Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Mitt “Won” Debate, So Why Are So Many Conservos Angry at Him?

We learned two days ago from various sources that many extreme conservatives, including Tea Partyers, contrary to being pleased with Romney’s debate performance, are livid. They feel they don’t know which Romney to trust – the one who appeared at the Spring Reep debates and promised to keep all tax cuts including for the rich, and slay ‘Obamacare’ or the one who appeared at last week’s debate and vowed he said no such thing about cutting $5 trillion in taxes, and would hey….make sure those with pre-existing conditions are covered. The trouble is keeping pre-existing conditions is exactly the prescription of the core Obama mandate, that everyone must buy health insurance. Without it, there’s no deal insurers will make to allow pre-existing conditions.

Why did Mitt back off from his originally stated plans, policies  in the last debate and why are conservos so mad?

Take the last first. Most of Romney’s hundreds of millions of campaign funds arrived from rich billionaire benefactors like Sheldon Adelman and the Koch brothers. They weren’t parting with those millions for their health, but with the expectation that tax cuts that benefit them immensely would remain in place. If Romney was truly going to do the same thing as Obama, and not cut taxes for the rich, there’d be no economic rationale to support Romney over Obama. Thus, the Kochs and Adelman are sweating about whether Mitt really meant what he said or was just shoveling bullshit out for the gullible and stupid ‘low information’ voters.

Then there are the Teepees, who were promised by Mitt during the Reepo spring debates that Obamacare would be buried. No remote chance of any zombies being able to rise from the grave. But in the debate, when Mitt let it be known he planned to allow pre-existing conditions in his own health plan, they responded with a collective wince. The unspoken thought was: “How the hell can he do that if there’s no mandate?”

In the aftermath, even Mitt’s handlers and campaign manager made it clear that any pre-existing conditions provisions would have to be passed by the states in their own legislation and would definitely not be part of any new “Romney plan”. It was understood then as now that keeping those with pre-existing conditions would mean keeping the most odious part of Obamacare: the mandate. Hence, in the REAL world, as opposed to the fantasy one Mitt portrayed, people with pre-existing conditions would only be covered IF their states allowed it, say in an exchange.

In terms of Romney’s numbers – none of them wash, and if he stands by what he claimed in his debates, he’s either a liar or fool. The 20% across the board cuts which he touted all through the past 18 months, amount to $470b a year, or $4.7 trillion in ten years, essentially $5 trillion when you also factor in the interest on the debt created. This is in addition to $2.3 trillion additional Pentagon spending that Romney demands over the next decade and which he hasn’t denied. (Not even when Obama brought it up twice in the debate.)

Romney insists he can make his budget “revenue neutral” (avoiding adding to deficits) by cutting domestic programs. In effect, he’s challenged himself to find $7.3 trillion in sheer savings to make that so. Only his dreamer fool followers believe that can happen. Or perhaps anyone watching the debate and stone- ass drunk, hence not in full possession of their faculties.

Independent analyses from multiple sources (e.g. Tax Policy Center, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget) show that just to meet his revenue neutrality with respect to the tax cuts Mitt would have to eliminate virtually all loopholes, credits, deductions and other tax dodges, including: the child tax credit, the home mortgage interest deduction, charity write offs, local and state taxes deductions, and for college tuition.

Yet if he implements all these it translates to a $4,000 increase in taxes on each middle class family – though he absolutely denies he plans to raise taxes on them. Well, it's just that the math is merciless and exposes that! So, again, Mitt is caught in a lie of epic proportions. He either must adhere to what he claimed in the debates and ensure the middle class he now professes so much feeling for isn’t stuck with the tax cut bill, or he must deny the rich benefactors their tax cuts benefits – these are the big boys paying for all his campaign ads.

Mitt is stuck between a rock and a hard place. And one hopes the electorate watching this all play out will soon get as angry as his Teepee followers that they’ve been conned.

That said, and Mitt's lies notwithstanding, if Obama doesn't drop the Spockian cool guy pose and bring the heat next time around, it will likely be 'game over' before election day even arrives. If Obama doesn't fight for himself, his supporters will question why they ought to fight for him including contributions, rallies etc. This will surely go against Obama's natural temperament (dislikes any conflicts, wants 'swing voters' to like him), but as an SNL comedian put it:  "taking the high road again will only lead you to building houses.....with Jimmy Carter."

I don't usually recommend 'T' or any testosterone supplements, but in this case - before this next foreign policy debate- I believe it might help! Remember, Mr. Prez: At this stage of the game it's not verbal or informational content that counts so much as precise content delivered with passion. In other words, to quote Bill Maher, "It's time to embrace the 'Angry Black Man'!"

No comments: