Likely 2012 presidential contender Mitt Romney has some harsh words for the compromise in a USA Today op-ed:
Death and taxes, it is said, are life’s only two certainties. But in the wake of President Obama’s tax compromise with congressional Republicans, only death retains the status of certainty: The future for taxes has been left up in the air. And uncertainty is not a friend of investment, growth and job creation.
The deal has several key features. It reduces payroll taxes, extends unemployment benefits and keeps current tax rates intact. So far, so good. But intermixed with the benefits are considerable costs of consequence. Given the unambiguous message that the American people sent to Washington in November, it is difficult to understand how our political leaders could have reached such a disappointing agreement. The new, more conservative Congress should reach a better solution. …
What some are calling a grand compromise is not grand at all, except in its price tag. The total package will cost nearly $1 trillion, resulting in substantial new borrowing at a time when we are already drowning in red ink.
Read the whole piece here.
This is the first time in a long time I have seen Mitt leap in and issue a strong statement that I agree with. However, I have to wonder: is he really standing up for his principles, or is this a calculated communication to appeal to conservative primary voters? I remain skeptical.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhile I agree with Mitt here, I cant help but to picture him, sitting at a computer, chomping at the bit, dotting i's, crossing t's, and waiting to hit the send button before Palin does.
If YouTube is any guide, we'll get another statement from him to the contrary before November 2012.
Nice words, but without principles, its hard to stand up for them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm curious what tax rates Romney would consider ideal. Simply saying "lower taxes" without articulating what he ultimately wants them lowered *to* verges on demagoguery.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think that Mitt really is a true conservative at his core, but he triangulated to govern in Massachusetts, and he'll never overcome that. Too bad.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSO is he in favor of the tax cuts or not? Because the biggest portion of the 'costs' is tax cuts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is typical wishy-washy Mitt. Endorses the three basic components, condemns the costs, and never actually says whether he'd vote for it if he was in Congress. He also never points to any actual "cost" of the plan that he thinks should have been omitted. Reforming the unemployment benefits, trimming the employer's share of FICA, and making the tax rates permanent are all fine ideas, but none appear likely to reduce the "cost" of the program to the government.
So if this compromise is popular a year from now, Romney can point to this piece to show he supported its key components. If it's unpopular, he'll point to it to say he spoke out against it. It's carefully worded to serve either purpose.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, if Mitt believes the deal "will cost nearly $1 trillion," then it's clear Mitt believes that letting us keep the dollars we earn is a "cost" to the federal government. That is, cutting taxes "costs" the federal government money. That is not conservative thinking. He would like to raise taxes to pay for whatever spending the Democrats can get through.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm with gullyborg - "contrived" and "skeptical" hit me just about right.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMitt needs to keep his word hole shut. Look at his history as MA governor and you see betrayal of principle after betrayal of principle after betrayal of principle. Compromise and appeasement were his modi operandi. Now he's pretending he's some sort of principled conservative for one obvious reason.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWOW! Mitt writes an op-ed the day the Senate votes. Must have gotten tired of holding that finger up to the wind.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe choice isn't between this deal and a better deal early in 2011 during the next Congress. It's between this deal on the one hand, and on the other, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts plus the return of the entire death tax at year-end.
Would a better, different deal be on the table and achievable in early 2011? No one can be sure of that. So certainly no one can be sure that the delta between the current deal and that (hypothetical) 2011 one would more than make up for the absolutely certain damage that will be inflicted on the economy if the Bush tax cuts actually are permitted to expire, whether that turns out to be for a day, a week, or (vastly more likely) a few weeks and even perhaps months.
People who rail against this deal don't recognize the true value of certainty in matters economic. There are billions in capital waiting out there to exhale, and this deal will permit that. Thus can the government "create jobs" -- i.e., quit mucking things up so that the private sector can create jobs.
Want to complain about Republicans who made a bad decision that compromised core principles? Blame everyone who agreed -- at a time when the GOP controlled both chambers and the WH -- to accept time limits on the Bush tax cuts and repeal of the death tax back when those were passed. "2011," they said, "that's forever in politics and surely long before then some future Congress will have extended these cuts." The Dems suckered them with a long-acting poison.
No, the answer is to do this deal for now, and then in 2013 -- after a full political cycle, when conservatives have recaptured the WH -- make these income tax rates and the abolition of the death tax permanent (i.e., not expiring of their own accord, and thus as permanent as any mere statute can be).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI was ready to blast Romney for this but found that so many others have commented and said what I wanted to say. I am impressed with the quality of the commentators on this site. Perhaps it is the math question. Anyway, there are certain politicians in my own party that I wish would just retire: Romney and Huckabee are at the top of the list.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusegullyborg...I vote for:
b) "...a calculated communication to appeal to conservative primary voters..."
Has this Mitt fellow ever put out anything else?
JohnG...you underestimate The Mitt...only 1 more statement? Heck no...expect at least 5 or 6 more statements contradicting *and* reinforcing this one prior to and during the primary season. Check your national weather forecast for prevailing wind direction. :-)
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"a calculated communication to appeal to conservative primary voters"
Yes. Mitt's statement is almost audacious in its cynicism. I voted for Mitt for Governor of MA (and Senate), and am glad that I did, but I DO NOT WANT a president who bases an Op/Ed on what his pollsters tell him ideologically pure primary voters want, rather than what tax deal he can actually achieve in 2010. Mitt is being grossly irresponsible and pandering - and that's not what good leaders do. Mitt would really rather have the uncertainty of a tax increase because the GOP held out for even more from Obama? Really?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse