher-bashing by attacking teachers unions. The absence of unions from the debate is stunning, given that research shows that the decline of unions in America has corresponded with the decline of the middle class.
  2. Economic Inequality: The word “inequality” didn’t arise once during the two debates. The moderators did not ask about the growing class divide in America nor the candidates’ solution to the problem.
  3. Climate Change: There hasn’t been a single question asked about global warming. This is at a time when scientists are predicting that entire island nations like the Maldives will disappear thanks to rising sea levels.
  4. The Drug War: The drug war is one of America’s greatest failings, and it’s estimated that half of our prison population is nonviolent drug offenders. But the issue simply didn’t arise during the debates.
  5. LGBT Equality: President Obama was the first sitting president ever to endorse marriage equality, but you wouldn’t know it by watching the debates. The Obama-Biden ticket was not asked whether it supports repealing the “Defense of Marriage Act,” and the Romney-Ryan ticket was not asked to defend its bigoted anti-equality positions.

Americans deserve to have a robust debate between the presidential candidates. Future moderators should take heed of issues that have so far not come up and make sure to address them in the future.

 

Posted on October 12, 2012 at 1:42pm by . Posted in , , , . Leave a response.

We Could Pay For College For 31 Million Students For The Cost Of Romney’s Corporate Tax Cuts   

An photograph illustrating Romney’s view that we need to shower corporations with even more tax cuts.

The policies politicians propose and enact represent both priorities and trade-offs. So when Mitt Romney proposes cutting corporate taxes at the cost of $1 trillion over the next ten years, he’s telling us that it’s more important for him to reduce the tax rates paid by Big Business than to have that trillion dollars in the Treasury to fund public priorities.

Here’s one of those priorities. Using data from the National Priorities Project (NPP), I calculated what else we could finance with a trillion dollars. I found that we could fund four-year scholarships for 31million students over the next ten years instead. Each student could go to a “flagship” state school for one year and have their tuition and fees fully subsidized.

Here’s a few other things we could finance for a trillion dollars instead of tax cuts for well-off corporations:

  • Veterans Administration care for 126 million veterans for one year
  • Hiring 14.5 million teachers for one year
  • Hiring 14.1 million police officers for one year

These are just a few alternatives to cutting corporate taxes by a trillion dollars over the next ten years. It’s up to us to choose what’s a better use of our tax dollars.

Posted on October 9, 2012 at 10:45am by . Posted in . 1 comment. Leave a response.

FACT CHECK: Massachusetts Outperformed The Country In Education Before Romney Became Governor   

(Photo credit: Flickr user Adam Glanzman)

During his debate with President Obama last night, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney boasted of being governor of Massachusetts while the state was ranked best in the nation in education.

Romney is likely referring to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test, which the Department of Education uses to grade states based on student knowledge in reading and mathematics.

Indeed, Massachussetts’ ranking has been impressive, and it ranked first in the nation in 2005 and 2007 in math and reading scores for 4th and 8th graders, both years under which Romney was governor. What Romney didn’t note was that the state also ranked first in 2009 — long after he had left his position.

In fact, it was also that way before Romney ever became governor. Here’s a table showing NAEP scores for Massachusetts from 1992 to 2003, drawn from a UMass Amherst report by researchers Stephen Jirka and Ronald Hambleton (click on it to expand it):

As you can see, Massachusetts significantly outperformed the nation every year tested. Some of this has to do with the public policies followed by the state, but it also has a number of social benefits that boost its educational potential. That includes the lowest number of uninsured individuals and the second-highest per capita income among all states.

Can Mitt Romney really take credit for his state’s educational results when they were already high before he took office and remained high after? No, the most he can take credit for is not catastrophically ruining an already good system.

Posted on October 4, 2012 at 10:30am by . Posted in , . Leave a response.

Romney’s Corporate Tax Cuts Cost 238 Times More Than All Public Broadcasting Funding Combined   

Romney’s view on who deserves federal help — big corporations, hedge funders, private equity managers, and every else who’s already wealthy.

Tonight, Mitt Romney set off an avalanche of criticism and satire following his remarks that at the Republican convention that he likes “Big Bird,” but he will be cutting all funding to the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS).

Here’s the clip of him saying that:

 

It’s worth pointing out that federal subsidies only account for a tiny minority of public broadcasting budgets. Only 15 percent of PBS’s budget comes from the federal trough.

In fact, all public broadcasting put together under the umbrella of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), only accounts for $420 million from the federal government.

So Romney wants to wipe out this funding, which amounts to $4.2 billion over ten years if the funding stays consistent. But his corporate tax plan — which involves a huge tax giveaway to Big Business — would blow a $1 trillion hole in the federal budget over the next ten years.

That means that Romney’s corporate tax cuts cost 238 times more than all public broadcasting funding combined.

Maybe the satire is onto something. It’s possible Romney doesn’t actually like Big Bird very much, or at least 238 times less than he likes ExxonMobil, Wal-Mart, and other corporations he’d be rewarding with his tax plan.

Join the fight to save Big Bird. Click here.

 

Posted on October 3, 2012 at 11:49pm by . Posted in , . 2 comments. Leave a response.

Prominent Republican Congressman Dan Lungren Debunks Romney’s 47 Percent Lie   

Last night, prominent Republican Rep. Dan Lungren (CA) debunked presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s lie that 47 percent of Americans don’t pay taxes and are simply demanding favors from the government.

During a debate with progressive Ami Bera, Lungren was asked about Romney’s comments and offered a strong rebuke of his infamous statement:

MODERATOR: Mitt Romney’s been trying to explain a lot lately what he meant at a fundraiser. What he said, ’47 percent of Americans,’ and I quote him, ‘Dependent upon government believe that they are victims, who believe the government is responsible for them, who believe they are entitled to health care, food, housing. Is that how you see the country? And if not, can you tell me how you differ from Governor Romney?

LUNGREN:  I think he made a major mistake in calling people victims, saying that they want to be victims. I do think he pointed that there are approximately 47, 49 percent of the people who don’t pay income taxes at the present time. But there are different categories of folks. Some don’t because they’re retired, they paid all their lives! I wouldn’t call them trying to be victimized. Others because they have a low income, don’t qualify for tax — paying taxes at the federal level. [...]

Watch Lungren’s response (the relevant section starts at 09:25):

It’s telling that a Republican as senior as Lungren — who was his party’s gubernatorial candidate in 2004 and is the chairman of the House Committee on Administration — is debunking and distancing himself from Romney’s now-infamous statements. Romney’s fumbling candidacy has become so inept and extreme that Republicans down the ticket are scrambling to get away from it.

Posted on September 26, 2012 at 8:00am by . Posted in , , . 3 comments. Leave a response.

Memo To Romney: 5 Ways Republicans Use Government To Give Money To Rich People   

Romney demonstrating his view on how government should treat rich people.

Yesterday, video emerged of Republican presidential nominee essentially telling donors that 47 percent of Americans are lazy and just want to be dependent upon the governor. In Romney’s world, these are all Obama voters:

ROMNEY: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.

Watch the video of Romney’s remarks, obtained by Mother Jones:

Romney’s words are rightly being condemned as offensive. But here’s the interesting part about his remarks. He talks about Americans who believe they are entitled to basic goods like health care and food. In Romney’s mind, this probably means the poor.

But government actually spends a relatively small amount of its budget on assisting the poor. It actually spends an extraordinary amount of money handing the already-rich even more money. Here’s five ways that Republicans like Romney use government to give even more money to the already-rich (who finance the party):

  1. Supporting The Oil Subsidies: The newest line among Republicans is that they despise “crony capitalism.” But House Republicans have voted unanimously  time and time again to give billions of dollars to the oil industry. Paul Ryan’s budget maintains $40 billion in subsidies for Big Oil over ten years. The oil industry is giving approximately ten times as much cash to Republicans this year as it is giving to Democrats.
  2. Providing Federal Funding For Rip-Off For-Profit Colleges: The for-profit college industry has abused students and veterans while ripping off taxpayers, while getting $32 billion in federal aid every single year. The Obama administration moved to cut off funding to schools with the worst performance, but every single House Republican voted to block these reforms. The industry gives twice as much money to Republicans as Democrats (unfortunately many members of both parties serve the for-profit college agenda).
  3. Protecting And Subsidizing The Drug Industry: The big pharmaceutical companies have one of the best deals in the country. First, the government lavishly funds the industry’s research. It then artificially boosts prices by banning the re-importation of drugs from Canada while at the same time barring Medicare from negotiating for drug prices. Most Republicans have supported this arrangement (although there are a few dissenters like Senator David Vitter). Slightly more industry money goes to Republicans (far too many Democrats do the drug companies’ bidding as well).
  4. Boosting The Insurance Industry’s Profits: Romney likes to peddle the misleading claim that Obama severely cut Medicare to finance the Affordable Care Act. But what Obama’s health care law actually does is cut back on private insurance subsidies through the Medicare Advantage program. What’s more, Romney and Ryan also want to hand the entire Medicare program to the health insurance industry, which would cost seniors an extra $60,000 for their health care. The insurance industry has given almost twice the dollars to Republicans this cycle.
  5. Bailing Out The Big Banks And Then Failing To Regulate Them: Although a number of congressional Republicans did not vote to bail out the banks, Mitt Romney heartily supported the bailout programs. And both Romney and almost all Republicans in Congress opposed the Dodd-Frank financial reform law and are working to repeal large sections of it in the future. In the current campaign cycle, the Big Banks have shifted their giving to the Republicans, and have donated almost twice as much money ($81 million) to them as compared to the Democrats.

Americans shouldn’t fall for the false dichotomy of one party wanting to use government to help people and the other wanting to rely only on the free market. As bold progressive candidate Elizabeth Warren said, “Republicans say they don’t believe in government. Sure they do. They believe in government to help themselves and their powerful friends.”

Posted on September 18, 2012 at 9:12am by . Posted in . 12 comments. Leave a response.