Political Discussion: We Didn't Change Each Other's Minds, but We Saw Each Other's Points

My brother came to visit this week, and we had a big political discussion on Sunday afternoon.  My brother is a Republican who voted early for the Mitt Romney-Paul Ryan ticket.  As for myself, while I registered as a Republican so that I could vote for Ron Paul in New York's closed primary, I ended up voting for the Barack Obama-Joe Biden ticket.  I was thinking of voting for Jill Stein of the Green Party, since I figured that New York would go for Obama anyway, and I agreed more with Jill Stein's support for a single-payer health care system and her opposition to drones, which have reportedly killed innocent civilians.  But I decided to vote for Barack Obama because of the impact of Hurricane Sandy on New York City, a city that provides a significant amount of the state's Democratic vote.  I feared that the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy could inhibit Democratic voters there from getting to the polls, and so Barack Obama needed my vote here in upstate New York.

In this post, I'd like to talk some about my political discussion with my brother, specifically where he could see my points, and where I could see his.  I should make a couple of things clear at the outset.  First, if my brother were to write this post, he'd probably tell the story differently from how I'm telling it: perhaps he'd highlight where he thinks that he presented better arguments than I did!  So I'm writing this post from my own perspective.  Second, neither one of us changed the other's mind.  He's still a conservative Republican, and I'm still, well, whatever I am----somewhat of a leftist, I guess!  We have fundamentally different worldviews.  That particularly came out when we were discussing health care: I said that I trust the government more than the private health insurance companies, and he said that he did not.  But, while it would probably be going too far to say that we found common ground, we did acknowledge the validity of each other's points, on certain topics.

I'll start by listing areas in which my brother acknowledged validity in my points (and yet calling that a concession on his part would be going too far), sometimes with reservations, then I will say where my brother got me thinking about certain issues, or made me aware of things of which I was previously unaware.

Where my brother acknowledged my points:

----My brother could see validity in the government rejuvenating the economy by spending money to improve our country's dilapidated infrastructure, especially when many in the private sector are not spending money.  But he doesn't think that the government does this all that well or efficiently, but rather that there's a significant amount of waste. 

----My brother and I were talking about pre-existing conditions.  He could see my point that a health insurance mandate could address the problem of people getting health insurance after they become sick rather than paying into the system beforehand.  As I think about the issue some more, though, I have some reservations about this.  There are reasons that people get health insurance after they get sick: in some cases, they may have had health insurance but they lost their job or moved to another state and thus lost it, and now they're sick and need to find another insurer.  That's why I think that national health insurance or a national health insurance exchange is important: a person can be covered, even if she loses her job or moves to another state, plus she'd have established a track-record of paying into the system.

----My brother said that Ronald Reagan improved a bad economic situation much more quickly than Barack Obama did.  I responded that we really cannot replicate what Ronald Reagan did and expect an economic boom to result.  Reagan reduced income tax rates from high rates to much lower rates, and that had a more stimulative effect than we would have were we today to reduce income tax rates, since income tax rates are already rather low.  My brother could see my point there, and he added that interest rates came down from high to low during Reagan's Presidency, which was stimulative, whereas interest rates are already low today.

Where I acknowledged my brother's points:

----My brother seemed not to buy into the notion that tax cuts would work the economic magic that a number of conservatives and libertarians think.  Or at least he was realistic in that he did not see tax cuts as the end-all, be-all when it comes to stimulating the economy.  But he also thought that tax increases on the rich would not help the economy, for that could discourage investment.  He also said that there are small businesses making over $200,000 a year, and a tax increase on those making that amount or more could hit them especially hard.  When I responded with the typical Democratic talking-point that the vast majority of small businesses make under $200,000 a year, he replied that small businesses making over $200,000 a year still employ a lot of people, and thus a tax increase on them could discourage hiring.  I've long struggled with this issue on this blog.  I recognize that taxing small businesses making over $200,000 a year could discourage hiring.  At the same time, I believe that people who make more money than they know what to do with should pay a higher income tax rate.  Is there a way to increase income tax rates on those making over $200,000 a year while exempting small businesses from that tax increase?  Perhaps the problem there would be that rich people could then dodge the tax increase by incorporating themselves.  I don't know.

----My brother argued that increasing the corporate tax rate could encourage companies to go overseas, where the corporate tax rate is lower.  He also said that rich people can always find loopholes, and he also stated that corporations often pass on the cost of higher corporate taxes onto their consumers.  My brother is a supporter of the fair tax: replace income and corporate taxes with a national sales tax, which would have exemptions for the low-income.  Whereas corporations can dodge paying a significant amount of taxes, the argument runs, a national sales tax would be collected when people make a purchase.  I've struggled some with this issue on this blog before.  One point that stood out to me in Mitt Romney's book, No Apology, is that corporations don't just buckle under and pay higher corporate taxes.  What that means is that raising the corporate tax rate won't necessarily bring in a lot of revenue.  I believe that we do need revenue, though, for a social safety net is important, as is paying off the deficit, and other things (i.e., defense).  I think of European countries and Canada: by and large, they have low corporate tax rates, but they raise money for their generous social safety net in other ways.  Many European countries have a Value-Added Tax (VAT), for example.  Perhaps this approach can preserve the best of both worlds: corporations are attracted by the low corporate tax rate, resulting in more jobs for the area, and yet money is raised for the social safety net.  I still have questions about the national sales tax and the VAT, however, but I'll save my discussion of that for a future post.

