MY ROMNEY PROBLEM & YOURS

NOTE: AFTER EXPERIMENTING WITH CROSS-POSTING ON THIS BLOG, I'VE DECIDED TO FOCUS ENTIRELY (FOR THE REST OF 2008) ON MY MAIN BLOG: HTTP://CAMP2008VICTORYA.BLOGSPOT.COM. PLEASE VISIT THAT SITE AND BOOKMARK IT. COMMENTS ARE ALWAYS WELCOME.

NOTE: IF YOU'D LIKE TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE MCCAIN CAMPAIGN, YOU CAN DO SO AT: http://mccain.com/. IF YOU'D LIKE TO JOIN THE FAST-GROWING GROUP THAT SUPPORTS GOV. SARAH PALIN FOR V-P, DO SO AT: http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/. THANKS TO ALL OF YOU!

"My problem with Mitt Romney is that he clearly goes to the same hair stylist as John Edwards." (Anonymous)

A friend in Hawaii is a frequent listener to talk radio host Hugh Hewitt, and she finds it an increasingly painful experience. A few years ago, Hewitt wrote a totally uncritical book about Mitt Romney, and since then he has been shilling for the book and the candidate. My friend said the following:

"Thank you...for your continued efforts to gain a victory for the Right. Steve, I am REALLY offended by Hewitt's McCain bashing. I don't think I've been this angry, even when they went after Bush. McCain has spent half a century serving this nation...in the military and then in Congress, he does NOT deserve this. Every week at Mass I say a special prayer for Bush...I am adding McCain to my list and a prayer that McCain does so well in Florida there is NO chance for Romney. Tell me Steve, what is Hewitt going to do if McCain wins the nomination?" (Sanity 102)

Here's my reply: "Hewitt has NEVER made a compelling reason for his backing of Romney. Mitt is much too robotic (and, frankly, much too rich) to appeal to anything like a majority of the American people. His stance on McCain shows he knows nothing about the role of the military or the nature of heroism. Hugh should be ashamed of himself, but he obviously is incapable of shame."

Should we hold it against Romney that he is extremely rich (with an estimated fortune of $300 million)? No. What we should hold against him is his use of tens of millions in an effort to buy the presidential nomination. He spent his career at Bain Capital working in mergers and acquisitions that made him and his clients huge fortunes -- and cost many dedicated workers their jobs. He sells himself to voters as a "manager," but his skills seem to consist mainly of managing his own vast fortune and his political ambitions.

When Romney ran for the Senate against Ted Kennedy in 1994 he was strongly pro-gay-rights and pro-choice. Now, with a mainly conservative primary electorate, he has reversed his positions.

I have a problem with Romney's wife, Ann, who seems to have no positions that vary even in small ways from her husband's. I also have a problem with the Romney sons, whom I call the "Osmond Quintuplets." They are the quintessence of blandness, human parodies right out of "Father Knows Best." And this is the Romney that supposedly opposes human cloning!

As soon as Romney spots an opponent that the voters like, be it Huckabee or McCain, he immediately "goes negative." Unable to sell his own robotic personality, he goes on the attack against other candidates. He now campaigns without his $3,000 suits and even without a tie -- an experience that appears to be excruciating for him.

Totally clueless about the changes in American politics and society, Romney is pursuing the old Republican ideal of the politician as businessman. However, as Mike Huckabee put it, voters are much more interested in voting for the guy like the one that works next to them -- rather than the person who laid them off. Romney is the latter.

Pundits sometime talk about Hillary Clinton's "high negatives" in polls. However, Romney's negatives are nearly as high as Mrs. Clinton's. Frankly, that demonstrates the good sense of American voters.

Right now, I'm literally praying that John McCain will prevail in the Florida Primary. The evidence shows that this country neither wants nor needs Mitt Romney. As for what Hugh Hewitt will do if McCain wins the nomination, somehow I don't expect him to fall on his sword. Perhaps he'll get a real job?

To prevail, John McCain needs your help. Please consider making at least a small contribution to his campaign.

IMMIGRATION: GOOD FOR WELCOMING COUNTRIES

This weekend (Saturday and Sunday), I've have one of those columns that goes on . . . and on . . . and on about John McCain and immigration. However, I urge you to read the previous column, borrowed from Sanity102. She writes about some thoroughly misguided criticisms of McCain, including those by Hugh Hewitt, a talk-radio shill for Mitt Romney. In previous columns, you'll also see my comments about future President Sarah Heath Palin of Alaska.

Several of the ideas on my immigration columns will come from one of my favorites sources: The (London) Economist. In an opinion piece called "Keep the Borders Open," the magazine's sub-head is: "The backlash against immigrants in the rich world is a threat to prosperity everywhere."

The Economist's general point is this: ". . . Most often migration is about young, motivated, dynamic people seeking to better themselves by hard work. History has shown that immigration encourages prosperity."

In other words, the standard anti-Hispanic rhetoric of the far-right, the nativists, is far removed from reality. More to follow this weekend . . .

Here's more of what The Economist says about immigration, which sounds a lot like what Senators McCain, Kyl, and Graham say about it:

"History has shown that immigration encourages prosperity. Tens of million of Europeans who made it to the New World in the 19th and 20th centuries improved their lot, just as the near 40 million foreign born are doing in America today. Many migrants return home, with new skills, savings, technology, and bright ideas. Remittances to poor countries in 2006 were worth at least $260 billion -- more, in many countries, than aid and foreign investment combined. Letting in migrants does vastly more good for the world's poor than stuffing any number of [checks into appeals from charities]."

The Economist points out that immigrants play a critical, positive role in the American economy. For example:

• Roughly one-third of the Americans who won Nobel Prizes in Physics in the past seven years were born abroad;
• About 40% of science and engineering PhDs working in America are immigrants; and,
• Approximately one-third of Silicon Valley companies were started by foreign-born individuals (mainly Indian or Chinese).

However, what about low-skilled workers, many of them from South of the U.S. border? In fact, their skills levels are about the same as those of our immigrant grandparents or great-grandparents. There's a tremendous need in our country for people who will do work that native-born Americans avoid.

What The Economist is saying is what John McCain believes. Oh, and those beliefs happen to be accurate.

More to follow on Saturday . . .

A SANE VIEW OF IMMIGRATION

In The Economist, January 5-11, 2008, the London-based publication has a fascinating 14-page special report on “migration” (called “immigration” in the U.S.).

In our country, immigration has been an extremely contentious issue, and Senator John McCain’s support of Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) has hurt his candidacy. He’s been accused – falsely, I believe – of favoring “amnesty” for illegal immigrants, and that kind of accusation can be the kiss of death in Republican politics.

The Economist’s position is that immigration is a good thing – a source of diversity, technological advances, and prosperity. In other words, it thinks people like McCain (which the magazine generally favors) are right, while their critics are wrong.

The publication says, “. . . Most often, migration is about young, motivated, dynamic people seeking to better themselves by hard work.” It adds, “History has shown that immigration encourages prosperity. Tens of millions of Europeans who made it to the New World in the 19th and 20th centuries improved their lot, just as the near 40 million foreign-born are doing in America today.”

Much of the debate over immigration involves sloganeering, such as “the rule of law.” In fact, the U.S. has modified many laws that were irrational or immoral, such as the “law” that Black people counted for three-fifths as much as White people. It also eliminated the law that said women couldn’t vote. In the past generation, the country modified the law for those fleeing Communist Cuba, allowing those who reached our shores to stay.

The real issue will immigration – legal or even illegal – boils down to this: Is it a good thing, or a bad one? That is, do people immigrating to this nation provide more benefits than debits?

The Economist admits there can be negatives associated with immigration. It notes that politicians have a tendency to pander to “xenophobic fears. Also, it admits that large numbers of immigrants can provoke job fears among natives. What’s more, it’s clear that huge disparities of income across borders could result in a stream of incomers turning into a flood.

Yet, the magazine sees immigration mainly as a plus. It notes that “many migrants return home with new skills, savings, technology, and bright ideas. Remittances to poor countries in 2006 were worth at least $260 billion . . . Letting in migrants does vastly more good for the world’s poor than [sending off charitable contributions.”

In addition, “The movement of people also helps the rich world. Prosperous countries with graying workforces [America, Europe, and Japan, among them] rely ever more on young foreigners . . . . Around a third of the Americans who won Nobel Prizes in physics in the past seven years were born abroad. About 40% of science and engineering PhDs working in America are immigrants.”

In short, The Economist disagrees sharply with the nativist wing of the Republican Party. The points the magazine makes are the same kind that motivated John McCain, Jon Kyl, Lindsay Graham and others to support Comprehensive Immigration Reform. In the face of persuasive arguments, anti-immigrant slogans aren’t enough.

Sanity102: Why McCain's "The Man"

If you want to sign up as a blogger/onliner for Gov. Sarah Heath Palin, a future U.S. President, you can do so by going to Adam's blog. Sarah, I'd recommend that you talk soon to Senator John McCain. It's increasingly likely he will choose you as his running "mate."

I'm borrowing the following column from Sanity 102, who posted it at: http://outsideofthebox.townhall.com

Excuse me? Ok, Hugh Hewitt has gone too far.Did you know that McCain's adopted "black" [actually, she's Asian] daughter was "given" to McCain and his wife to adopt by Mother Theresa? Did you know that the war in Iraq would never have turned around if McCain had not pushed for the Surge?

Did you know that if his "gang of 14" had not agreed to being reasonable, there would be no Alito, no Roberts, No great judicary picks on the Appellate Courts because the Dems would STILL be filibustering. And if the GOP had used the "nuclear option", the now Democratic majority would be able to do the same?

Did you know that the reason McCain fought against the tax cuts was because he wanted what MOST Conservatives complain that Bush and Company DIDN'T do...cut spending at the same time?Did you know that while most civilians think torture is ok, MOST of those serving, especially in combat, do not? That part of the reason for McCain's disapproval of torture for prisoners is because he spent years during the Vietnam War as a POW and experienced first hand torture.

And unlike Hewitt whose connection to the military is a wife's father, McCain served his country for over two decades.Did you know that his father and grandfather served? And that at least one of his sons is serving now in the war zone? Can any of the major candidates claim that type of dedication to our nation?

Did you know that as a border state senator, he has pushed for funding for border security and REASONABLE method of dealing with illegals...and that his border state has returned McCain to Congress 4 times...the last 6 year run in 2004...2 years AFTER 9/11 (the year that the border situation was supposed to have become vital)?

Did you know that McCain was pro-life before Reagan, Fred Thompson, and Romney were pro-life? Yet...today Hewitt pointed out that the next president would appoint 4 maybe 5 judges to the SCOTUS...and asked, "do you TRUST McCain over Romney and Rudy to appoint strict constitutionists?"EXCUSE ME??

HUGH HEWITT'S MITT ROMNEY PROBLEM

"Hugh Hewitt, a reputation is a terrible thing to waste."

Hugh Hewitt of Townhall.com is a person with a well-earned reputation as a talk how host and blogger. However, he is spending his reputational capital in much the manner of McCain's overly indulgent sailor.

When it comes to candidate Mitt Romney, Hugh quite literally "wrote the book." That is, he has a financial interest in Romney's doing well -- and perhaps even winning the presidency.

As a responsible political analyst, Hugh has an obligation to look at any candidate -- including his beloved "Mitt" -- in at least a mildly objective way. That means examining the canidate's pros and his CONS. It means outlining where a candidate is weak -- and where he's strong.

In fact, Mitt Romney is not a strong candidate. In some polls, his "negatives" come close to equalling those of Hillary Clinton. In both Iowa and New Hampshire, Romney squandered big early leads in the polls and ended up finishing a distant second. In national polls, he's been stuck in the low teens. There's no evidence he could come close to winning in a national election against Senator Clinton or Senator Obama.

American voters generally look at Mitt Romney as too rich (and pouring big chunks of his vast fortune into the campaign), too slick, too liberal (in liberal states), too disingenuous (in conservative states), and much too quick to "go negative," hurting his own campaign and that of others'.

Hugh, I appeal to you: stop the cheerleading, and stop the gushing about "Team Romney," which is a losing "team." Hugh, you're looking like a political "Johnny-One-Note." Your readers are now making fun of you, and that's not a good situation.

On this blog, I note the candidate(s) I favor and don't fail point out their warts. Romney is spending a lot more money than his opponents, and his performance is not good. It would strengthen Hugh's credibility if he showed some basic signs of balance, which he doesn't when it comes to Mitt Romney.

So, Hugh Hewitt, stop compromising your reputation -- and invest your time instead on giving a clear-eyed analysis of the many fascinating political developments. I've done that on my own blog, and in this case the teacher (you) needs to learn from the student (me).

steve maloney

FAIR-TAX A NON-STARTER?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JerryBowyer/2008/01/09/questions_for_the_fair_tax_crowd
Questions for the Fair Tax Crowd
by Jerry Bowyer

Why do you think that a sales tax is less prone to corruption and complexity than an income tax?

When the income tax was originally promoted by William Jennings Bryan and other populists it was labeled as being fairer, since it would not hit the poor. When initially implemented it was very simple. However, over time special interest groups were able to lobby for exemptions, deductions, and other special treatment. Why would a sales tax not undergo the same process? Does the fair tax somehow magically abolish selfishness?

Are sales taxes, where they are currently in operation, simple and free from special interest lobbying?

The Europeans have a sales tax, called the VAT, which is extremely complex. Why wouldn’t that happen here? States have sales taxes, which, even despite their low rates still have long lists of items which are exempt or not exempt, and they still have people who cheat on them. If this happens at low rates, why wouldn’t it happen at much higher rates? Does moving the concept from Europe to the U.S., or from the State level to the national level, somehow render the legislative process more pure? If so, why is our income tax so riddled with complexity and special pleading to begin with?

Does it apply to non-profits? [And if not, why not?]

If so, then they’ve become taxable and it would discourage charity. Also, wouldn’t churches become taxable? Aren’t there constitutional issues here? If not, then the tax advantage of non-profits disappears. If they’d be taxed the same way as businesses, wouldn’t this remove a great deal of tax encouragement for non-profit enterprise and shift talent and treasure away from that sector?

Are used goods, non-taxable?

If so, this means less goods production, more yard sales, eBay stuff, etc. Won’t this hurt traditional retailers and goods producers? Why wouldn’t this encourage evasion through rehabilitation? After all what exactly constitutes New vs. Used? If I repair a car, it’s used, but what if I upgrade it? New engine, but old chassis, is that new or used? Computers, too. New hard-drive, but old CPU; is that new or used? How does this not get complicated?

What about the transition period?

Before the sales tax takes effect, won’t there be a buying binge? Afterwards, won’t there be a buying drought? If so, doesn’t that cause a debt spike to finance purchases before the ‘sale’ ends? The implications for banking and currency policy are way too complicated for me to foresee.

[Other big questions follow]

Isn’t it true that the rate is not really 23% but 30% at least, because it’s tax-inclusive?
And even this does not count dynamic effects in which changed behavior and evasion narrow the base and raise the rate.

How do we determine the interest portion of mortgage payment?

If non-specified, business will simply give big discounts on price and then make up for it in the interest calculation, as interest is deemed non-taxable. These calculations are highly malleable and can become very complex. Homes will be financed with low-ball prices and high interest rates, and sup-prime mortgages will skyrocket.

If a cap is put on excludable interest, then at what rate? Federal rates?

That makes the Fed a tax-setting agency and hyper-politicizes monetary policy.
______________________________
Mr. Bowyer [of Allegheny County, PA] is chief economist of BenchMark Financial Network and a [frequent] CNBC contributor.