New Yorker Romney Cover

Romney's Fake Disaster Response Trumps Ryan's Fake Photo Op

A couple of weeks ago Paul Ryan showed up unannounced at a soup kitchen in Youngstown, Ohio for a photo op. In a suit and tie, he pretended to wash pots and pans (most were already clean). Note the spotless apron. I once worked as a dishwasher. I did NOT have a spotless apron. Ever. Nor would I have worn a wristwatch, as it would have immediately gotten soaked. I pronounce this picture a fakerooni.

And so did Bryan J. Antal, President of the Mahoning County St. Vincent de Paul Society:

The head of a northeast Ohio charity says that the Romney campaign last week “ramrodded their way” into the group’s Youngstown soup kitchen so that GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan could get his picture taken washing dishes in the dining hall. 

Brian J. Antal, president of the Mahoning County St. Vincent De Paul Society, said that he was not contacted by the Romney campaign ahead of the Saturday morning visit by Ryan, who stopped by the soup kitchen after a town hall at Youngstown State University. 

“We’re a faith-based organization; we are apolitical because the majority of our funding is from private donations,” Antal said in a phone interview Monday afternoon. “It’s strictly in our bylaws not to do it. They showed up there, and they did not have permission. They got one of the volunteers to open up the doors.” 

I thought Ryan had trumped his running mate, but Romney one-upped him with a fake response to Hurricane Sandy.

Both events were pulled off with calculated cynicism.

Yesterday, Romney's campaign – facing the challenge of a president in command of natural disaster relief – converted an Ohio political rally into a political rally disguised as providing voluntary charitable contributions to help hurricane victims on the East Coast. The problem was that collecting canned goods and other items is not what agencies such as the Red Cross want. In fact, attempting to process such relatively small donations hinders massive assistance efforts, according to non-governmental organizations.

Loading donated cans of Campbell's Soup and jars of peanuts into a rental truck makes for a nice photo-op, but it won't help any hurricane victims. Nine will get you ten that the donations will be dropped off at some pantry in Ohio, far away from the damage from Sandy.

On top of that, BuzzFeed reports that allegedly $5,000 was spent at Walmart by the Romney campaign so that Mitt could be photographed amidst an abundant supply of granola bars and diapers.

This last-minute "relief effort," of course, is consistent with the Romney/Ryan belief that individual charitable contributions can somehow take care of areas with billions of dollars in damage. Did anyone bring a house, bridge or subway to the Romney "compassion" charade? Doubt it, wouldn't fit in the rental truck.

Romney's notion of non-governmental resolution of natural disasters is as fecklessly quaint as his "horses and bayonets" notion of our military needs. Since Romney refuses to repeat his promise to dismantle FEMA since Hurricane Sandy struck, he can only offer a feeble photo showing him accepting a six pack of Gatorade. It was so Disneyesque!

The Ohio stunt provides a one-two punch of opportunistic displays of ambition disguised as compassion. Just last week Romney's running mate, Paul Ryan, practically broke into a soup kitchen in Youngstown in order to get a photo of him washing pans with his wife. But don't think the Ayn Rand acolyte was going soft. It was all for show.

-- Karlin, 2012 

Sources

Karlin, Mark. (2012, 31 October). Romney's hurricane "relief effort" was as fake as Paul Ryan's soup kitchen photo op. Buzzflash. Read it here.

Philip, Abby. (2012, 31 October). Aid organizations prefer cash to canned food. ABC News. Read it here.

Sonmez, Felicia. (2012, 15 October). Charity president unhappy about Paul Ryan soup kitchen "photo op." Washington Post. Read it here.

Why Republicans Say You Shouldn't Vote for Romney

Romney on FEMA

Before the Hurricane Sandy Disaster

During a CNN debate at the height of the GOP primary, Mitt Romney was asked, in the context of the Joplin disaster and FEMA's cash crunch, whether the agency should be shuttered so that states can individually take over responsibility for disaster response.

