[Nesster]

The real news in Mitt Romney’s interview with Mark Halperin, as Charles Pierce points out, is that Romney openly repudiated the central argument his party has been making against President Obama for the last three years: that he spent too much money and therefore deepened the economic crisis. Indeed Romney himself had been making this very case as recently as a week ago (“he bailed out the public sector, gave billions of dollars to the companies of his friends, and added almost as much debt as all the prior presidents combined. The consequence is that we are enduring the most tepid recovery in modern history.”) But in his Halperin interview, Romney frankly admits that reducing the budget deficit in the midst of an economic crisis would be a horrible idea:

Halperin: You have a plan, as you said, over a number of years, to reduce spending dramatically. Why not in the first year, if you’re elected — why not in 2013, go all the way and propose the kind of budget with spending restraints, that you’d like to see after four years in office? Why not do it more quickly?

Romney: Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I’m not going to do that, of course.

Of course! Romney says this as if it’s completely obvious that reducing the deficit in the short term would throw the economy back into recession, even though he and his party have been arguing the opposite case with hysterical fervor. Republicans have committed themselves to Austrian economic notions and other hoary doctrines justifying the position that reducing deficits is a helpful way out of a liquidity trap.

I’ve thought that this represents primarily a case of self-delusion in the cause of political self-interest, as opposed to conscious cynicism: Republicans understood that bigger deficits would spur faster growth and reduce their chances of regaining power, so they found themselves more persuaded by theories suggesting bigger deficits wouldn’t really help. But if they had really converted to this belief, wouldn’t there be even a tiny bit of wailing about Romney’s open endorsement of Keynesianism? It’s not as if conservatives have been shy about holding his feet to the fire when he expresses some tiny deviation from their position. Yet I have noticed zero conservative complaints about Romney’s big fat wet kiss to John Maynard Keynes, which suggests their level of actual devotion to this position borders on nil.

Sheer partisan opportunism also helps explain why (I have argued for a while) a Romney presidency would probably do more to stimulate the economy in the short term than would a second Obama term. Brian Beutler and Matt Yglesias both reach this conclusion today, though I think their reasoning is wrong. They conclude, from the fact that Obama has a more credible plan than Romney to resolve the medium-term deficit, that Obama would do less stimulus than Romney because he wants to do less stimulus than Romney. Both of them ignore the fact that Obama has a pretty ambitious stimulus plan. Now the plan won’t pass because Republicans would never vote for it, and everybody including Obama knows this, so we’ve all treated it as a message device because that’s the only function it serves. But I’m confident Obama really would like to sign his stimulus plan if he could.

Meanwhile, Romney has no stimulus plan. But he may well propose one if he wins, and it would pass, because plenty of Republicans would flip back to being Keynesians like they were under President Bush. What’s more, Democrats wouldn’t stop it, because Democrats don’t have any history of opportunistically abandoning Keynesian economics when the other party’s neck is on the economic line. So, yes, a President Romney would be more likely to sign strong stimulative legislation than Obama — not because he believes in it more strongly, but because, as David Frum says, we’re all Keynesians during Republican administrations.

Romney?s Big Fat Wet Kiss to Keynesian Economics -- Daily Intel

[jeffkrol]

There was one positive aspect to right wing nonsense: The belief federal taxes should be reduced. Yes, federal taxes are an unneeded drain on the economy. They can and should be reduced each year, and eventually, eliminated.
Yet now, even that wee bit of sense is beginning to disappear.

GOP showing small shifts on taxes
By Rosalind S. Helderman, Published: May 25, 2012
In GOP activist circles it is known simply as “the pledge,” and over the past generation it has become the essential conservative credential for Republicans seeking elective office. Of the 242 Republicans in the House today, all but six have signed the pledge.
But now, an increasing number of GOP candidates for Congress are declining to sign (Grover Norquist’s) promise to oppose any tax increase, a small sign that could signal a big shift in Republican politics on taxes.
And there you have it. Federal spending adds dollars to the economy; adding dollars is stimulative. Federal taxing subtracts dollars from the economy, which is anti-stimulative.
So, what do the Tea/Republicans now wish to do? Increase taxes.

