Romney and Santorum: Vomit, Tricky Voting, and Hypocrisy

Arizona and Michigan held GOP primaries today.  Romney is favored in Arizona, while the race is too close to call in Michigan. The two front-runners made headlines for a couple of other reasons, however.

Vomit

Rick Santorum is walking away from his recent statement that he wanted to "throw up" after hearing John F. Kennedy's famous speech urging voters not to discriminate against him because he was Catholic.  Santorum received extremely negative press after he made the comment.

Tricky Voting and Hypocrisy

In other news, Santorum has used robocalls to urge Democrats to vote for him in Michigan's open primaries. This sends many messages. Apparently, Santorum knows that Democrats would love for him to win the GOP nomination. Due to his many extreme statements, it is safe to assume that he is the easier candidate to defeat in a general election. Santorum, however, is also an opportunist (shocking for a politician -- sarcasm). A few weeks ago, he blasted open primaries, arguing that Republicans alone should nominate the GOP candidate.  According to ABC News, 10 percent of today's Michigan voters were Democrats.

Not to be outdone by Santorum, Mitt Romney has exhibited his own hypocrisy on this issue. Romney says that Santa's robocalls represent a "new low" in politics. Romney, however, voted for Democrat Paul Songas in the 1992 Massachusetts Democratic Primary. As a registered Independent, Romney could vote in either party's primary. Romney stated that he did so because he wanted the weakest Democratic candidate to win the nomination.

Firm At Center of Romney's Stimulus Critique Received Over $10.4M From Fed. Projects

ABC News (and other media) has reported that Mitt Romney recently held a campaign rally at Springs Fabrication, Inc., a manufacturing company located in Colorado. During the rally, Romney assailed the stimulus package that Congress passed in 2009. Conservatives and other opponents of the stimulus have repeatedly argued that the measure did not create any jobs. According to CBO analysis and reports from economists, however, the stimulus contributed to GDP, created new jobs, and prevented job losses.

Ironically, Springs Fabrication received $2.3 million in stimulus funds in November of 2009. The government hired Springs Fabrication to complete a plumbing project at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Stimulus funds paid for the project. Despite winning this contract, Tom Neppl, the CEO of Springs Fabrication, says that the stimulus did not allow the company to create any jobs:

"I did not support the stimulus, I did not seek out stimulus funds, and the stimulus did not create or save a single job here,” said Neppl. “One of our best customers placed an order as they have in the past, for a government project like those we have done in the past.”

Neppl's statement reiterates the conservative line that government spending does not boost economic activity or lead to job growth. The recent history of Springs Fabrication, however, contradicts this assertion.

Springs Fabrication Has Hired Persons As A Result of Government Spending

Although Neppl portrays the stimulus as ineffective, the company he heads has benefited from federal spending. In his statement, Neppl himself acknowledges Spring Fabrication's participation in government projects "in the past."  One specific project began in December 2009 when Springs Fabrication entered into an $8.1 million contract to dispose of chemical weapons for the US Army at a location in Pueblo, Colorado. Springs Fabrication was a subcontractor for the $28.7 million government project. Due to the magnitude of this government-sponsored contract, Springs Fabrication was able to rehire 20 persons that it had previously fired due to lack of work.

Although Neppl portrays the stimulus as unsuccessful, he boasted about Springs Fabrication winning the contract. It was the largest contract Springs Fabrication had ever received, and it permitted the company to create jobs in the local community:

"This contract will absorb our existing staff, so we'll have to ramp up a bit," he said. "That's why it's good news - not just for us, but for Southern Colorado. These big contracts don't always keep the money in the area, but this time it will stay here."

Furthermore, Springs Fabrication won the contract at a time when it was experiencing a downturn in sales (well, there was a recession). Nonetheless, Neppl has given his voice to the bogus assertion that government spending and job creation are unrelated.

Neppl's position seems politically motivated. It contradicts the company's own history of job creation with government funds. Also, it is probably not a coincidence that John McCain held a campaign rally at the company in 2008.

Romney's Use of Springs Fabrication to Bash Stimulus Is Misleading As Well

Romney has promoted Springs Fabrication's experience in order to portray the stimulus as a waste of money. During his campaign rally at the company, Romney blasted the stimulus:

“That stimulus [Neppl] had, it did not do the job. I mean, I understand Tom said he was working on a project that got some stimulus money. . . .”

“I asked well were you able to hire more people because of that, he said no. Didn’t add any more people, just more money into the system, but no more people hired,” said Romney. “That stimulus did not create private sector jobs like it should have, like it could have, it instead protected government jobs.”

Romney's statement is intentionally misleading. The Colorado Springs Gazette interviewed Neppl. During the interview, Neppl said that the stimulus funding he received did not allow him to hire new people or make a profit. Neppl, however, explained that this was not due to an inherent defect in the stimulus. Instead, the company's costs were larger than expected; so it failed to make a profit (which probably explains why it could not hire additional workers). Cost overruns frequently occur on major manufacturing and construction projects. The stimulus did not cause this.

Moreover, although Neppl did not make a profit on the project, he says it could still benefit the company. He believes that it could lead to future contracts for the company.

