Click to see the beacon journal online
Homes   Jobs   Cars   Shopping
All Da King's Men -- Community Blog

Previous post:

Next post:

Mitt Romney's Suggestions For America

by Da King on November 9, 2008

in economics,GOP

Sorry I've been away for a few days, but I've been preoccupied with some personal family issues.

mitt romney

Mitt Romney was the candidate I supported for president above all others this year. John McCain was a poor GOP substitute, but I still voted for McCain, because I thought McCain's economic policies were better, especially during this economic downturn. Obama's anti-business policies were simply the wrong prescription for what ails us. I don't see how Obama's business policies do anything other than exacerbate the existing problems. McCain's business tax cuts and proposals to hold down federal spending were a partial solution, but alas, it was not to be. As I read the following Q&A with Mitt Romney, I found myself agreeing with just about everything he said. I'd love to see Obama make Romney one of his economic advisors (Is there a snowball's chance ? Probably not). Romney "gets" it.

Without further delay, here's Mitt Romney's interview with Fortune:

NEW YORK (Fortune) — Mitt Romney, former Massachusetts governor and co-founder of private equity firm Bain Capital, is often mentioned as a GOP contender for 2012. He spoke with Fortune's Jia Lynn Yang.

Q – Any management advice for the next president? How does he rally a depressed nation to meet the challenges we face?

A – He should forget entirely about reelection and focus solely on helping the nation at a critical time. He should dismiss the people who helped him win the election and bring in people who are above politics and above party. He should surround himself with statesmen and economists, businesspeople and leaders. In some ways it would be beneficial if our presidency consisted of only one term. That way the President would think about his legacy and the future of the country rather than reelection and partisanship.

Q – How likely do you think that's going to happen?

A – In his second term, President Clinton made an effort to govern more from the center than from the extreme wing of his party, and by doing so, found greater support and greater political success. Perhaps it's a paradox, the less political the agenda, the more political success one enjoys. But now is not the time for partisanship opportunism.

The unions have helped Barack Obama. They will hope to be paid back. I'm particularly concerned that organized labor would call on Barack Obama to pass the card check program. This removes from American workers the right to the secret ballot in deciding whether or not to accept a union. This legislation would do more to harm America's long-term competitiveness than almost anything I can imagine. It would be a partisan payback for organized labor but it would come with devastating consequences for the nation.

Q – Do you have any concerns that the massive government intervention on Wall Street will have unintended consequences?

"The bailout of Wall Street" was a terrible choice of words. No one wants to bail out anything, especially Wall Street. The objective of the legislation, however, had a much broader purpose: to stabilize our financial system, to keep it from complete collapse. Sometimes that broad purpose may require saving individual companies, as with AIG (AIG, Fortune 500). But we just can't have government running around the nation looking to bail out companies in trouble.

Q – Given your Michigan roots and what your father accomplished turning around the American Motors Corporation in the 1950s, what do you think is the future of the auto industry?

A – Right now, the auto industry is on life support, and its prospects look extremely dim. But they don't need to be. The industry could be turned around. There is no inherent reason why America can't build and sell cars to Americans at least as well as the transplants are doing. Any effort to help the auto industry has to be made as part of a comprehensive strategy. Before the government issues loans to the auto industry, as has been authorized by Congress, it should insist on seeing credible and independent strategies that will return the companies to long-term sustainability. Government should not finance ongoing losses and declining market shares.

Q – What concerns you the most about the economy right now? Any dangers lurking in the global economy that we didn't hear much about during the campaigns?

Far too little attention was paid to America's long-term competitive position during the campaign. I see four major economic strategies at play in the world today: the first is ours. It combines freedom and free enterprise.

The second is China's. It combines free enterprise with authoritarianism.

The third is Russia's. No longer is Russia's plan for dominance based upon industrial capacity but rather upon controlling energy throughout the world. Hence Russia's cozy relationship with Iran and Venezuela as well as its belligerent entry into Georgia. Russia's strategy is based on energy and authoritarianism.

The fourth strategy is represented by radical violent jihad. The intent of the jihadists is to cause the collapse of the other three, such that the "hidden Imam" or the Caliphate remains the last man standing.

The real challenge for America is how to strengthen our competitive position so that our economy outperforms those of the other three. If we're successful, freedom will be preserved for the world. If we're unsuccessful, the results are unthinkable.

Q – When you talk about making America more competitive, what do you have in mind?

A – First, America must substantially improve our education system. We've fallen behind, particularly in areas of math and science.

Second, we're going to have to remedy our disproportionate health care cost disadvantage. America spends far more than any other nation as a percent of GDP on health care. This effectively is an enormous tax on the economy and on our businesses.

Third, our national debt is excessive and our entitlement obligations pass a massive burden onto the next generation.