"Absolutely," he said. "Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction. And if you can go even further, and send it back to the private sector, that's even better. Instead of thinking, in the federal budget, what we should cut, we should ask the opposite question, what should we keep?"

"Including disaster relief, though?" debate moderator John King asked Romney.

"We cannot -- we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids," Romney replied. "It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we'll all be dead and gone before it's paid off. It makes no sense at all."

-- Grim, 2012 

There’s another nugget here worth highlighting, though. In that appearance, Romney also suggested it would be “even better” to send any and all responsibilities of the federal government “to the private sector,” disaster response included. So: Romney essentially favored privatizing disaster response.

-- Sargent, 2011 

During the Hurricane Sandy Disaster

Watch From 57 Seconds

The Romney campaign stressed Monday that states should take the lead in responding to emergencies like hurricanes. But the campaign said Romney would not abolish the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

-- Restucca, 2012

After the Hurricane Sandy Disaster

Sources

Grim, Ryan. (2012, 28 October). Mitt Romey in GOP debate: Shut down federal disaster agency, send relief to the states. Huffington Post. Read it here.

Restucca, Andrew. (2012, 29 October). Romney would give more power to the states, would not abolish FEMA. Politico. Read it here.

Sargent, Greg. (2012, 29 October). The morning plum. On the auto bailout, Mitt has run out of answers. Washington Post. Read it here.

Whitney Tilson Lays it Out

Tilson's Graph of the Dow is Better Than the One I Used On 10/28

A year-and-a-half ago investor and philanthropist Whitney Tilson gave his reasons for supporting a second term for President Obama.

Read it here.

Today Tilson updated his piece. In it, he goes point by point through a plethora of issues, explaining why he believes Obama is a more viable choice for President than Mitt Romney.

All of his arguments are good, but I really like what he had to say about Romney's lack of veracity.

I also have grave concerns about both the integrity and core beliefs on someone who, depending on the voters he was trying to appeal to, has espoused vastly different views on countless issues: taxes, women's rights, abortion, the invasion of Iraq, the role of the federal government in education, campaign spending limits, immigration reform, gay rights, global warming, environmental protection, gun control, even whether he wanted to serve in Vietnan... The list goes on and on, to the point where I can't tell whether the real Romney is the pragmatic centrist who was the governor of Massachusetts (and who showed up on the debates) or the "severe conservative" he played for years as he campaigned for President-- or whether there is any real Mitt Romney at all.
Even if Romney is a pragmatic centrist, I question his ability to act independently of a party that I fear has become beholden to people I view as extremists-- anti-intellectuals who are hostile to women, minorities, the poor, immigrants, and gays, and who don't believe in evolution, diplomacy, protecting the environment, equality for women, global warming, and gun control.

In his discussion of the economy Tilson uses graphs to show the deterioration and improvement of the economy over time and says:

Nobody disputes three things:

1) Things were terrible when Obama took office: major parts of the economy, especially banking, autos, and housing, had collapsed, and the country was on its way to losing more than eight million jobs and the stock market declining more than 50% – both the biggest declines since the Great Depression;

2) Things are much better now: we've had 13 consecutive quarters of GDP growth, 31 consecutive months of job creation, and the S&P 500 has risen 75% since Obama took office. In addition, the unemployment rate has fallen to 7.8%, a 45-month low (down from a peak of 10.1%), consumer confidence is at a five-year high, and the housing market is at a post-crisis high. These charts show GDP growth, monthly job creation, and the stock market since the beginning of 2007;

3) The recovery that began shortly after Obama took office has been tepid.

The main questions in dispute are: a) Could/should Obama have done more?; and b) Will we be better off going forward with Romney as president?

He argues we wouldn't.

It's a good read, and it's here as a PDF.

Frankenstorm

As I write, parts of New York City are underwater. Hundreds of thousands of residents have been evacuated and city, county, and state shelters are filled. Although Hurricane Jessie, with 90+ mile per hour winds, is still some 200 miles away, the city and coastal New Jersey is already hard hit. State officials and FEMA officials and are working together to keep Americans safe and save as much property as possible.

