With just over a week to go before Michigan voters head to the polls, Mitt Romney is enlisting the help of one of his highest-wattage surrogates: Donald Trump.
The real estate mogul is preparing to spread his pro-Romney, anti-Rick Santorum message in a series of radio interviews this week on local stations from Traverse City to Detroit. [ABC News, via Political Wire]
It seems to me that for every 10 people Trump reaches, he’ll leave 9 undecided and turn 1 against Romney. Donald Trump is not exactly a likeable figure, especially after his abortive presidential run. Is Romney really that desperate?
After seeing its success, how can Romney still oppose saving the auto industry?
One of the smartest calls Barack Obama made on the economy was saving Detroit auto manufacturers. With a million jobs on the line, the President refused to let the American auto industry disappear.
Given the auto industry’s renewed health — GM just posted its largest profit ever — it’s hard to argue Obama made the wrong choice. But Mitt Romney continues to say we should have let GM go bankrupt. It’s practically the only issue he’s ever been consistent on.
You can expect that to be a major contrast between Obama and his opponent (Santorum opposed saving GM too). Yesterday, the DNC released a video telling Mitt Romney “don’t bet against America.” The video emphasized GM’s return to record-breaking profits, reminding everyone that saving the auto industry was a colossal success.
The fact is, nothing sells like success, and GM’s success this year is a huge victory for Obama.
It’s a sign of just how much the Republicans hate Mitt Romney that they’ll even vote for Rick Santorum over him. Santorum won all three of yesterday’s caucuses, prolonging the awesome spectacle that is the GOP primary.
I’ve never really thought of Santorum as anything more than a joke. This is a guy who couldn’t even maintain his Senate seat in his home state of Pennsylvania; he’s not going anywhere against Barack Obama. I suspect Republican voters realize that, too, but they can’t seem to stomach Romney at all.
Now that he has a few wins under his belt, we can expect multi-millionaire mitt Romney to spend millions of dollars smearing Santorum. Man, I love this race.
President Barack Obama on Thursday tied his proposal to raise taxes on wealthy Americans to his faith, telling leaders gathered for the National Prayer Breakfast that Jesus’s teachings have shaped that conclusion.
The rich should pay more not only because “I actually think that is going to make economic sense, but for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required,’” Obama said…
It’s really important that Democrats stop ceding the moral high ground on issues like taxes. That can mean tackling taxes from a religious perspective, like Obama does here, or simply discussing our moral imperative to provide for the poor and sick.
For years, the right has somehow made giving millions of dollars to the super-rich seem like the height of morality. They’ve tarred progressive taxation as un-American “socialism.” That’s absolutely absurd, but for decades, we have refused to push back.
One of the reasons I voted for Obama in 2008 was that I thought he could make our case effectively. In 2012, he’ll have that chance, and I hope he’ll rise to the occasion.
Obama pushes back on Romney’s claims of “class warfare” and “envy”
Barack Obama has clearly warmed to the fight over taxes and income inequality, which is wonderful to see. At a campaign event yesterday, he responded with derision to Romney’s accusations that his policies were based on envy of the rich. He archly suggested that Warren Buffett and Bill Gates aren’t motivated by class envy. Mockingly, he reassured Americans that he, Buffett, and Gates would survive if their taxes went up.
Romney’s argument is so simplistic, and reeks so strongly of a wealthy plutocrat lording it over those he sees as his inferiors, that it’s worthy of Obama’s scorn. But Obama also made some serious points. He’s
This has nothing to do with envy. It has everything to do with math. We’ve got to make choices. Americans understand — if I get a tax break I don’t need, and a tax break the country can’t afford, then one of two things are gonna happen: either it’s going to add to our deficit, or somebody else is going to have to make up the difference…. [Emphasis added]
As Greg Sargent points out, Obama has also embraced the argument that the rich should pay higher taxes to ensure the continued functioning of the system that led to their own success:
Each of us is only here because somebody, somewhere, felt a responsibility to each other and to our country and helped to create all this incredible opportunity that we call the United States of America. Now it’s our turn to be responsible. And it’s our turn to leave an America built to last for the next generation.