Fourth, tax and regulatory policies weigh down our ability to compete. Specifically, our products carry an embedded tax which makes American goods less competitive abroad and at home.

Fifth, America's apparent retrenchment from the concept of open, free and fair trade could put us further behind other nations that are aggressively seeking trade relations around the world.

Sixth, our lack of an effective energy policy drains our economy by approximately half a trillion dollars a year.

And, finally, the blow that Wall Street has taken may make us less competitive in financing entrepreneurship.

Q – There's strong populist sentiment against free trade deals. Given that, how does an American president move forward on this?

A – I can only hope the President abandons the populist current, which seems to be growing in our country. An effort to block foreign trade will only hurt America. Ultimately products in this country would become uncompetitive. Look what happened to the Soviet Union. Its cars, its watches, its goods became a joke.

The only way to remain the leading economy in the world is to be successful on a level playing field around the world. Some individuals, at the behest of special interests, seek to prevent trade with other nations by imposing America's labor requirements and other peculiarities. That is a disguised form of protectionism.

Q – Do Americans need to save more and adjust to a lower standard of living? In other words, should be buying houses we can actually afford?

A – I think a President has to be an educator- in-chief as well as a commander-in-chief. The American people need to understand the challenges we face. And the American people need to understand that they, like the nation, need to live within their means. Both have been spending more than they have been taking in. It puts the nation at risk. And it puts families at risk.

There's a period of adjustment that's occurring right now as American families deleverage and employers deleverage. It's time for the government to finally address our severe debt burden, before it leads to even more severe consequences. I'm referring not only to our annual deficit and national debt but also to our obligations under entitlement programs like Social Security

This short interview with Mitt Romney far surpasses anything I heard McCain say in the last 1 1/2 years on the campaign trail. Obama too, for that matter. Why didn't the GOP nomiate Romney, again ? Because he's a Mormon ? I hope not. More likely, it was that the conservative vote was split in the primaries, and McCain stepped into the breach and took the moderates and independents. In any case, big mistake Republicans, especially since the economy IS the issue above all others. We need to look for the best people to run this country, regardless of their political affiliations. Romney is one of those people.

  • The Reverend

    I thought you were a Romney man. I respect the Mittster….but he's not presidential material. In your post, he never gives any specifics…it's all just sweeping generalities. His position on unions is just wrong and he lies about it too. If Obama pushes card check….it doesn't eliminate secret ballot union voting. It simply doesn't do that. But supply siders like Mitt won't be happy until the 7-9% union workers in America are reduced to 1-2%. That's what capitalists always want….cheaper, unprotected workers.

    I see Mitt's bailout talk as double talk. Re-read that paragraph….I can't tell whether he's for it or against it. The foreign policy stuff is just ill-informed….just like when Romney ran in the primaries.

    This part….

    "And the American people need to understand that they, like the nation, need to live within their means. Both have been spending more than they have been taking in. It puts the nation at risk. And it puts families at risk."

    …while I agree with the overall thrust….will only result in declining GDP….and what will that lead to? Declining jobs and standard of living. Capitalists all over the U.S. want us to borrow every penny we can…..to keep buying more stuff…..so that those same capitalists can make ever increasing profits. Greed is part of the problem too. If Americans live within their means without borrowing…..our economy will decline.

    Rock and a hard place problem.

  • http://politics.ohio.com/ ben keeler

    Maybe you can tell us what card check really does then, Rev.

  • Gallifrey

    I dunno, Reverend. It looks to me like he's seeing both sides of the issue. Like he feels that the bailout was necessary, but it shouldn't have been and businesses shouldn't expect government handouts when they fail.

    I'm a big ol' capitalist, yet I understand that I need to live within my means. We all should. I'm waiting for a politician to tell us that most middle class people are spoiled babies, expecting to live like we earn twice what we do. He wouldn't get elected, but maybe people would realize that you shouldn't buy things you can't afford.

    Thanks for posting this, King. I have much more respect for Romney's intelligence and understanding of the issues that face America. I really should've voted for him in the primaries. Oh well, 2012 will come, and hopefully, I can correct that wrong!

  • The Reverend

    Card check adds one more option to workers who are thinking of organizing a union.

    And let me be candid here…..union representation is somewhere between 6-9% of workers now….down from the high 30's back in my hey day. Unions were responsible for building the middle class. Without unions, there would be no middle class….which is where we're headed right now.

    Why would conservatives be against a plan to strengthen the middle class?

    Gallifrey: I agree with your view on living within means. However, our national economy is such that consumer borrowing has become integral to ever larger corporate profits. We're encouraged and prompted daily to leverage any ounce of equity we have in order to buy more stuff. It's wrong headed.

    Whatever it all means…..it looks like we're in for a long and deep recession.

  • roysoldboy

    Rev, let me jump in with ben and ask you to explain how card check works. It seems that someone has caused all of us to see it as something you old union supporters don't think it is. Come on, Rev. Tell us as some of us must not know.