No one knows what will happen when Jessie collides with the storm front moving in from the west and the Alberta clipper heading south from Canada, but everyone knows it won't be pretty.

About 50% of the American population is threatened by this huge storm, which is affecting the entire Eastern seaboard from Florida to Maine, and some inland states, like West Virginia. Cuba, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic took heavy damage days ago.

President Obama spoke to the nation earlier today, saying the storm will be big, but all preparations have been made. "The most important message that I have for the public right now is, 'Please listen to what your state and local officials are saying.'" Just before his briefing, he was in a meeting with Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano, FEMA administrator Craig Fugate, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, and National Hurricane Center Richard Knabb.

"The president emphasized that he has been working with state and local officials to ensure everybody has the resources they need, including food, water and electricity generators" (Bendery, 2012).

A massive storm like this requires coordination at state and federal levels so people can be saved from high waters and food, water, and supplies can be brought in. Sometimes it fails, as happened during 2005 with Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. Sometimes it works, as seems to be happening with Sandy.

Coordinating rescue and relief among a dozen or more states is a huge effort and requires some sort of overarching support. That's exactly what the Federal government provides in disasters like this, when we are threatened by hostiles as happened on 9/11, and when disease strikes. Without a federal government we would be screwed. With a federal government, we cope.

During the not-long-ago GOP run-up debates, presidential candidate Mitt Romney was asked whether FEMA should be closed.

"Absolutely," he said. "Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction. And if you can go even further, and send it back to the private sector, that's even better. Instead of thinking, in the federal budget, what we should cut, we should ask the opposite question, what should we keep?"

"Including disaster relief, though?" debate moderator John King asked Romney.

"We cannot -- we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids," Romney replied. "It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids..."

-- Grim, 2012

Guess what? The states are doing all they can. Right now. This very minute. And when the states get overhwhelmed, the Federal government is there to help.

It's popular among Republicans to cry for the shuttering of virtually the entire national government, but of course it would be a disaster. We need our federal highways. We need the Centers for Disease Control to respond to contagion. We need uniformity and good standards for food and water quality. We need a FAA to ensure safe airways. We need courts to protect our constitutional rights. We need social welfare programs like Social Security and Medicare. And we need a military to protect us (the Republicans argue the other way on that one).

Sure, there's inefficiency in our government. Barack Obama has done a lot to reduce that, and there's a lot yet to be done. Sure, some agencies should be closed-- but we need a strong and lean federal government so states are's overwhelmed when the next 9/11 or Hurricane Sandy shows up.

As Sandy approaches and the winds outside begin to weave in the gale, I'm really happy for our federal government.


Sources

Bendery, Jennifer. (2012, 29 October). Obama: Hurricane Sandy will be "big and powerful," but we're ready. Huffington Post. Read it here.

Grim, Ryan. (2012, 28 October). Mitt Romney in GOP Debate: Shut down federal disaster agency, send responsibility to states. Huffington Post. Read it here.

12,000,000 New Jobs-- No Matter Who Wins

"Most forecasts for employment growth are very close to 12 million over the next four years regardless of who wins the presidency," Mark Zandi, chief economist with Moody's Analytics, told The Hill.

 --Needham, 2012

I've got a policy for the future and agenda for the future. And when it comes to our economy here at home, I know what it takes to create 12 million new jobs and rising take-home pay. And what we've seen over the last four years is something I don't want to see over the next four years.

 -- Mitt Romney in Third Presidential Debate, 2012

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney claimed twice in the third presidential debate (and elsewhere) that he will  create 12,00,00 jobs if elected president. He conveniently doesn't say how, but he does say he knows what it takes.

He does know what it will take-- a four-year wait.

Romney knows (but isn't telling the American public) that Moody's and other economic forecasters have predicted the addition of 12,000,000 new jobs in the next four years regardless of who is elected President.