Said Richard Tisei, an NRCC Young Gun and former Republican state senator in Massachusetts who is running against Democratic Rep. John F. Tierney. “If there’s a loophole that can be closed that ends up generating additional revenue that can be used specifically to pay down the national debt, I’m not going to lose sleep. And I don’t want to be bound by the pledge not to close it.”
Translation: “I want to take dollars from taxpayers’ pockets and give it to our Monetarily Sovereign government, which doesn’t need the dollars, (because it has the unlimited ability to create its sovereign currency, the dollar).”

Freshman Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.), who signed the pledge in 2010, recently posted an open letter to constituents indicating that he would not renew the promise as he runs for reelection. He said he fears it could stand in the way of an everything-on-the-table approach to tackling the mounting debt.
“Averting bankruptcy requires us to grasp the severity of our fiscal condition and summon the courage to speak boldly about the difficult steps needed to increase revenues and sharply decrease spending,” he wrote.
Translation: “Never mind that in the entire history of the universe, no Monetarily Sovereign nation ever has been, or ever can be, forced into bankruptcy. If the federal debt today were $100,000,000 trillion, the federal government could pay it off tomorrow, by pushing one computer government, and this would not add a single dollar to the economy.
But hey, if that’s what you fools want, I’ll vote for it. My election is more important than your money.
Sure, Rigell knows this. We all do. It’s just our cynical ploy to benefit our 1% money boys at the expense of you poor 99%ers. We know you’ll vote for us, anyway, because we taught you to hate Obama.”
Norquist said that in the days of the debt-ceiling debate last summer, Republicans held firm against tax increases and wrested a deal from Democrats to lower deficits through spending cuts alone.
“That was when the pledge was tested and the commitment of Republicans not to raise taxes was really pushed hard. And Obama and the spending interests failed, and Republicans and the taxpayers won,” he said.

Translation: “We made sure the recession wouldn’t end, so we could blame it on Obama. We all are praying for another recession before November.”

Democrats have said they will not agree to renew some of the tax breaks or avert the defense cuts, as Republicans want, unless Republicans agree to impose higher taxes on the wealthy.

Translation: “Because those Republicans have moved to extreme, right-wing derangement, we Democrats have been forced to move to partial right-wing derangement. Votes are votes.”
–Politicians get it bass-ackwards: Say, “Yes,” to taxes, “No,” to spending. As usual, 99% are screwed.

[Nesster]

The Keynesian Choice is Mitt Romney

[jeffkrol]

"oh what a tangled web we weave"..............

Unless you like the current Big Government/Big Debt status quo, there's nothing whatsoever to like about Mitt Romney (whose economic policies will mirror those of Obama in every way outside the accompanying cheap rhetoric). So, as Cato's Dan Mitchell asks: "What is it about Mitt Romney?"

The United States desperately needs smaller government, lower taxes, and less intervention, yet his comments and track record on issues such as the value-added tax, healthcare, Social Security reform, budget savings, ethanol subsidies, and the minimum wage leave a lot to be desired.
We can now add something else to the list. The former Massachusetts governor has come out of the closet as a Keynesian.

Leftwing pundits, on the other hand, believe they've found a kindred spirit. Paul Krugman confirms that Romney "is, in fact, a closet Keynesian." And Business Insider's pro-government/pro-interventionist writer Joe Weisenthal declares: "It's More Clear Than Ever That If Romney Loses, The Economy Is Going To Implode"

Back in April we made the argument that a Mitt Romney win would be better for the economy, based on fairly simple logic: A Mitt Romney victory would see higher government deficits, which is just what this struggling economy needs right now to regain full health.
If Obama wins, there's a good chance that we'll fly off the fiscal cliff, as the political gridlock will see spending cuts kick in, and perhaps even higher taxes.

Got that? A Romney presidency means "higher government deficits."

[Nesster]

I'm wondering if this is an election tactic to get the moderates and independents not to be so afraid of a Romney who seems a captive of the far right.

A nudge and a wink to point out that with Romney we'd get more of the Republican deficit spending, something that seems impossible for Obama or any Democrat to achieve these days... again, due to the adamant Republican opposition to anything any Democrat proposes.

