 |
| The Wealthy Few or the Welfare of the Nation? |
To me, the most damning statement Romney has made in his entire political career came in 2008 as he was running for the Republican nomination. All the Republicans were trying to make light of the economic downturn and looming financial collapse so as not to cast doubt on the efficacy of the Republicans' handling of the economy during the Bush years. George Bush famously stated: "I don't think we are headed to a recession...", while John McCain claimed that "The fundamentals of our economy are strong." Mitt Romney added that "People need to realize that this is a great time to buy." [Romney's quote went largely unnoticed so it is extremely difficult to find references to it. The web page linked to (above) is the only one I could find after about an hour of searching. Although it is not a "reliable source" it does prove that I didn't just imagine the quote, and the author of the article seems to have the same opinion I do.]
A great time to buy? Was Romney really suggesting that people who had lost their jobs and were finding it difficult to pay their mortgage go out and sink the rest of their money in the stock market? Or maybe he was suggesting that they use the remainder of their credit card balances to get into the stock market game? I presume not. He was really saying: "Rich people are in a great position to become richer still. So what's the problem?" To me, it was a pretty clear declaration of his domestic economic policy: to help rich people make more money. And if the poor and middle class can somehow find a way to be rich, then he'll help them too.
Granted, it is a lot of assumption to lay upon a single off-the-cuff statement made by Romney. But it did prick up my ears, so to speak. I've since been reading articles about the man, and although there are stories about Romney's generosity and humanitarian endeavors, they seem far fewer than the atrocities that he committed while at Bain Capital. Those stories support my initial assessment of the man.
Romney always made money for his investors, even when businesses they acquired failed, all of the workers were fired and their pensions they paid into were cancelled. Even in tragic cases such as those, Romney's investors turned handsome profits of hundreds of millions of dollars. So, in his role at Bain, the investors did very well but everyone else did horribly bad.
Now that Romney is running for president, one must ask him/herself an important question: who are Romney's investors? Those are the people that will do well in a Romney presidency. Will Romney consider himself to be the agent of the American people? Or will he consider people like Sheldon Adelson, who pledged to contribute $100 million to get him elected, and the Koch brothers to be among his primary investors? Once you determine whom his primary investors are, you have to wonder what their goals are. Will they recommend that Romney invest in schools, roads, bridges and programs that will benefit all citizens? Or with they suggest that Romney pay more attention to issues that really matter to them? Continued tax breaks, tilting the free market system to eliminate their competition, reducing regulations to allow business to increase profits by polluting the air and water?
If you did not give $100 million to the Romney campaign, then you are probably not going to be given the same attention as those that did. The issues you care about will likely languish while the very wealthy become wealthier still. Banks may go back to over-leveraging themselves at a ratio of 40 : 1, risking the greater economy. Then they'll take their profits offshore so they don't have to pay taxes to the US government that has given them much of their wealth since 2008. Yes, after the bailouts, your tax dollars went to make those banks wealthier through the Fed's "discount window". And we're still bailing out the banks through quantitative easing measures. And Romney himself has profited greatly from government bailouts.
As I see it, this election is really about which person will, as President, will best serve the entire country rather than cater to special interests. I hope that some of the information in this article will help to fill in the gaps of information that will help people to make a more-informed decision.
~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/
I am going to preemptively respond to comments that I think conservatives would make or should make but are not likely to make:
ReplyDeleteConservatives may ask why I didn’t talk about Solyndra or the attacks in Benghazi. Do you really feel that those topics haven’t been well-advertized in the media? I would argue that they have been over-sensationalized in the media.
Solyndra, by the best sources available, was shown not to be a scandal. (http://www.factcheck.org/2012/04/straining-the-facts-on-federal-spending/
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/nov/15/americans-prosperity/solyndra-ad-president-barack-obama-taxpayer-money/) Now, if Obama had something to hide, perhaps that information was hidden. We may never know. But I cannot view speculation of malfeasance with the same regard as proof of unscrupulous acts.
I don’t have any special insight about Benghazi. But what I’ve learned about Mitt Romney and Bain Capital is critical to my assessment of the two candidates. And many people I’ve talked to--on both sides of the political spectrum--had never heard the details of Romney’s work at Bain.
I’m not suggesting that anyone be offended by Romney’s record of driving companies into bankruptcy and firing workers after raiding their pensions. But if those things do offend you, and you were not already aware of the practice, you may want to know those things about the candidate before casting your vote. Again, I hope that I have been able to help fill in some of the gaps of information.
Comment from BP (not British Petroleum): My "this is what this election is about": SUPREME COURT APPOINTMENTS. With a 5-4 Court 44 cases involving ordinary person vs. Corporation it is 44-0. Guess in whose favor. Get one more Scumlia, Elito, or Uncle Tom and it will be all over for decades (if a revolution doesn't result in the meantime).
ReplyDelete@BP: [I preface my comment by pointing out that "BP" is a brilliant attorney and certainly knows the courts and legal system as well as anybody does.]
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment! I agree that the Supreme Court is one of the big issues ahead of us and critical to this election. My comment was simply referring to the character of the two men running. Both men are going to say good things but how closely do their words match their record? For anyone on the fence, I hoped to point out the discrepancies between Romney's rhetoric and his record.