  • The Reverend

    "The two methods for recognizing a union in the United States begin with an employee petition for representation by a union. If 30% to a clear majority of employees sign petition cards requesting representation, then the cards are submitted to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for a secret ballot election. If more than 50% of employees certify their desire for representation, then a union can choose to form using card check procedures. Under current U.S. law, the employer need not recognize the card check petition and can require a secret-ballot vote overseen by the NLRB. Under the proposed Employee Free Choice Act, an employer could only challenge a card check petition if fraud or illegal coercion was alleged."

    Currently, if 50% or more workers fill out cards, the employer doesn't have to recognize it. The current rules don't seem fair to me.

  • http://politics.ohio.com/ ben keeler

    Card Check is a tactic that the union organizers want that will extend more government coercion. It forces an individual worker to declare his or her position to union organizers. It isnt secret.

  • Da King

    Rev,
    It's pretty funny that you say Romney isn't presidential material when you supported Barack Obama for president. Romney has been a governor, has been a hugely successful businessman, and turned around the Olympics, to name a few. What has Obama done ? He has run nothing, no business experience, no military experience, no significant legislation, myriad "present" votes……..

    If Romney is not qualified to be president, then Obama isn't qualified to be the manager of Dunkin' Donuts, at least not without going through the trainee program first.

    Then again, there are no real qualifications to be president, other than to be old enough, natural born, and fool the people into voting for you. That's a ludicrously low standard right there, if you think about it. I need many more qualifications than that to be hired in my field.

  • Da King

    And Rev, this isn't the 1930's. Times have changed. Workers are still free to unionize or not, but most of them don't, because they realize that unionization may cause their jobs to go away in this world economy. We have to live in reality. You know, it's great that those automaker workers make so much money, but the burden on their companies is too great. The non-union American auto companies are making a profit, while the American Big Three are all losing money. It doesn't do much good to have a high-paying blue collar job when the job goes away, or needs to be propped up by the taxpayers to keep going for another year.

    We can't live beyond our means forever. That is the ultimate reality, and the rubber is about to meet the road on that one, real soon. The America we know will come to a screeching halt if we don't change course, and it sure doesn't appear we are going to, at least not anytime soon. Politicians don't get elected by telling the truth. They get elected by promising goodies, as we just witnessed.

  • The Reverend

    Borrowing on the future leads to problems in the present.

    For 28 years we have been borrowing on the future to live luxiouriosly in the now. A long, drunken party of wasteful and ostentatious expressions of greed gone wild.

    Now comes the hangover.

    Unlimited globalization all 'roided up on modern digital technology has gotten way ahead of government regulatory control. Workers have been buried in the avalanche of the rush to the bottom in labor costs. Unions are a good way to check globalization, slow it down so that adjustments can be made.

    Neither side wants to just bailout failed companies. The question is over the social impact from allowing all those workers to lose their employment. Cause and effect stuff.

    And I don't buy the "workers are the burden on the company" stuff. I've employed people. The burden is on the employer. The purpose of hiring employees is for those employees to make you more money than they cost you. But it's my job as the employer to figure the numbers out. Just the way it is.

    The collapse we're witnessing has been a long time in coming and it's going to be a long time in coming out of….I think it will be well worse than the early 80's.

    But we disagree on what should be done. I think $1 trillion should be spent on primarily, job creation. Build stuff, fix stuff, energy stuff.

  • Da King

    Rev,
    You started out by saying borrowing on the future causes problems in the present (not to mention the bigger problems it leads to in the future). I agree wholeheartedly with that. I assume you used the "borrowing for 28 years" figure to play mister partisan again, but every president since Herbert Hoover in the 1920's has run the government in the red, borrowing on the future. The biggest deficit spender of all was FDR, and it has never stopped since.

    If deficit spending is the root of the problem, and it is, why do you then propose ANOTHER trillion in spending now, when we are already spending at an insane pace ? Are you trying to bring about armaggedon faster ? We can't pay for all that without further destroying the economy. What we need first and foremost is a return to fiscal responsibility. We need surpluses, not deficits. We need to pay down the debt and cut back in many ways. We need jobs, yes, but we need them to be created in the private sector, not by the government, which only transfers money from one hand to the other. That's why reducing the business tax burden was a good plan. It would create jobs. Using the big spending FDR model to combat the Great Depression, it will take us a decade to recover, if not longer. Don't remember, it was WWII that ended the Great Depression and ultimately led to american prosperity and pre-eminence. Since I assume you are against World Wars, I think you'd reject that course of action. Responsible fiscal policy, surpluses instead of deficits, is the better road to follow.

    Regarding your statements about employers being responsible for the wages they pay, it then follows that you would be fine with the Big 3 automakers busting the unions and hiring non-union workers at more reasonable salaries, so the Big 3 could return to profatibility, yes ?