Summary

Romney opposes the stimulus, but he needs to state legitimate reasons for doing so, rather than misrepresenting the experience of Springs Fabrication. The company failed to profit from the stimulus money it received because it underestimated the cost of the project. Furthermore, the company has profited previously from government spending and has used this money to hire workers.

In addition, economists argue that the stimulus created or saved jobs and contributed to GDP. Other than challenging this data, it is difficult to imagine a sound argument against the stimulus. Certainly, Romney has not offered one.

Mitt Romney: Will Direct His Policies to the "Middle Class" -- Not the "Very Poor"

Mitt Romney has created a stir with comments he made during a CNN interview today. Romney stated that his policies will not focus on the "very rich" or the "very poor." Instead, he would direct his energy and policies toward middle-class Americans. When the interviewer asked Romney to explain his position, he elaborated that the country already has a safety net that protects the most impoverished Americans and that if it needed repairing, he would do so.

Liberal commentators have pounced upon these statements, claiming that they demonstrate Romney's indifference to poor folks. I have a few responses.

FIRST, Romney's critics are correct. His comments show a stunning disregard for poor folks, including the working poor who cannot qualify for many government benefits. Even though he also said that he was not concerned about very rich folks, the President of the United States should have a deep concern for the plight of poor folks.

SECOND, Although Democrats have not said anything as politically sloppy as Romney with respect to poor folks, their rhetoric often focuses on the middle-class as well. President Obama, for example, created a Middle-Class Task Force during the first month of his presidency.  He did not, however, create a similar task force for poor people. Also, when Obama tours important swing states, his speeches usually stress the plight of middle-class Americans above all others. Basically, both parties are chasing large chunks of middle-class voters who live in states such as Ohio, Florida, Missouri, and other "purple" jurisdictions. If the "very poor" were a larger voting bloc and antipoverty programs had more support among voters, then both parties would pay more attention to the needs of poor folks.

So, Romney has made a very troubling statement. But it is hard to say that Democrats are doing all that they can do for poor people. Democrats' policies, however, do more for poor people than the policies advocated by most Republican politicians.

Does This Picture Prove That Romney Is "Out of Touch" Or That Some Liberals Are Hypocrites?

First it made the rounds in social media.  Now it is plastered on the website for  MoveOn.org. It is a picture that seems to show Mitt Romney getting his shoes shined on an airport tarmac, while grinning happily. Next to that image, President Obama is shaking hands with someone in a uniform commonly worn by blue collar workers. The caption states: "Notice the difference?"

Liberals have promoted the picture, claiming that it demonstrates Mitt Romney is out of touch with Americans and that he exploits low-income individuals. By contrast, Obama is a man of the people, who shakes their hands rather than using them to shine his shoes. For several reasons, the picture says more about its liberal promoters than Mitt Romney.

FIRST, the picture is highly deceptive. Romney is not getting his shoes shined. Instead, he is getting scanned by a TSA agent before boarding a charter jet. The use of deceptive photography has no place in civil political discourse.

SECOND, despite the deceptive nature of the photo, some liberals insist upon defending its use. MoveOn for example has apologized for implying that the photo shows Romney getting his shoes shined. Nonetheless, the organization says that "[w]e still feel it goes a long way in showing Mitt Romney’s special circumstances in comparison with the 99%." It is difficult to understand how a misleading picture demonstrates anything. This is poor judgment by MoveOn and others who have made similar arguments.

THIRD, even if it were true that Romney was getting his shoes shined on a tarmac, this alone would not prove anything about his character.  Wealth alone does not make a person unsympathetic to poor folks.

FOURTH, using the photo to demonstrate Romney's inability to connect with the public hypocritically ignores similar activities by other politicians -- including President Obama. Many political candidates use private planes during campaign trips. Obama does so himself.

Obama boarding campaign plane

Planes allow candidates and their staff to make multiple stops and to conduct meetings while they are traveling. Indeed, there are many photographs on the Internet of Obama traveling and boarding his own private campaign jet. Yet these photographs have never led to liberal uproar. Granted, none of the pictures shows Obama getting a security screen while sitting in a chair, but this tiny distinction could not reasonably explain the disparate reactions to the two of them. Furthermore, Obama's campaign plane has luxurious seating. Most of the "99%" have never flown in such comfort. So, if Romney's exclusive experiences make it impossible for him to understand Americans, one could reach a similar conclusion about President Obama.

Interior of Obama's campaign plane

FINALLY, liberals' disparate and partisan reactions to wealth come across as a faux class critique. There are many wealthy liberals, including esteemed persons like John F. Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton. Many other presidents in US history were wealthy, and, after adjusting for inflation, some were wealthier than Romney. Some reports estimate that the Obamas hold $10 million in assets. That wealth far exceeds that of most Americans.

Furthermore, there are several ways in which all of us benefit from the work of poor laborers, many of whom earn less than persons who shine shoes for a living. Apple products, for example, are assembled in China by very poor and badly treated workers, including many young children. Restaurant staff are often underpaid and mistreated. And hotel housekeepers earn notoriously low wages. Yet, liberals eat in restaurants, stay in hotels, and use Apple products.  Indeed, Obama apparently uses Apple products, in spite of the fact that the company has admitted to using child labor. If getting a shoe shine is a sign of class indifference, so are these other activities that many liberals enjoy.

