"How will your policies be different from those of President George W. Bush?"
It was the best question asked of either President Obama or of Mitt Romney over all of the presidential debates. It was asked by a member of the audience. It was followed by the least convincing answer from any of the presidential debates.
Check it out at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/19/mitt-romneys-george-w-bush-problem/
Mitt Romney’s George W. Bush problem
Mitt Romney has a George W. Bush problem.
In fact, that’s Romney’s biggest problem. It’s George W. Bush, not Barack
Obama, who has made voters skeptical of many of Romney’s core policies. It’s
George W. Bush, not Obama campaign strategist David Plouffe, who persuaded
voters that our ongoing economic problems aren’t mainly Obama’s fault. And so it
is, in a sense, the electorate’s lingering disappointment in George W. Bush, as
much as its residual affection for Barack Obama, that Romney needs to beat if
he’s to become president.
The Washington Post
At Tuesday’s debate, Romney was given a chance to do just that. A voter from
Nassau County stood up and asked: “Governor Romney, I am an undecided voter,
because I’m disappointed with the lack of progress I’ve seen in the last four
years. However, I do attribute much of America’s economic and international
problems to the failings and missteps of the Bush administration. Since both you
and President Bush are Republicans, I fear a return to the policies of those
years should you win this election. What is the biggest difference between you
and George W. Bush, and how do you differentiate yourself from George W.
Bush?”
That’s a slow pitch right over the middle of the plate. Romney should’ve been
prepared to crush it. In fact, he should’ve been hoping against hope that
someone would ask exactly that question. He needed that question.
But Romney didn’t crush it. Astonishingly, his first instinct was to ignore
it.
“Thank you,” Romney said. “And I appreciate that question.” But his mind was
still on the previous question. “I just want to make sure that, I think I was
supposed to get that last answer,” he complained to moderator Candy Crowley.
This was one of Romney’s oddest tics, arguing endlessly and unhappily over
the rules of debate. At times, it seemed he was running for parliamentarian
rather than president. Crowley, with an exasperated look, assured him he could
use the precious time he’d been allotted to distance himself from George W. Bush
however he wanted. “Go ahead and use this two minutes any way you’d like to,”
Crowley said, “the question is on the floor.”
Romney devoted the first bit of his answer to the previous question about
contraception. Only later did he turn to address the central question about his
candidacy: “Let me come back and answer your question,” he said. “President Bush
and I are — are different people and these are different times and that’s why my
five point plan is so different than what he would have done.”
Notice what he didn’t say there. He didn’t say that Bush had gotten anything
wrong before leaving office as one of the most unpopular presidents in history.
He didn’t say “you’re right to be skeptical of Republicans, because we didn’t
live up to your expectations last time.” He said, rather, “Have you heard about
my five-point plan?”
Romney’s right about one thing:
These are different times than when Bush ran for president. But that’s why his five-point plan is so depressing.
It’s not just that there’s nothing in it that Bush wouldn’t have endorsed in
2000. It’s that most of it actually would have made more sense in 2000.
Take Romney’s tax cuts. When Bush was proposing tax cuts without any offsets,
the budget was in surplus, and tax receipts were at record highs. The policy
made some sense. Romney’s tax cuts come at a time of enormous deficits and
record low receipts. It’s a different time, but Romney’s policy, save for a
vague promise to pay for it later, is the same.
“I’ll crack down on China,” Romney promised. But China’s currency
manipulation has calmed. As Obama noted in the debate, China’s currency has
appreciated significantly. Their current account balance, according to the
Peterson Institute’s Joseph Gagnon, has fallen from about 10.7 percent of GDP in
2007 to about 2 percent of GDP this year.
Moreover, as Chinese wages rise, and they fight for more high-skilled jobs,
the threat from China becomes less about currency manipulation and more about
competitiveness. Perhaps we could’ve kept some jobs by cracking down on China in
2000. In 2012, it’s more like locking the barn after the horses have run
off.
Romney promised that he would
enter office with “a very robust policy to get all that energy in North America
— become energy secure.” The idea that this is different from Bush is laughable;
Romney sounds just like him, promising to intensify the nation’s reliance on
fossil fuels. “Let me put this plainly,” Bush said in
2000. “Oil consumption is increasing. Our production is dropping. Our imports of
foreign oil are skyrocketing. And this Administration has failed to act.” And
tell me you can’t imagine this Bush line coming from Romney today: “My opponent
says he is for natural gas – he just doesn’t like people to find it or move
it.”
“I’m going to get us to a balanced budget,” Romney said. So did Bush. He
endorsed amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget. But, like
Romney, he was specific about his tax cuts and increases in military spending,
but vague about his spending cuts. The result was much higher deficits.
Romney’s final point of differentiation from Bush was “championing small
business.” Specifically, he promised to keep their taxes low and deregulate
them. These are not exactly priorities Bush opposed. Romney then segued to his
promise to repeal Obamacare, which, again, was no contrast with Bush.
So let’s go to the scoreboard: Romney offered precisely . . . nothing that
Bush wouldn’t have proposed in 2000. And Romney left out some of his more
salient agreements with Bush. For instance, both the Enron debacle and the
financial crisis happened on Bush’s watch. As a result, Congress passed the
Sarbanes-Oxley and, later, Dodd-Frank laws to toughen financial regulation. But
Romney has proposed rolling back both.
It fell to Obama to point out some disagreements between Bush and Romney.
“You know, there are some things where Governor Romney is different from George
Bush,” the president said. “George Bush didn’t propose turning Medicare into a
voucher.”