Also, this may be a part of a general behind-the-scenes attempt by Republican old guard to outflank the extremists in the party, i.e. sell the true believers down the river like always, and cater to the true needs of the Chamber of Commerce, rhetoric be damned.

[aurele]

We've got presidential election recently (In France) and during that part newspaper stop talking about the rest of the world.

So, for those like me who just arrived, can you just summarise what's Romney position about ... everything

I know he beat Santorum which "core" value was family.
I know he will be Obama's challenger.

But i don't have any idea about its program or what he say he will do if he win.


Thanks guys

[jolepp]

@aurele: This should give you an idea: BBC News - Republican candidates on the issues.

[Nesster]

Romney is a bit of a chameleon, as to what his personal ideas are vs the ideas he espouses in order to get the nomination... He and the rest of the Republican party seems to be under the influence of Eric Cantor's economic and tax policy initiatives. Hard line cut of benefits, increase defense spend, cut taxes, and implement social engineering (ie. cut funding for programs that run afoul of some 'cultural conservative' issue).

Should Romney win, just how this tension resovlve between Republicans will be interesting to see. Should he lose, we can probably look for Cantor to oust Boehner and we will likely see even greater Republican obstruction to Obama in congress.

[jeffkrol]

We've got presidential election recently (In France) and during that part newspaper stop talking about the rest of the world.

So, for those like me who just arrived, can you just summarise what's Romney position about ... everything

I know he beat Santorum which "core" value was family.
I know he will be Obama's challenger.

But i don't have any idea about its program or what he say he will do if he win.


Thanks guys

Fun synopsis.. plug "mittens" in anywhere...........

The Republican party has become a mouthpiece for four extremist groups, none of which care a fig about the health, happiness or financial welfare of the American people:

Group #1. The pious (but definitely not “religious”), gun-loving right wing, that hates women so much, it doesn’t even want birth prevention, much less stem cell research to save lives or even a life-saving abortion life. And don’t get them started on gays.

Group #2. The Tea Party that wants to cut social benefits, under the masquerade of being against “big government.”

Group #3. The upper 1% income group, that sneers at the 99%, but needs their votes.

Group #4. The “defeat Obama no matter what” group that almost has forgotten why it hates him, but really, really does.

Combine all this crazy extremism, and you have a truly erratic situation. For instance, what does a wealthy Catholic woman do when she doesn’t want to get pregnant? Ah, problems, problems.

An even greater problem, what does the 1% party do when it needs to attract votes from the very people it despises? Well, first it spends millions of dollars and four years of trying everything possible to destroy the economy, hoping the 99% will blame the President. That worked, for a while.

But heaven forbid, if despite all their machinations, the economy begins to recover . . . well, if you can’t beat ‘em, you have to join ‘em, i.e., the Romney mantra. So what you were against, you now are for — more than just for, you actually created.

–Republicans flip flop on Obama care. Romney next? Is that really a question?

Here’s the problem:

Group #1 is hates pretty much everyone who’s different from them. It wants only that women be pregnant, barefoot and live in the kitchen and the bedroom, and that there’s a gun rack in the pickup. They don’t care for group #2, they actively hate group #3, but they like the idea of group #4 (except they hate Romney almost as much as Obama).
Group #2 doesn’t care for groups #1 or #3, but loves group #4, as a way to take power.
Group #3 thinks groups 1 and 2 are lowbrow idiots, and doesn’t really care much about group 4, either. They will back Romney until it looks like he will lose, at which time they will jump on the Obama train. They can work with Obama (the fake liberal) just as well as with Romney (the fake everything). Money speaks all languages.
Group #4, doesn’t care about the other groups. They are ABO (Anybody But Obama) and sad to be stuck with Romney.

And what of Romney, the party’s peerless leader? He’ll say whatever they (1, 2, 3 or 4 on any given day) tell him to say and go wherever they tell him to go. He leads from the rear. Way, way, way to the rear.

[aurele]

@aurele: This should give you an idea: BBC News - Republican candidates on the issues.

Thanks. With this, my feeling is that Romney isn't a smart guy ... at all.

–Republicans flip flop on Obama care. Romney next? Is that really a question?

i had a good laugh with this one

Ok, so if i had to vote in the USA, i definetly wouldn't vote for Romney.

Thanks guys