So Romney's big promise to America that he'll create jobs? Smoke and mirrors.

Romney wants the American people to believe he knows how to create jobs. The truth is, he does't. What he does have experience with is the acquisition and exploitation of companies-- sometimes by hostile takeover-- and the maximization of profit for himself and his buddies at Bain Capitol with absolute disinterest in what happens to the workers, the company's products, and the companies themselves. Sometimes Bain's control of companies created jobs, and sometimes it caused massive job losses-- think thousands of people-- and those who were lucky enough to keep jobs were stripped of their benefits and pensions and their salaries were reduced-- but that's fodder for another post. I digress. But read here for the fates of workers at four Bain-controlled companies.

What I do want to talk about is the amazing turnaround of an economy that was absolutely going down the toilet.

Romney says he doesn't want what happened over the last four years to happen in the next four-- but what happened was a dramatic rescue of the American economy.

When Barack Obama began his term the U.S. was losing more than 600,000 jobs PER MONTH. Check out this chart:

The chart comes from CRGraphs, a respected blog about finances and economics.

Here's another chart, this one from Penisto Review. Looks familiar, doesn't it?

And here are the data turned upside down by The Sagamore Journal.

These data are a bit different because they show only job losses and not new jobs. But the stories told by the dozens of graphs I found on the internet are the same: every one shows precipitous and increasing losses during the second Bush administration and a rapid stop to those losses shortly after Barack Obama became President.

Has the American economy completely recovered? No, of course not-- it's going to be a long grind no matter who is President. But to blame President Obama for going from a loss of 500,000 jobs per month to a net job gain is madness. Nevertheless, Republicans, including Romney, are hammering him for not doing better. That is, not to put too fine a point on it, just shitty.

I should probably add that the New York Stock Exchange has made a dramatic recovery since Obama took office.

I was unable to find a Dow Jones chart that covered more recent years. It was difficult to draw the black line exactly on January 2009, but it's clear the Dow, which had dropped precipitiously during the last year of George W. Bush's presidency and was still plummeting, began a recovery shortly after Barack Obama's inauguration. The Dow fell from more than 14,000 in late 2006 to less than 7000 in late 2007, where it stood when Obama came into office. On Friday the Dow stood at 13,107.

And they say Obama's bad for business?

Let's not forget why the economy was losing those jobs in the first place. The crash came about because of an unregulated housing market that was wildly loaning money to unqualified home buyers and then spinning the mortages off as derivatives. And which party has been against and continues to argue against regulation of banks?

You guessed it.

Sources

Needham, Vicki. (2012, 2 September). Experts say economy should grow no matter who wins White House in Nov. On the Money: The Hill's Finance & Economy Blog. Read it here.

Transcript: Third presidential debate. (2012, 22 October). CNNPolitics. Read it here.

Romney: No Increase in Taxes... Ha! Gotcha!

Thanks to Cristan Williams for this.

She writes:

You know how Romney said that he didn't raise taxes? He told the truth. He didn't. Instead, he tacked on new fees (see, a fee isn't a tax) to every-damn-thing from cremation to breast exams. Here's a few of his taxes... erm... I mean... "fees."

Go here to download the entire list of more than 1000 increased fees-- or continue reading for a sampling.

The Obama Administration's Actions on Behalf of LGBT Americans

Without a doubt, President Barack Obama has been this country's most GLBT-friendly President. His opponent, Willard Mitt Romney, would most definitely not be so friendly.

Before you make your choice in the November 6 election please take a look at this article by Dana Beyer and this timeline.

Following are just a few of the LGBT-affirmative things done during Obama's first administration:

• Hosted the first-ever LGBT Pride White House reception (2009) 
• Ordered the federal government to extend key benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees (2009) 
• Awarded the Medal of Freedom (the nation's highest civilian honor) to Billie Jean King and Harvey Milk (2009) 
• Signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (2009) 
• Created a national resource center for LGBT elders (2009) 
• Banned discrimination based on gender identity in federal workplaces (2010) 
• Clarified the Family and Medical Leave Act to ensure family leave for LGBT employees (2010) 
• Allowed transgendered Americans to receive passports in true gender without having had surgery (2010) 
• Awarded a grant to the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Community Services Center to work with LGBT foster youth (2010) 
• Recorded the "It Gets Better" video and hosted first-ever White House conference on prevention of bullying (2010) 
• Declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional and announced the federal government would no longer enforce it (2010) 
• Signed repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (2011) 
• Completion of Institute of Medicine study on LBGT Health, the first of its kind (2011) 
• Issued guidelines to ensure safer working conditions for transgendered federal employees (2011) 
• Ended the Social Security Administration's "gender no-match" letters (2011) 
• Clarified the meaning of "family" to include LGBT relationships (2011) 
• Permitted military chaplains to perform same-sex marriages where legal (2011) 
• Called for equal treatment of same-sex adoptive parents (2011) 
• Announced HUD's new role protecting against housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (2012) 
• Enables searches for same-sex partner benefits on www.healthcare.gov (2012) 
• Ensured transgender Americans receive respectful care in gender of identity at Veteran's Administration facilities (2012) 
• Announced support for same-sex marriage (2012) (This also legitimizes transgender marriages) 
• Pentagon celebrates LGBT Pride for first time (2012)

One of the Presidential Candidates is a Homophobe

Mitt Romney Being a Homphobe

President Obama Addresses Human Rights Campaign Fund Members at October 2011 Dinner

An Obama administration official on Saturday confirmed the president's support for legislation that prevents the federal government from denying same-sex couples the same protections received by their straight counterparts. The same official also repeated that the president supports three ballot initiatives in separate states legalizing gay marriage, and opposes a constitutional amendment in Minnesota that would ban it.

The reiteration of the president's gay marriage plank comes at a time when neither campaign is actually litigating the issue (at least not publicly). But on Friday, the president was pressed on the matter during an interview with MTV. According to ABC News, he "demurred" when pressed as to whether he saw a federal role in advancing gay marriage during his second term. 

The full transcript of the MTV interview tells a somewhat different story. While the president did say that to "try to legislate federally in this area is probably the wrong way to go," he also noted his opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act, federal legislation that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman.

-- Stein, 2012

Mitt Romney: Homophobic Since the '60s

It seemed like a minor adjustment. To comply with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that legalized gay marriage in 2003, the state Registry of Vital Records and Statistics said it needed to revise its birth certificate forms for babies born to same-sex couples. The box for “father” would be relabeled “father or second parent,’’ reflecting the new law.

But to then-Governor Mitt Romney, who opposed child-rearing by gay couples, the proposal symbolized unacceptable changes in traditional family structures.

He rejected the Registry of Vital Records plan and insisted that his top legal staff individually review the circumstances of every birth to same-sex parents. Only after winning approval from Romney’s lawyers could hospital officials and town clerks across the state be permitted to cross out by hand the word “father’’ on individual birth certificates, and then write in “second parent,’’ in ink.

Divisions between the governor’s office and state bureaucrats over the language on the forms and details about the extraordinary effort by the Republican governor to prevent routine recording of births to gay parents are contained in state records obtained by the Globe this month.

Deliberations about the policies, including dozens of exchanges about the marriages and births of individual families, are recounted in e-mails and legal memos sent between the governor’s office and lawyers at the Department of Public Health, which oversees the Registry of Vital Records.

Romney’s insistence on scrutiny harmed the ‘integrity of the vital record-keeping system,’ one official said.

The practice of requiring high-level legal review continued for the rest of Romney’s term, despite a warning from a Department of Public Health lawyer who said such a system placed the children of same-sex parents at an unfair disadvantage.