Even that’s not true. On page 233
of “Renewing
America’s Purpose,” Bush expresses his support for the recommendations of
the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, and in particular,
their “reform plan modeled after the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program.”
That was a premium support, or voucher, plan.
This year, 2012, is not 2000. We have deficits rather than a balanced budget.
We have historically high unemployment rather than historically low
unemployment. We’ve seen what the financial system can do when left unchecked.
We’ve watched tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 fail to spark economic growth and seen a
rising stock market fail to lift middle-class wages. We do need new thinking.
But Romney isn’t offering any. His problem isn’t that the public is unfairly
judging him by Bush’s policies. It’s that they’re fairly judging him by Bush’s
policies.
I maintain a separate political Facebook Community Page at: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Whats-Going-On/241304559284144
The Washington Post
That’s a slow pitch right over the middle of the plate. Romney should’ve been prepared to crush it. In fact, he should’ve been hoping against hope that someone would ask exactly that question. He needed that question.
But Romney didn’t crush it. Astonishingly, his first instinct was to ignore it.
“Thank you,” Romney said. “And I appreciate that question.” But his mind was still on the previous question. “I just want to make sure that, I think I was supposed to get that last answer,” he complained to moderator Candy Crowley.
This was one of Romney’s oddest tics, arguing endlessly and unhappily over the rules of debate. At times, it seemed he was running for parliamentarian rather than president. Crowley, with an exasperated look, assured him he could use the precious time he’d been allotted to distance himself from George W. Bush however he wanted. “Go ahead and use this two minutes any way you’d like to,” Crowley said, “the question is on the floor.”
Romney devoted the first bit of his answer to the previous question about contraception. Only later did he turn to address the central question about his candidacy: “Let me come back and answer your question,” he said. “President Bush and I are — are different people and these are different times and that’s why my five point plan is so different than what he would have done.”
Notice what he didn’t say there. He didn’t say that Bush had gotten anything wrong before leaving office as one of the most unpopular presidents in history. He didn’t say “you’re right to be skeptical of Republicans, because we didn’t live up to your expectations last time.” He said, rather, “Have you heard about my five-point plan?”
Romney’s right about one thing:
These are different times than when Bush ran for president. But that’s why his five-point plan is so depressing.
It’s not just that there’s nothing in it that Bush wouldn’t have endorsed in
2000. It’s that most of it actually would have made more sense in 2000.
Take Romney’s tax cuts. When Bush was proposing tax cuts without any offsets,
the budget was in surplus, and tax receipts were at record highs. The policy
made some sense. Romney’s tax cuts come at a time of enormous deficits and
record low receipts. It’s a different time, but Romney’s policy, save for a
vague promise to pay for it later, is the same.“I’ll crack down on China,” Romney promised. But China’s currency manipulation has calmed. As Obama noted in the debate, China’s currency has appreciated significantly. Their current account balance, according to the Peterson Institute’s Joseph Gagnon, has fallen from about 10.7 percent of GDP in 2007 to about 2 percent of GDP this year.
Moreover, as Chinese wages rise, and they fight for more high-skilled jobs, the threat from China becomes less about currency manipulation and more about competitiveness. Perhaps we could’ve kept some jobs by cracking down on China in 2000. In 2012, it’s more like locking the barn after the horses have run off.
Romney promised that he would
enter office with “a very robust policy to get all that energy in North America
— become energy secure.” The idea that this is different from Bush is laughable;
Romney sounds just like him, promising to intensify the nation’s reliance on
fossil fuels. “Let me put this plainly,” Bush said in
2000. “Oil consumption is increasing. Our production is dropping. Our imports of
foreign oil are skyrocketing. And this Administration has failed to act.” And
tell me you can’t imagine this Bush line coming from Romney today: “My opponent
says he is for natural gas – he just doesn’t like people to find it or move
it.”
“I’m going to get us to a balanced budget,” Romney said. So did Bush. He
endorsed amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget. But, like
Romney, he was specific about his tax cuts and increases in military spending,
but vague about his spending cuts. The result was much higher deficits.Romney’s final point of differentiation from Bush was “championing small business.” Specifically, he promised to keep their taxes low and deregulate them. These are not exactly priorities Bush opposed. Romney then segued to his promise to repeal Obamacare, which, again, was no contrast with Bush.
So let’s go to the scoreboard: Romney offered precisely . . . nothing that Bush wouldn’t have proposed in 2000. And Romney left out some of his more salient agreements with Bush. For instance, both the Enron debacle and the financial crisis happened on Bush’s watch. As a result, Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley and, later, Dodd-Frank laws to toughen financial regulation. But Romney has proposed rolling back both.
It fell to Obama to point out some disagreements between Bush and Romney. “You know, there are some things where Governor Romney is different from George Bush,” the president said. “George Bush didn’t propose turning Medicare into a voucher.”
Even that’s not true. On page 233
of “Renewing
America’s Purpose,” Bush expresses his support for the recommendations of
the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, and in particular,
their “reform plan modeled after the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program.”
That was a premium support, or voucher, plan.
This year, 2012, is not 2000. We have deficits rather than a balanced budget.
We have historically high unemployment rather than historically low
unemployment. We’ve seen what the financial system can do when left unchecked.
We’ve watched tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 fail to spark economic growth and seen a
rising stock market fail to lift middle-class wages. We do need new thinking.
But Romney isn’t offering any. His problem isn’t that the public is unfairly
judging him by Bush’s policies. It’s that they’re fairly judging him by Bush’s
policies.I maintain a separate political Facebook Community Page at: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Whats-Going-On/241304559284144
No comments:
Post a Comment