----My brother knows far more than I do about alternative energy.  He argued that nuclear power and wind and solar power are very expensive, in terms of construction.  He also said that we are not far along in terms of solar power, and that the government should not subsidize companies when they cannot produce a cheap solar-powered car at this point.  He did see some promise in hybrid cars, however, and he noted that oil companies themselves are doing research on solar power.  Moreover, he was open to the government spending money on research.  I'm not sure how to respond to my brother's arguments, but they do tell me that there are challenges in the area of pursuing alternative energy.    

Reactions to the First Presidential Debate (2012)

Here is my quick reaction to the first Presidential debate.

Mitt Romney was at his best.  This was the Romney of the book No Apology: reasonable, not too conservative (as he acknowledged the importance of regulations), sensitive to the human and practical impact of policies, personable, witty, king of the power-point, etc.  And I'd say that Romney was better tonight than he has been in the past, for in tonight's debate he was passionate and animated.  President Barack Obama made good points, but he looked resigned, or like he was tired or getting over a cold.

In terms of the points that each side made, I'd say they were both about even.  Romney launched effective grenades against Dodd-Frank that Obama did not address, and Romney did well to raise the question of how President Obama can reduce Medicare subsidies to providers without that impacting patients.  Obama made an effective critique of the Ryan plan for Medicare by arguing that, even if the plan preserves traditional Medicare, the program under the Ryan plan will consist predominantly of the sickest people while private insurance companies win over the healthiest seniors, thereby making Medicare weaker.  And Obama did well to note the strong points of Obamacare----for example, that it has taken on the health insurance companies that prioritize profits over health care, and that premiums have increased at a slower rate than in previous years.  And yet, Romney did better on the jobs issue, as he detailed the perils of the economy and talked about how taxes would add more burdens.

In terms of tax policy, I previously thought that Romney's plan was to cut taxes for everyone and to close loopholes, but what he said tonight was that he would not cut taxes on the rich, but he wouldn't increase their taxes either.  Romney also offered a few more details on loopholes----he tossed out the idea of having a limit on them, as the rich receive few or none of them.  (I think I heard that correctly.)  Obama is for tax cuts for the middle class----and, to his credit----he has been faithful to that stance as President.  But he also wants to raise taxes on the rich.  My question is this: Did Romney change his position for tonight's debate?  Did he previously support lowering taxes on the rich?  (UPDATE: Check out Joel's post.)

The debate did not change whom I will vote for.  I will still vote for Obama because I like his policies on student loans (I particularly appreciated what he said about cutting out the costly private-sector middle-man), and I trust him more on health care.  But I thought that Romney gave off the impression that he had a firmer grasp on the economy----particularly ways that the government ails it----and Romney did well to show how his business experience gave him insight on economic issues.

(UPDATE: One thing that Romney said that was not overly savvy, economically speaking, was his proposal to reduce government jobs.  How will putting people out of work help the economy?  But Obama, rather than asking that, defended his own support for spending cuts.)

Fell free to comment, but I probably won't debate anyone.  I'm resigned and tired, not passionate and animated!

Mitt Romney's No Apology 11: Writing

I finished Mitt Romney's No Apology: Believe in America.  In this post, I'll highlight some things that Romney says on page 323, in the Acknowledgments.

"Ann and my family always began conversations about the book by saying that they really enjoyed it, but then suggested some important revisions----they have learned that 'a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down.'... Bob White, my career-long wingman, sent me several pages of notes, all designed to help keep me from flying into a mountain.  Hugh Hewitt, whom I had met when he interviewed me about my 2008 prospects, offered helpful language, edits, and perspective, undoubtedly gleaned from his listening experiences as a prominent talk-show host.  The aptly named Jim Talent, former U.S. Senator from Missouri, kindly contributed policy thinking and insights, as he has done for me many times before.  Eric Fehrnstrom, my press and communications professional for seven years, made sure that what I wrote accurately reflected what I actually wanted to say.  And Beth Myers, my chief of staff when I served as governor and my campaign manager in 2008, read and reread what I wrote, reminding me of relevant experiences to relate, tightening my writing, and providing key insights.  She made the book happen."
Writing can be a bear.  There's the challenge of trying to put into words the muddled thoughts in my mind, without saying something that can be misconstrued as offensive.  There's also the challenge of trying to be readable----not only in the sense of being understood by the readers, but also in the sense of readers actually wanting to read what I write.  And there's the challenge of organization----of not flying into a mountain, as Romney puts it, for writing can lead to all sorts of places that you did not expect, and perhaps didn't want to go.  On many occasions when I have blogged and written papers, I find myself on some writing-tangent wondering, "How did I get here in writing this, and how can I write my way out of this pit?"

I don't know how so many people on the Internet can write such letter-perfect comments and blog posts.  Often, to be honest, I decide not to comment on posts, for I can't figure out how to put into words what I want to say.  It ain't easy!  Consequently, I can identify with what Romney says in his acknowledgments: he needed help in making his language tighter, in making his book readable and entertaining, in making his book more organized, and in showing that he knew what he was talking about when it came to policy.