A Better Debate: Analyze Policy

Liberals are using the photograph to construct a narrative about Romney. They argue that his wealth makes it impossible for him to understand the struggle that Americans are facing during this economic downturn. Even if this argument were legitimate, the picture does not convey this point. For the various reasons stated above, the picture speaks more negatively about its liberal supporters than Romney.

Romney's policy positions are far more important than his personal wealth. Also, focusing on policy is much healthier and educational for public discourse. A few years ago, liberals complained that conservatives were running from real issues by probing things like Obama's religion, his minister's anger, his fondness for arugula and Whole Foods, and his international background. During his presidency, conservatives have said that he has inappropriately taken vacations while Americans are struggling economically.  Unfortunately, some liberals are replicating this negative behavior. Shame on them.

What Does Romney's $10,000 Bet Tell Us: NOTHING

Mitt Romney has received a lot of criticism for making a $10,000 wager during the recent Republican presidential debate. Romney made the bet during a dispute with Rick Perry over the details in a book Perry had authored.

To most of the media, the substance of the Perry-Romney debate is irrelevant. Instead, media accounts have focused primarily on the amount of money Romney wagered. Although Romney has received criticism across the political divide, Democrats, in particular, have tried to exploit the matter.

The DNC has argued that the amount of the wager proves that Romney is "out of touch" with most Americans, obviously alluding to his vast wealth. This argument is a loser. First, saying that a candidate is "out of touch" is an ambiguous statement. It is unclear what it means to be "out of touch" or to be "in touch."  President George W. Bush, for example, was commonly portrayed as someone who could sit down and have a drink with the "average" American. He and his family, however, are extremely wealthy.

Furthermore, if wealth or high income makes a candidate unfit for office, then the DNC should question President Obama as well. In 2010, the Obamas reported income of nearly $1.8 million.  In 2009, they reported income exceeding $5.6 million. This certainly places them among the highest tier of income earners. Also, Hillary and Bill Clinton have made massive amounts of money since Clinton left office in 2000.

Rather than using wealth as a litmus test, I encourage the Democrats and the media to focus on substance instead. It is a much more compelling way to evaluate a candidate.  Given the current status of the media and politics, however, hoping for substantive analysis is a fantasy.

Romney: Unconscionable Hypocrisy

Mitt Romney says that the passage of healthcare reform legislation represents an "unconscionable abuse of power." Romney, however, promoted and endorsed a remarkably similar plan while he was the governor of Massachusetts.

Romney is clearly trying to position himself for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. In order to do so, he has decided to condemn the healthcare legislation, even though the national plan and the Massachusetts plan he endorsed share many central components. 

I doubt that Republicans will allow Romney to remake his image. They already ridicule the Massachusetts plan as "RomneyCare."  He will likely lose in 2012 because of his "liberal" past.

What A Joke: Republicans Deny Similarities Between Massachusetts Healthcare Refrom And Democratic Proposals

This one is from the surreal vault. Republicans are trying to distinguish Massachusetts healthcare reform -- endorsed by Mitt Romney and Senator Scott Brown -- from the federal proposals pending in Congress.

Last week, Brown described the Democrats' reform proposals as "bitter" and "destructive." David Axelrod, appearing on ABC's This Week, criticized Brown's statement, noting the similarities between the Democratic proposals and the Massachusetts policy.

Senator Lindsay Graham, who appeared after Axelrod, however, disputed Axelrod's comments: "No way in the world is what they did in Massachusetts like what we’re about to do in Washington." Graham explains that: "We didn’t cut Medicare — they didn’t cut Medicare when they passed the bill in Massachusetts. They didn’t raise $500 billion on the American people when they passed the bill in Massachusetts."

Graham's effort to distinguish the Massachusetts policy from the Democratic proposals is foolhardy. First, states cannot raise federal taxes, nor can they reform the Medicare program. So, Graham's explanation regarding the differences between Massachusetts policy and the federal proposals is ridiculous.

Furthermore, the Massachusetts plan and federal proposals are also quite similar in terms of substance. The Wonk Room has compiled a side-by-side comparison of the two packages, showing the dramatic similarities. Also, Think Progress nicely summarizes the similarities:

[T]he plan implemented by former Republican Gov. Mitt Romney in Massachusetts is very similar to the Democratic proposal. Both plans require people to purchase coverage and both provide affordability credits to those who can’t afford insurance. Both create insurance exchanges, both establish minimum creditable coverage standards for insurers, and both require employers to contribute towards reform.

Romney implemented the Massachusetts plan as governor of the state, and Brown voted for it as a member of the state legislature. Romney apparently wants to run for president again, and he believes he must portray the Massachusetts reforms in a false light in order to appeal to Republicans. Brown is trying to score points with the GOP as well, and he is distorting history to achieve this goal as well. Their weak effort to distance their prior stances from highly similar Democratic proposals, however, is not fooling anyone. The record is too clear to deny.