[Nesster]

This article posits an interesting possibility:
Does Mitt Romney Have a Secret Economic Plan? - Bloomberg

As when I first proposed it this fall, my suggestion that Mitt Romney might have a secret plan for the economy elicited guffaws. Andrew Sullivan says I wrote "one of the dumbest paragraphs" he's read this year. But hear me out: It's less stupid than it sounds.

In general, the best way to figure out a politician's intentions is to read his platform. But Mitt Romney is no ordinary politician. His ideological positions are entirely flexible and his capacity for pandering enormous. His platform reflects what he thinks will help him get elected, not necessarily what he will do if elected.

It's possible to understand every action in Romney's life as an effort to become president. But once he is president, what will his goal be? I don't know (nobody knows) but I suspect getting re-elected will be near the top of the list. To increase his chances of getting elected, he will have to implement policies that are likely to grow the economy.

Redoubling on Bush Administration economic policies -- with the added factor of severe budget austerity laid on -- is unlikely to serve that end. So, Romney will have good reason to implement policies that aren't in his stated platform, even if that means butting heads with Republicans in Congress.

The usual argument is that Romney will be boxed in: He's promised to be an Orthodox conservative, the Republican base doesn't trust him, Republicans in Congress have shifted far to the right.

But there are also countervailing factors. Congress was radicalized by opposition to Barack Obama, and is likely to be soothed by the return of a Republican president. George W. Bush had significant success in bending Congressional Republicans to his will, even when that meant expanding government.

And whatever his approval rating, Romney will be far more popular than Congress, which is now less popular than Communism. Like New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, he should be able to translate that popularity gap into the upper hand in negotiations with the legislature.

So what will Romney do to revive the economy, or at least avoid damaging it? I think Sullivan is right that he will break his austerity promises and run appropriately large budget deficits in the near term. Unlike Sullivan, I doubt he'll actually invade somewhere (a war doesn't seem like the kind of project Romney would enjoy overseeing) but it is likely that he will implement larger-than-desirable military spending.

That spending won't come at the expense of non-defense programs, as it does in House Republicans' current spending proposals. Deep program cuts are more popular on paper than in practice, and some of the Republican proposals (like a Medicaid block grant structure that sharply cuts federal spending) would run into opposition from Republican state officials, who would fear additional pressure on their own budgets.

Remember, when Romney ran for governor, he said the federal government should spend more on Medicaid. Watch for Republican governors like Chris Christie to become voices against these cuts, backing up Romney in an effort to spend more on defense without cutting elsewhere -- and financing the spending with deficits.

Eventually, economic conditions will change and large deficits will no longer be desirable. Andrew notes that Republicans have "theological" opposition to tax cuts, and I think it's true that there will be no tax increase so long as there is full Republican control over the federal government.

----

While Romney has been conspicuously silent on housing, one of his top advisers, Glenn Hubbard, advocates an aggressive plan to restructure mortgages. The Hubbard plan would lower mortgage rates and reduce principal for underwater borrowers, both of which would stimulate the economy.

That's a tough sell to Republicans in Congress -- but they would be much more open to it under a Republican president than a Democratic one. The opacity of a restructuring program's finances -- upfront costs would be partly offset by repayments from homeowners whose values rise -- would make it hard to pin down the program's cost, making it an easier sell than stimulus spending.

Mortgage relief could also be coupled with long-term reforms, such as an eventual wind-down of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which would please conservatives. It could be framed as "let's clean up the mess our predecessors made, at unfortunately significant cost, and then make sure it can never happen again."

The housing crash and our failure to recover from it is exactly the sort of policy problem that should appeal to Romney: It's complicated, he'll be able to understand it much better than the politicians he's negotiating with, and the solution involves a restructuring with many parties and Romney getting to play broker. This, not invading Iran, strikes me as the sort of thing Romney would actually enjoy doing as president.

We have been down the secret plan road with Romney before. He gave no indication, when running for governor, that he intended to implement the country's only plan for universal health coverage. But then he spearheaded a plan, basically of his own initiative, because he saw it as an interesting problem he could solve. It seems Romney-esque to view economic stagnation in the same way, and housing as a good angle to attack it.

Is it possible that I'm wrong? Of course. Romney could just acquiesce to the House GOP economic plan and slash and burn through the federal budget, tanking the economy. But I don't think Romney has devoted his life to the pursuit of the presidency so he can get to Washington and take orders from Eric Cantor. If he doesn't actually plan to lead after getting elected, then what was the point?

[boriscleto]

Daily Kos: Socialized medicine gets rave review from Mitt Romney

Israel has universal health care that is mandated, heavily subsidized, and substantially controlled by the government. And Mitt Romney thinks the United States has a thing or two to learn from Israel on that front:

But of course...

Daily Kos: Romney couldn't order a hamburger without insulting the ketchup or the mustard. If not both.

Mitt Romney told Jewish donors Monday that their culture is part of what has allowed them to be more economically successful than the Palestinians, outraging Palestinian leaders who suggested his comments were racist and out of touch with the realities of the Middle East. His campaign later said his remarks were mischaracterized.

[mikemike]

Romney's plan is to buy Mexico and central america (which will take care of most of the illegal alien problems too since they will all become citizens in the acquisition) and reorganize them. Then he will send Herman Cain down to the state of Panama to build a 99.9 foot high fence along the Columbian which is electrified with 999 volts of electricity. This will make it easier to prevent future illegal immigration problems and make it harder for the cartels to get their product into america. It will also increase our energy independence since we will not be importing Mexican oil anymore. This will give baby boomers who didn't save for retirement a lot of choices for low cost domestic places to retire. And a building boom required to bring all of the newly acquired territory up to american standards of living will stimulate the economy.

[jeffkrol]

Daily Kos: Socialized medicine gets rave review from Mitt Romney



But of course...

Daily Kos: Romney couldn't order a hamburger without insulting the ketchup or the mustard. If not both.

And what explains the gap?

Romney said the economic history of the world has shown that "culture makes all the difference."

"And as I come here and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things," Romney said, citing an innovative business climate, the Jewish history of thriving in difficult circumstances and the "hand of providence."

Romney's argument prompted a swift rebuke from the Palestinian National Authority to Romney (who got his facts wrong: the per-capita GDP gap is 20:1, not 2:1):

"It is a racist statement and this man doesn't realize that the Palestinian economy cannot reach its potential because there is an Israeli occupation," said Saeb Erekat, a senior aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

"It seems to me this man lacks information, knowledge, vision and understanding of this region and its people," Erekat added. "He also lacks knowledge about the Israelis themselves. I have not heard any Israeli official speak about cultural superiority."

Indeed, not only do Israelis not make this claim, but one Israeli professor pointed out that Romney's remark could be seen as playing into anti-Semitic stereotypes about Jews and money

"mittens" on a roll now................ what an fing idiot.. Male Sarah Palin............

So lets see how many electorial votes does Israel have...

Correction.........

In characterizing Israel's economic superiority to the Palestinians, Romney said this:

As you come here and you see the GDP per capita, for instance, in Israel which is about $21,000 dollars, and compare that with the GDP per capita just across the areas managed by the Palestinian Authority, which is more like $10,000 per capita, you notice such a dramatically stark difference in economic vitality.

Romney seems to have no grasp of the situation in Gaza and the West Bank. He thinks they're failing economically because of some kind of culture gap.

And he thinks Palestinians produce $10,000 per capita.

The AP corrects:

The economic disparity between the Israelis and the Palestinians is actually much greater than Romney stated. Israel had a per capita gross domestic product of about $31,000 in 2011, while the West Bank and Gaza had a per capita GDP of just over $1,500, according to the World Bank.

for fun:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/30/mitt-romney-jewish-culture-live

---

Last edited by jeffkrol; 07-30-2012 at 11:27 AM.