I’m so glad that Democrats are finally embracing this message. Plenty of liberals, myself included, have been saying this for years, of course. But we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Elizabeth Warren for bringing it into the mainstream.
Obama has a legitimate argument for why soaring inequality is harmful to our nation, and why we should increase taxes on the rich. Mitt Romney has name calling, and adamant demands that nobody ever discuss income inequality except in “quiet rooms.” His “arguments,” such as they are, deserve every bit of scorn Obama heaped on them.
Obama’s tone is getting better, but still not quite there
Tonight’s State of the Union address was President Obama’s first speech of the 2012 campaign. As such, I was very interested in what sort of tone he would strike. Would he be closer to the post-partisan uniter of 2008, a tone he clung to even in the face of unprecedented GOP obstruction, or the anti-inequality populist he needs to be to win in 2012?
Overall, I think Obama is making progress in the right direction. When dealing with the topics of inequality and fair taxation, I think he makes a strong, clear case for why reducing inequality is all about American values:
We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. [From prepared remarks, via the LA Times]
Here’s another one:
We don’t begrudge financial success in this country. We admire it. When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it’s not because they envy the rich. It’s because they understand that when I get tax breaks I don’t need and the country can’t afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference – like a senior on a fixed income; or a student trying to get through school; or a family trying to make ends meet. That’s not right. Americans know it’s not right.
The problem I had, though, was with Obama’s continuing effort to prove he’s the grownup in the room, and the way he takes pains to validate certain Republican ideas. Some say he was “co-opting their language” for the 2012 campaign. I think he was ceding intellectual ground to them.
For years now, Republicans have argued for lower and lower capital gains taxes. I’ve never seen the rationale for treating investment income as preferential to hard work; low capital gains taxes just translate result in lower taxes for the very rich. As it turns out, Mitt Romney is a perfect example of this:
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney released tax records on Tuesday indicating he will pay $6.2 million in taxes on a total of $45.2 million in income over the years 2010 and 2011.
Bowing to increasing political pressure to provide more detail about his vast wealth, the former private equity executive released tax returns indicating he and his wife, Ann, paid an effective tax rate of 13.9 percent in 2010….
Under the U.S. tax code, capital gains are taxed at 15 percent, compared with a top tax rate of 35 percent for wage earners….
The tax rates Romney reported paying could add fuel to a national debate over the fairness of the tax code, and coincides with broader concerns about income inequality symbolized by the Occupy Wall Street movement.
Is anybody really going to try to defend this as good policy? Mitt Romney made $45 million, but he’s paying a lower tax rate than most middle-class Americans.
As Warren Buffett put it, it’s time for us to stop coddling the rich. Romney’s low taxes aren’t helping our economy. They’re not helping anybody but Mitt Romney. Romney and his super-rich buddies are paying lower taxes — and raking in a greater share of total national income — than they have in decades. Is it so unreasonable for us to ask them to make some sacrifices?
After all, the political establishment constantly demands sacrifices from the 99 percent.
One chart says it all. As flawed as Mitt Romney is, can the GOP really afford a candidate with these favorability ratings?
A few days ago, I wrote that Romney and Gingrich seemed like equally weak candidates. But I think I underestimated how much people hate Gingrich. Romney’s history at Bain Capital is bad, but Gingrich is basically unelectable.
Ladies and gentlemen, things are about to get awesome. Two already horrible candidates are about to beat the tar out of each other until neither one has the slightest chance against Barack Obama.
The conventional wisdom is that in 2008, the long battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton ultimately helped Obama become a stronger candidate. I have sad news for the Republicans — the same thing is not happening in the Republican primary.
First of all, the 2008 Democratic primary built enormous amounts of excitement because it pitted candidates against each other who would not only make history, but were spectacular candidates. The Republicans can’t say the same; both Gingrich and Romney are fatally flawed. In fact, the primary has been characterized by extreme dissatisfaction with the available options.
RSS
Email
Facebook
Twitter