-- Waas, 2012 

Those children would then go through life with birth certificates that marked them as strange, abnormal, less than everyone else, punished because Romney didn't approve of their parents. As a Department of Health attorney warned Romney, the children would be disadvantaged and would have trouble applying to school or getting drivers licenses as adults, particularly in a post-9/11 world where they might be considered security risks, having birth certificates that appeared altered. It was a "violation of existing statutes," the attorney warned Romney. But Romney waved off the warnings, not caring about the the legal, psychological or personal ramifications. 

-- Signorile, 2012

Boston Spirit magazine reported last month that when gay activists met with him in his office in 2004, as Romney was backing a failed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in the state, Romney remarked, "I didn't know you had families." Julie Goodridge, lead plaintiff in the landmark case that won marriage rights for gays and lesbians before the Supreme Judicial Court, asked what she should tell her 8-year-old daughter about why the governor would block the marriage of her parents. According to Goodridge, Romney responded,"I don't really care what you tell your adopted daughter. Why don't you just tell her the same thing you've been telling her the last eight years." 

-- Signorile, 2012

Not only is Romney homophobic-- his actions in Massachusetts were vicious and directed toward innocent children!

Sources

Mapes, Jeff. (2012, 26 October). Obama endorses gay marriage push in Washington, Maine. The Washington Post. Read here.

Signorile, Michael. (2012, 26 October). Romney: "Some gays are actually having children. It's not right on paper. It's not right in fact." Huffington Post. Read here.

Stein, Sam. (2012, 27 October). Obama reaffirms same-sex marriage platform as election closes. Huffington Post. Read here.

Waas, Murray. (2012, 25 October). Mitt Romney overruled new birth certificates for gay parents. Boston Globe. Read here.

People Will Look It Up

PRESIDENT OBAMA: You’ve held the floor for a while. The — look, I think anybody out there can check the record. Governor Romney, you keep on trying to, you know, airbrush history here. 

You were very clear that you would not provide government assistance to the U.S. auto companies even if they went through bankruptcy. You said that they could get it in the private marketplace. That wasn’t true. They would have gone through a — 

MR. ROMNEY: You’re wrong. You’re wrong, Mr. President. 

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I — no, I am not wrong. 

MR. ROMNEY: You’re wrong. 

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I am not wrong. And — 

MR. ROMNEY: People can look it up. You’re right. 

PRESIDENT OBAMA: People will look it up. 

MR. ROMNEY: Good.

If you read Romney's 2998 New York Times article carefully, you'll see he would use the government only to provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy private financing and to assure car buyers their investment is not at risk. So Obama's was right last night and Mitt, as usual, was wrong, and pigheaded about it.

It takes a lot of chutzpah for a man who wrote an editorial called "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" to claim he wouldn't let Detroit go bankrupt!

Mr. Romney, people are indeed "looking it up." If there is any justice in this world, you're screwed.


Sources

Dwyer, Sam. (2012, 23 October). Romney's "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" op-ed on the auto industry goes viral. BostInno. Read it here.

Romney, Mitt. (2008, 18 November). Let Detroit go bankrupt. New York Times. Read it here.

Mitt Romney Disagrees With an Auto Bailout. (2008, 20 November). KKCO 11 News. Watch here.

Romney adamantly against auto industry bailout. (2008, 20 November). Associated Press.Read here.

Stein, Sam. (2012, 23 October). Romney on auto bailout in 2008: "If you write a check, they're going to go out of business." Huffington Post. Read here.

Oh, Snap!

But I think Governor Romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works.

 You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.

And so the question is not a game of Battleship, where we're counting ships. It's what are our capabilities. And so when I sit down with the Secretary of the Navy and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we determine how are we going to be best able to meet all of our defense needs in a way that also keeps faith with our troops, that also makes sure that our veterans have the kind of support that they need when they come home. 

And that is not reflected in the kind of budget that you're putting forward because it just doesn't work.

 -- President Barack Obama, responding to Romney's claim at last night's Presidential debate that the U.S. Navy needs more ships.