Did he succeed in his goals?  Overall, I'd say "yes".  I was initially reluctant to read this book, since I had already read a lot of books by Republican Presidential candidates, but I am glad that I did.  I appreciated how Romney looked into various angles as he talked about policy, critiquing both the left and also elements of the right.  This book is really heavy-duty on policy, and I was actually more impressed by Romney in this book than I have been by Newt's numerous books about policy.  But the book also has a light-hearted side, as Romney intersperses humor, self-deprecation, and anecdotes.  I especially liked Romney's story about how he was a garbage man for a day when he was governor of Massachusetts, and he flubbed up the job by releasing garbage onto the street!

In terms of the book's weaknesses, I felt that Romney could have done a better job in detailing how creative destruction results in a higher standard of living for most Americans (assuming that he's even correct that it does so).  Moreover, the chest-thumping nationalism got on my nerves a few times, even though I appreciated his stories about Americans helping one another.

Good book!

Mitt Romney's No Apology 10: Welfare Reform

In my latest reading of No Apology: Believe in America, Mitt Romney talks about welfare reform.  He says that, as governor of Massachusetts, he proposed to require single parents with children to work, and the government under his proposal would spend money on job training and child care.  Romney states on page 269: "Because my proposed program was based on training and child care, it would have actually cost the state more than simply keeping people on welfare----it wasn't cost savings we were looking for.  We wanted to help save people from a culture of indolence and an endless cycle of poverty."

On page 283, Romney criticizes the current welfare system for penalizing marriage.  Essentially, single people with children get more in terms of food stamps, welfare, subsidized housing, and Medicaid.  When two people marry, however, the government looks at their household income----the combination of what the husband and wife make----and this "often disqualifies them from benefits" (page 283).

These passages stood out to me because I have wondered: Would certain conservative policies actually spend more on welfare rather than less?  As Romney notes, paying for child care and job training in addition to welfare is more expensive than just spending money on welfare.  And, if welfare policy is not to penalize marriage, would that mean that couples would be receiving welfare, even though their combined level of income makes them ineligible for benefits under the current Spartan policy?  And wouldn't you expect for conservatives to be rather Spartan in their approach to welfare?

The hope is probably that work and marriage would set welfare recipients on a path to getting off of welfare, and that would save the state money in the long run.

Mitt Romney's No Apology 9: Energy and Climate Change

In my latest reading of No Apology: Believe in America, Mitt Romney talked about energy and climate change.  In my opinion, Romney was all over the place in this chapter, as he went into different angles of the issue.  But my impression is that he's for reducing dependency on oil, for our oil supplies will not last forever, and our dependence on foreign oil leads us into compromising situations internationally.  Romney thinks that we can drill safely in offshore areas and in ANWR, but he talks a lot about the need to reduce our dependency on oil, and he supports nuclear energy, coal (whose carbon can be removed and stored, he said), and natural gas.

Romney wants to incentivize fuel-efficient cars through the tax system, and he's open to working on a proposal to impose a gas or carbon tax while balancing that off with some sort of tax cut----such as a reduction of the payroll tax.  Romney states that "The higher energy prices would encourage energy efficiency across the full array of American businesses and citizens."  Romney acknowledges that such a proposal could hurt people on fixed incomes, people who have to travel over sizeable distances, and people "in certain energy-intensive industries" (page 262), and so that's why he believes that the plan needs work.  This discussion stood out to me because I remembered Rush Limbaugh criticizing President Obama's energy secretary for reportedly saying that high gas prices are okay (see here).  Apparently, Romney and the conservatives who devised the plan see an upside to high energy prices.

Romney prefers alternative energy and incentivizing fuel-efficient cars to cap-and-trade and the government spending a lot of money to counter climate change.  According to Romney, cap-and-trade and government spending cost a lot of money that can be used for other things.  There are businesses that use a lot of carbon, and having to buy credits to do that would cost them a lot, and so they'd either pass on the cost to the consumers or locate to a country that does not have as many restrictions on carbon.  (Romney believes that cap-and-trade for other pollutants has been more workable and effective, yet he sees downsides to that as well, such as the unstable price of credits.)  And there are foreign regions that prefer to prioritize tackling other problems over climate change because it costs a lot to address climate change, and they feel that money can be better spent on other necessary causes.  Moreover, Romney does not believe that spending a lot of money to reverse climate change even succeeds in attaining its goal, at least not at the level that would justify the cost.

I did some online reading to see where we stand now on climate change.  Cap-and-trade was defeated.  The White House's current policy on climate-change did not strike me as overly rigorous, for it appeared to focus on reducing carbon emissions by the government while not discussing the private sector so much (see here).  The White House's web site does talk about clean energy, but I hope that we're actually going somewhere with that, rather than merely investing in companies that fail.  The web site says here, though, that renewable energy generation has doubled in the U.S. since 2008. 

And, according to this article, U.S. carbon emissions are at a 20-year low, due to such factors as "a mild winter, reduced gasoline demand, and the scaling back of coal-fired power in favour of new gas capacity", and those who support the gas industry contend that "America's shale gas boom has delivered environmental benefits by replacing more carbon-intensive coal-fired power" (the article's words).  But the article goes on to say that "climate scientists and green groups remain deeply concerned that while the switch to gas will deliver reductions in overall emissions it will fail to deliver the deep cuts necessary to curb climate change risks, arguing that new investment in gas infrastructure will lock the US into high levels of emissions for decades to come."

Although Mitt Romney has a history of supporting fuel-efficient automobiles, I tend to trust Barack Obama to be more committed to the issue of combating climate change, since Romney seeks to appease the right-wing.  But, to be honest, I'm not sure if enough can be done to combat it, especially in the current political climate----where so many people have to be appeased and radical measures are dismissed because they may have an adverse effect on the economy.  But, hopefully, something can be done----to reduce emissions and to prepare for the consequences of climate change.

Mitt Romney's No Apology 8: Education

In my latest reading of No Apology: Believe in America, Mitt Romney talks about education.

I enjoyed Romney's anecdotes about the teachers he had----how he was encouraged in school to write, and how one teacher of his tactfully critiqued his students about their writing.  Romney wryly says on page 211: "Those who read this book may quarrel with the success of the Cranbrook [school's] writing program in my case.  But at least I gained the confidence to give it a try."

I was also surprised to read that Romney and at least one of his kids received part of their education in public schools, for you'd expect for most rich people to go to private schools.  And they did, but they also spent time in the public educational system.

In terms of Romney's proposals regarding education, Romney argues against the idea that more funding and smaller class sizes mean better educational outcomes, and he appeals to parts of Massachusetts and other countries in making his case.  For Romney, the teacher's union wants more funding and smaller class sizes because that would lead to more teachers being employed and paid more.  (Romney may have a point here, but I wonder if more teachers could lead to each teacher getting paid less.)  Moreover, according to Romney, there is a lot of money in the public educational system that goes to bureaucrats.

Romney's not necessarily against paying teachers more, however, but he's against paying them more on the basis of seniority (and, on a related note, he doesn't care for the fact that bad teachers can keep their jobs just because they have seniority).  He's actually in favor of paying starting teachers more because that could encourage the best and the brightest to enter the teaching profession.  One problem he has with the current educational system is that the current crop of teachers is not always from the students who did well in school.

Romney favors giving high school seniors a test to determine if they will graduate.  When he was governor, those who got at or above a certain score received scholarships to any college in Massachusetts.
Regarding school choice, Romney expresses skepticism that a voucher system is politically feasible.  (UPDATE: He supports vouchers later in the book.)  But he believes that the Catholic schools in Boston made the public schools there better, as public schools sought to compete.  And Romney is a proponent of charter schools, which parents can use or not use, based on how good they are.

You can read this article to see a critique of Romney's educational policies when he was governor.  According to the article, the scholarship for those who did well on the test was inadequate and did not make much of a difference.  The article is also critical of Romney's stance as governor towards bilingual education, and it says that Massachusetts' high performance in education was not due to Romney's policies but rather to reforms that resulted in more spending on education.  And the article states that Romney's aloof style and failure to engage people in the educational profession was problematic.

That critique may very well be valid.  At the same time, I agree with what Romney defines as his goal: to make sure that the educational system is working, rather than just throwing money at the problem.  I'm not against educational spending, but I believe that steps should be taken to ensure that the money is being put to good use.

Mitt Romney's No Apology 7: Health Care

I read the chapter on health care in Mitt Romney's No Apology: Believe in America.  There were a variety of things that I liked about this chapter.

First of all, Romney talked honestly about his health care plan in Massachusetts, as he says where it has worked and where it has been inadequate.  According to Romney, it worked in that it provided more people with health insurance coverage and brought down some people's premiums.  But Romney is honest that health care costs are still high, and thus many premiums remain high as well.

Second, Romney is forthright about what he believes are the strengths and weaknesses of certain proposals to bring down the costs of health care.  Newt Gingrich often touts computerizing health care records as a way to bring down costs.  While Romney supports this because it can lead to efficiency, he refers to a study that says that computerization did not bring down health care costs significantly.  For Romney, computerization has to work in tandem with other things for costs to come down (and Newt would probably agree with that, even though Newt is more optimistic about the effectiveness of computerization in reducing costs).

Third, Romney explained some things that other Republican candidates I read did not explain too well.  Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty say that health insurance is an open bar for many people, and my problem with that sentiment is that there are people who pay high deductibles, co-pays, and premiums, meaning that they are not immune from the costs of health care.  But, according to Romney, there are many people who can get any health care that they want after their deductible is paid.  I should also note that, in some cases in which people receive health insurance through their companies, they may not be exposed to its cost.

Fourth, Romney explained in more detail his belief that health insurance should move away from the fee-for-service model and towards a model of giving doctors lump-sums.  According to Romney, if a person has a certain condition, the health insurance company, Medicare, or Medicaid should give the doctors a lump-sum so that they can diagnose and treat that condition, rather than reimbursing them for every test and treatment that they do----which only incentivizes more tests and treatments, some of which can be unnecessary, and perhaps even dangerous.  Romney may believe that doctors will try to make the best use that they can out of the lump-sum----as they work on getting results.  I fear that this is rationing, and that the lump-sum will not always be big enough to cover all of the patient's medical costs.  But I recognize that the fee-for-service model is problematic and cannot think of another alternative.

Fifth, Romney tells anecdotes, which shows that he has a personal connection with the health care issue.  He talks about the people he visited as a Mormon official, who were struggling with America's health care system.  And he tells about his son Josh, who lived in England.  Josh's physician thought that Josh might have colon cancer, but Josh in England would have to wait six weeks for his colonoscopy, during which time the cancer could become inoperable and terminal.  But Josh received a "timely examination" in Massachusetts (page 199).