    If we don't radically change our big spending ways in the next few years, what begins happening in about 2015 (and lasts for a couple decades) is going to make what's going on now look like the boom times by comparison. I'm not crazy about leaving my children with a bleak future, overwhelmed with debt and diminished opportunities. How about you ?

  • kj

    jeebus, you idiot repubs just LOVE to blame the worker, don't ya? but you guys aren't the elites, right? you're just normal guys…yeah, sure…

    finally, people are waking up to the scam that the right-wing has perpetrated from 40+ years and that is that they "care" for the common (white) man, while they've deregulated, union-busted and scammed america right out of her shoes.

    FACT: the middle classes wages were highest when union membership was at it's highest. FACT: middle class wages were at the highest when corporate taxes in this country were much higher than today (look it up.). yet, according to the LIES of the right-wing of these last 40 yrs, those two things were PREVENTING the middle-class from earning more. ha! whatta crock!

    yet, somehow, american bought this bizzaro-world reading of economics, mainly cuz the politics of resentment ("my money going to black people on welfare? no f***in' way!") worked so well on the white majority in this country.

    here's one more FACT for you delusional repubs. the dow jones average has been higher historically during DEMOCRATIC administrations than the "pro-business" repub administrations. but don't let these facts get in the way of your delusions. they haven't before, so why start now…

  • Da King

    Are you from Akron, kj ? What happened to all those great union jobs in the 1970's we had here ? Did the Republicans make them go away ? Not hardly. The rubber companies themselves made them go away, and the unions made them go away by pushing for more and more. Yeah, it would be great if everybody could make $75.00 per hour to make widgets, but that isn't reality. What good are those union automaker jobs if the auto companies go bankrupt ? Not much.

    Also, please inform me how the Republicans busted the unions. I can think of exactly ONE instance of that, Reagan with the air traffic controllers. Other than that, workers either vote to unionize or not. The Republicans don't have anything to do with it.

    Nice rant, though.

    And raising taxes on business right now would be the single stupidest thing America could do. Here we are fighting to compete with the whole world, and you want to make it harder. I don't think so.

    And I'm not a Republican. Fiscal conservative, yes. Republican, no.

  • Da King

    But thanks for calling me "elite." My mom will be proud. Not many elites live in Goodyear Heights. I may be the first.

  • kj

    "The Republicans don't have anything to do with it."

    wow.

    you are not very bright, are you? no, wait, you are. you're just, like most every republican, completely disingenuous. are you really trying to pretend that republicans haven't been anti-union for over 50 years? are you really trying to pretend that republicans didn't push the (typically bizzaro-world backwards moniker-ed) "right-to-work" legislation in the south that helped destroy the midwest and, eventually, the whole of the country? you mention reagan busting the air-traffic controllers as if that was one tiny, little thing. i'm sure you know that ronnie's partner in crime, thatcher, also made busting unions a big part of her conservative platform and practice.

    to contend that repubs haven't hated unions and done EVERYTHING they could to demonize and marginalize them is the height of stupidity or willful ignorance.

    i also love you willfully ignore my little factoid about the stock market, mr. "fiscal conservative." hurts that dem administrations "perform" better, doesn't it?

    oh, one more thing. you claim we shouldn't look to the past for answers to the current economic crisis, yet, what is the definition of a conservative if not one who looks to the past for guidance and inspiration. so, i guess you're not a conservative at all, really, are ya? just like our current president…

  • Da King

    kj,
    I am not anti-union. It is for the workers to decide. Unless you know something I don't, workers still have that choice. Republicans have not taken it away. Right-to-work laws, first passed in 1947, btw, only prevent making union membership a mandatory condition of employment. You are for free choice and individual rights, aren't you ?

    I didn't respond to your statement about the stock market performing better under Democrats than Republicans because it's overly simplistic, and therefore nearly meaningless. There are lots of factors to consider other than strictly who controls the presidency. For instance, if you compare the Carter years (stock market declined 3.0%) with the Reagan-Bush I years (stock market rose 247%) then you'd say Republicans were better, but if you compare the Clinton years (stock market rose 236%) with the Bush II years, you'd say Democrats were better, though still not as good as Reagan-Bush I. But there are a myriad of other factors to consider. The best stock market performance period of all since 1900 was from post-Great Depression through the post-WWII boom. Are you trying to tell me that a Republican in the White House instead of a Democrat would have changed all that ? No, it wouldn't have. But nice try.

    And look, I didn't have to call you "not too bright", "willfully ignorant", "disingenuous", or refer to your comments as "the height of stupidity" to make my point.

Previous post:

Next post:

 

© The Akron Beacon Journal • 44 E. Exchange Street, Akron, Ohio 44308

Powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).