Sixth, I appreciated something that Romney said on page 196: "If Americans enjoyed better health and longevity than people in other countries, it might be reasonable to argue that our excessive health-care spending is simply a rational consumer choice.  But the life span of the average American is less than that of people in nations that spend far less.  Japanese men outlive American men by five years; Frenchmen outlive us by three years.  To put it bluntly, we spend more and die sooner.  Most of the difference is explained by Americans' unhealthy lifestyles..."

Later, Romney argues that U.S. health care is superior due to its competence, but I like what Romney says on page 196 because it can be used to support a single-payer system (which Romney opposes).  There are countries that have single-payer systems, and their citizens live longer than people who are in the United States.  A concern I have about applying a single-payer system to the U.S., however, is that Americans tend to live unhealthy lifestyles, and so I fear that a single-payer system here could break the bank or result in really high tax rates.  At the same time, it could encourage people to visit the doctor more and receive preventative care and advice on how to live a healthy lifestyle, and that could reduce health care costs.

Mitt Romney's No Apology 6: Regulation, Entitlements, and the National Debt

In my latest reading of Mitt Romney's No Apology: Believe in America, Romney talked about regulation and the need to reform Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare.  Then he warned about the national debt.

On regulation, Romney made some of the same talking-points that I have heard other conservatives make: that President Obama is hindering the hiring of workers by creating an environment of economic uncertainty.  Yet, while Romney does criticize certain regulations----such as labor regulations that make it hard to hire or fire workers, and the rules that must be satisfied for a business to even get started (and Romney appeals to the thoughts of Thomas Friedman in making these points)----Romney does believe that "The rule of law and the establishment of regulations that are clear, fair, and relevant to contemporary circumstances provide the predictability and stability that is needed for investment and risk-taking" (page 150).  Romney praises a law against "throwing used oils down the drain" because that "ultimately led to better machining industry practices" (page 150).  He also supports equal opportunity laws, maintains that occupational safety regulations help businesses by protecting skilled and experienced workers, and contends that the "requirement for unemployment insurance" helps the economy and provides a time of transition to workers who have been laid off, "perhaps due to an improvement in productivity" (page 150).

On entitlements, Romney believes that they need to be reformed.  Medicare eats up a lot of the federal budget, and Medicaid does the same for state budgets, and the spending on these programs continues to grow.  Moreover, there is a danger that the current Social Security system will become unsustainable----that it will not have the money for all of the people who will soon retire.

On Social Security, Romney supports increasing the retirement age (since people live and work longer now) and proposes allowing higher-income people to choose how their benefits would be calculated.  They could use the wage index, which would give them more Social Security money, yet they'd have to pay higher Social Security taxes.  Or they could choose the Consumer Price Index calculation, which would give them less Social Security money, as their Social Security tax remains the same.  While Romney is open to private accounts, he recognizes that the stock market goes up and down, so he wants for individual accounts to be "added to Social Security, not diverted from it" (page 175).

On Medicaid, Romney supports states being allowed to devise their own ways to help the poor in terms of health care, as they continue to receive federal dollars for Medicaid.  States could then move the poor into private health care plans through vouchers, pay a standard fee rather than reimbursing treatments, or "negotiate with fewer providers to obtain better rates" rather than "allowing Medicaid members to go to any hospital" (page 177).  Romney also laments that, under the current system, even higher and middle income people can make themselves look poor through legal machination and thus get Medicaid assistance to live in nursing homes when they are older.

On Medicare, Romney wants to move it away from a "fee-for-service reimbursement system", which gives money for every treatment and exam and thereby incentivizes doctors to prescribe more treatments and exams (whether they're essential or not).  Romney proposes offering a flat fee for every patient, which would encourage the doctors to keep every patient healthy.  Romney also says that higher-income enrollees could pay higher co-pays, deductibles, and co-premiums.  Romney also speaks highly of managed care, and so (if my impression is correct) he may favor allowing seniors to choose between Medicare and a private plan (which they'd buy through vouchers from the government).

Some of these ideas are good.  I'd like to make the following points, however:

----It has been argued that Obamacare itself is moving Medicare away from a fee-for-service model (see here).

----I like that Romney is supportive of higher-income people paying more in terms of Social Security and Medicare, especially since Republicans flinch from any notion that the rich should pay more taxes than they are currently paying.  At the same time, I fear that medical costs could take their financial toll even on people who are financially comfortable, since medical costs can get really high.  

----A problem that detractors have with Paul Ryan's plan is that it is inadequate----that it gives vouchers to people in Medicare so they can join private plans, and yet their medical needs are not sufficiently met.  I myself am distrustful of private health insurance companies, since they are out to make money.  Romney, however, refers to a private plan that is not-for-profit.

I'd like to close this post by talking about the national debt.  Romney warns that it is getting out of control, and that it will take a toll in terms of high interest rates, less foreign investment in the U.S., and financial constriction as the next generation has to pay this debt off.  I have questions about the national debt.  First of all, have we paid any of it off?  This article says that we haven't done much to pay it off since World War II, whereas this article maintains that we have been paying off some of it.  If the former is true, then I wonder why we haven't yet seen the sorts of catastrophes that Romney and others talk about.  Interest rates have been low, and there is still foreign investment in the U.S., probably because our economy still has a degree of strength, whatever its set-backs.  Can we continue to pass off the debt to our children, as our children pass it on to their children, and the process continues?  One of my relatives (a conspiracy theorist) remarked that he doesn't think that our creditors expect for us to pay off the national debt, but they're just holding it over our heads so they can control us.

Is the latter true, that we are paying off the national debt?  I remember that politicians not long ago wanted to increase the debt ceiling so that the country could borrow money, which (in part) would be used to pay the interest and some of the principal for the national debt.  But are we paying off a sufficient amount of the debt?  Second, which party is better in terms of the national debt?  Romney and Republicans may support reduced domestic spending, but they are also open to war, which increases the debt.  Of course, Democrats are open to war, too, but my impression is that they're less open to it than are the Republicans.

Mitt Romney's No Apology 5: The Economy

In my latest reading of Mitt Romney's No Apology: Believe in America, Romney focused on economics.  I have two items (and the second item has sub-items).

1.  One reason that I wanted to read this book was that Romney defends the idea of creative destruction in it, and I was curious about how he went about that.  Creative destruction has to do with companies becoming more efficient and productive, and jobs being lost as a result.  For example, when new technology is created, efficiency and production increase, but the technology replaces certain workers and thus puts them out of a job.  Romney's argument is that creative destruction may result in temporary setbacks, but increased efficiency and productivity are good things because they result in more jobs, cheaper goods, and a higher standard of living for Americans.  

I wish that Romney had done a better job of connecting the dots----of showing how more productivity creates jobs, which can employ those who lost their jobs due to creative destruction.  I'm somewhat of a beginner when it comes to economics, and so, while some principles may be self-evident to others, they need to be spelled out to me.  Hugh Hazlitt at least attempted to connect the dots in his book, Economics in One Lesson.  In my post here, I summarize Hazlitt's argument:

"Hazlitt believes that full employment can contribute to production, but he doesn’t like efforts to stifle production in the name of 'full employment'. As far as he’s concerned, efficiency can create jobs. If a machine makes shirts, for example, the owner of a shirt-store may lay off those who sewed the shirts together, since a machine now does their work. But jobs are created to make the machines. The owner can expand his business and hire more workers. And, as more shirts get produced, the price of shirts comes down, and consumers can spend their money on other things, which helps the economy. Jobs are lost due to technology, but jobs are also regained."

I hope that it works that way.  Unfortunately, what comes to my mind is something my high school sociology teacher said after we watched Michael Moore's Roger and Me, which was about General Motors leaving Flint Michigan and the devastation that resulted: "Good jobs were leaving, and new Taco Bells are not going to cut it!"

One point that I appreciated that Romney made was that society should help people to find employment.  He mentions employment centers and language programs for people who don't know English that well.  But Romney also states on page 130:

"...I favor programs that incentivize employers to hire and train people who have been out of work for an extended period of time, who have disabilities, or who have been affected by the failure of a company or industry.  As governor, I was able to establish a program that paid employers $2,000 toward the cost of training anyone they hired who had been out of work for more than a year."

As someone with Asperger's, I appreciate what Romney says here.  But I hope he's serious and proactive about this----that, were he to enter office, he wouldn't forget about the need for such programs and leave people on their own.

2.  On page 149, Romney states: "For us to confidently grow our economy, we must grow our own pool of capital and make it available at a reasonable cost.  To do that, we must preserve the value of the dollar by defending against inflation, rein in government's excessive deficits, simplify taxation, and reduce taxes on enterprise and investment."

Romney makes a variety of points that deserve consideration:

----He says that inflation discourages investment because people are reluctant to invest when they won't get much of a return, due to the value of the dollar going down.  This brought to my mind my reading of Ron Paul's End the Fed, which made me think about the positives and negatives of a tight monetary policy.  See my posts here.

----Romney promotes savings because that enables there to be money for investment.  That reminded me of Hazlitt's argument that tax cuts encourage saving and thus allow for the banks to have more money to lend out for businesses to be created, as well as Ron Paul's argument that people should save and then invest rather than relying on credit.  Romney says, however, that saving does not occur enough in America, and so there is a lot of capital in the U.S. that has been provided to us by foreign companies.  That's why Romney does not support alienating other countries through protectionism----they're the source for a lot of our capital----but he does want for the U.S. to stand up to unfair and inappropriate trade practices.

----Romney states that taxes on corporations can backfire, for corporations, rather than buckling under and paying the taxes, could end up looking for a country where the tax burden is lower.  Moreover, Romney does not think that profits are a bad thing, for he notes that there are companies that use their profits to build the companies, which can result in more jobs.

----While detractors have claimed that Romney's tax plan will raise taxes on the middle-class, Romney in the book appears to oppose any tax plan that will do so.  (Of course, whether his plan will do so or not is another question!)  He favors eliminating the capital gains tax and taxes on dividends and interest for the middle-class----and he states that this "wouldn't cost the government a great deal because most of this tax today is paid by high-income individuals" (pages 143-144).  He also expresses concern that the fair tax could result in "a windfall for the very rich and the extra burden...would fall on the middle class", and he hopes that the fair tax----were it to be pursued----would be structured to avoid that problem (page 145).

----Romney states that the deficit is problematic because it reduces the amount of capital that can be used to start businesses, increases interest rates, and discourages foreign investors, who look at America's national debt in deciding whether or not to invest in the U.S.  I talk some about the national debt here and here.  At the same time, Romney quotes Michael Porter's statement that "controlling government deficits that are not being used to finance productivity-enhancing investments in the economy is perhaps the most direct way in which government can influence the pool of investable capital" (Porter's words on page 148).  While Romney most likely disagrees with President Obama's stimulus, the idea behind it is that it is a deficit that is designed to increase productivity and to invest in the economy.

----Romney says that the government employs the services of the private sector (i.e., through defense contracts) because the private sector is more efficient than the government.  That may be true, in a number of areas, but I think that there are some disadvantages to such a policy.  Private companies can end up getting a lot of money from the government, as did Haliburton and Sallie Mae.  Sometimes, it's cheaper for the government to do the job itself.

Mitt Romney's No Apology 4: Defense Spending

In my latest reading of Mitt Romney's No Apology: Believe in America, Romney criticizes President Barack Obama for cutting defense spending and argues that defense spending should be increased.

When I was at Jewish Theological Seminary, a left-leaning lady showed me a couple of graphs about U.S. defense spending.  One graph said that we spend far more money on defense than we do on domestic concerns.  And the other graph was contending that we spend far more money on defense than do other nations, even the rogue nations that we like to criticize.

Romney's argument in my latest reading is that both of these claims are bogus.  Regarding the amount that the U.S. government spends on defense in comparison with domestic concerns, Romney says that the chart that he saw only factored in discretionary spending.  Romney states that "When all federal spending is included, defense is 20 percent of the total" (page 97).  Regarding the amount that the U.S. spends on defense in comparison with other countries, Romney states that China has a large military for a comparatively lower cost, and so we cannot look at how much each country spends on the military to determine whether or not its military is big or small.

Another argument that is often made against increasing defense spending is that we do not live in the days of the Cold War anymore, and so a large military is not needed.  But Romney's response to that argument is that we do not know what dangers lie ahead, and so we should have a strong national defense so that we are prepared for whatever may come.  Romney states that one reason that people from the National Guard were sent to Iraq, and that some Americans were sent on multiple missions there, was that we had cut spending on the military and thus did not have enough prepared ground troops when the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq began.  Our military was unprepared and lacked the resources that it needed, in short.

I remembered reading a blog post by Paul Phillips of Sparking the Left that criticized an op-ed piece that Romney wrote about NATO.   Romney said in that piece what he also said in No Apology: that Europe should assume more of the cost of its own military protection rather than expecting the U.S. to assume a big chunk of it.  For Romney, Europe passes on a lot of the cost to us because it wants to preserve its social welfare programs, and that has to change.  Phillips makes a point in response to Romney's argument on NATO, and a point in response to Romney's call for increased defense spending.  First, Phillips contends that Romney will not make friends with Europeans by telling them what to do.  That reminded me of what I read about Romney's governorship in The Real Romney, by Michael Kranish and Scott Helman: that Romney as governor alienated legislators because he regarded them as underlings for his agenda, the same way that he viewed those who worked for him when he was a CEO.  Second, Phillips argued that we can have a strong military at a lower cost due to drones.  I was a little surprised to see Phillips referring to drones to uphold his argument, since I thought that many on the Left were quite critical of drones.  But his argument raises an important question: Can we have an effective military, without spending a lot of money?

As far as my views on defense spending are concerned, I briefly mentioned them in my post here.  While Romney and Phillips have given me things to think about, my views have not changed radically since I wrote that post.

Mitt Romney’s No Apology 3: Islam

In my latest reading of Mitt Romney’s No Apology: Believe in America, Romney talks about radical Islam.  He believes that the goal of radical Islam is to create a worldwide caliphate in which everyone is under sharia law, and he refers to a statement by the 1928 founder of the Muslim Brotherhood that manifests that kind of vision.  And Romney maintains that radical Islam hates the United States because of our freedoms and our culture, which go against its Muslim beliefs.

To his credit, Romney is not a complete Islamophobe, for Romney acknowledges that there are moderate Muslims.  My impression is that Islamophobes do not believe that there are actual moderate Muslims but rather regard all Muslims as part of a sinister conspiracy.  But, as Romney points out, radical Muslims have killed moderate Muslims.

I do not agree with Islamophobes, but I wonder: If they are right, what exactly can people do?  One way that the U.S. has been fighting radical Islam has been to cultivate relationships with moderate Muslims and to promote them.  But if there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim, then the West is in a losing battle.  Fortunately, there are moderate Muslims.

Mitt Romney's No Apology 2: Russia and Honduras

For my write-up today on Mitt Romney's No Apology: Believe in America, I'll focus on some things that Romney says about President Barack Obama's foreign policy.  Romney criticizes President Obama for ending President George W. Bush's plan for missile defense for Eastern Europe, as well as Obama's decision to support the reinstatement of leftist President Manuel Zelaya in Honduras, even though the Supreme Court there had lawfully removed him.

There is another side to the story.  Obama ended the missile defense plans in order to reset relations with Russia, and the result was a START treaty and Russia helping us in Afghanistan (see here, here, and here).  And Obama favored the reinstatement of Zelaya as President in Honduras because the Honduran military had removed him, and Obama thought that democracy rather than military force should be the way to handle things in Honduras (see here).

One could argue that Obama's policy has not worked as well as hoped.  After all, Russia has not assisted us that much when it comes to Iran and Syria.  And Romney notes that Russia makes overtures towards Hugo Chavez.  But I wonder: Would taking a tough stand towards Russia better the situation?  We don't want Russia to think that it can walk all over us, but do we have much capital (if you will) that could actually help us were we to confront Russia?  During the Reagan Administration, the Soviet Union was in trouble because it could not support its large military and its economy at the same time, and there were economic problems that were caused by communism.  But, as Romney notes, Russia today is quite prosperous.

(UPDATE: This article says in response to Romney's convention speech, in which he made the same point about Russia and missile defense: "Here, Romney goes back to one poorly received comment he made during his star-crossed trip to Europe and the Middle East. Before he left in late-July, Romney, in a speech to the VFW, said Obama's actions in the region 'began with the sudden abandonment of friends in Poland and the Czech Republic. They had courageously agreed to provide sites for our anti-missile systems, only to be told, at the last hour, that the agreement was off.' That didn't sit well with the Slovakian foreign minister and deputy prime minister, Miroslav Lajcak, who told The Wall Street Journal, 'People have moved on. We are in a different situation now. We are discussing a different project. I see no reason to revisit discussions from three years back.' Lajcak was referring to the Obama administration's decision to tinker with the plan first put in place by President George W. Bush. Rather than plant missile bases in Poland and the Czech Republic, Obama has opted to build them aboard naval vessels and with the cooperation of all the NATO countries.")

Mitt Romney's No Apology 1

I started Mitt Romney's No Apology: Believe in America.

In my latest reading, Romney argued that free enterprise has made the United States the most prosperous nation in the world, and that countries with free enterprise are usually more prosperous than those in which the government has a heavy hand in the economy.  Romney acknowledges some nuance, though.  He says that many Western Europeans are satisfied with their system of government benefits, but he questions whether that system will always work and notes that Western European nations are moving towards the principles of American free enterprise.  And Romney says that China has free enterprise, and that its businesses are free from regulations that are actually important----regulations that pertain to health, safety, and other concerns.  But Romney also states that China's system of free enterprise is directed by an authoritarian system.  Romney still believes that China's system is effective and that China may become more powerful than the U.S., but Romney speculates that there may come a point where China will embrace democracy.

Romney also contends that the United States, whatever its mistakes, has been a positive presence in the world, which has prevented belligerent nations from getting out of hand.   And Romney quotes Israeli Shimon Peres' statement that the U.S., unlike many other nations, does not take over land when it wins a war.

I agree with Romney that many Americans have a high standard of living.  I tend to envy, though, the economic security of people in Canada and Europe, who live in systems that have universal health care.  But are these nations supported, at least in part, by the productivity of the United States?  Do we, in some sense, contribute to the prosperity that helps them to have universal health care?  I hope that we can have our cake and eat it, too----that we can have the productivity that results from American capitalism and entrepreneurship, and a universal health care system that keeps people from being bankrupted due to high health care costs.

Regarding America's presence in the world, Romney is probably right that we don't take land.  But critics from the right and the left have contended that the U.S. has exploited the resources of other nations, or has intervened in them (often secretly) for its own economic interests.

My favorite part of my latest reading was Romney's story of how his father gave his kids chores to do because the family was prosperous, and George Romney wanted his kids to learn the value of hard work.  And, when George became more prosperous, he gave his kids more chores!

The Real Romney 11

I finished The Real Romney, by Michael Kranish and Scott Helman.  My latest reading covered Mitt Romney's run for President in 2008, as Romney gets into an altercation with a reporter at Staples over lobbyists in his campaign, and John McCain accuses Romney of being a flip-flopper.  After the heated campaign, Romney and McCain became friends.  Although Romney was "disciplined" and "straitlaced" and "didn't swear or drink," and McCain was "fiery" and "tempestuous" and had "seen a bit more of life" as "a former navy man" (Kranish and Helman's words on page 323), the two found commonalities, such as family connections to Arizona and a desire to escape the shadow of an important father (for Mitt, it was George, and for McCain, it was his admiral father).  McCain did not pick Romney for his running mate, however, because McCain did not know Romney that well, plus McCain was looking for a game-changer, which he thought he had found when he selected Sarah Palin.

According to Kranish and Helman, Romney in 2012 ran his campaign a little differently from how he ran it in 2008.  Romney had written a book (No Apology) where he set forth his positions, thereby providing him with a response when people said that they did not know what he believed or that he had not defined himself.  Romney also did not talk as much about social issues but focused on the economy.  Romney did not spend tons of money on the Iowa strawpoll in 2012, as he had in 2008.  And Romney was becoming more comfortable reaching out to the voters, which was more of a challenge for him in previous campaigns.

I agree with Kranish and Helman that Romney's 2012 campaign differs from his 2008 campaign.  Romney's Mormonism does not come up as much in the public discourse, perhaps because we already know that Romney is a Mormon, so why keep talking about it?  And Romney is a little less of BS-er, as he was in 2008 at Staples, when he said lobbyists helped his campaign but did not run it, as if that made a difference.  An exception would be how Romney is handling his record at Bain Capital.  Kranish and Helman depict Romney as a shrewd and intelligent administrator, which makes his handling of his Bain Capital record rather puzzling.  Bain Capital has come up before when Romney has run for public office (i.e., in his 1994 Senate race), so wouldn't you expect him by now to know how to handle it better when an opponent brings it up?