Meet the new centrist Romney

[_Kevin Graham]

This is from Romney's website Bob.

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/regulation

Multiple factors contribute to America’s faltering performance. But a major part of the problem over successive presidencies, and one that the Obama administration has sharply exacerbated, is the regulatory burden on the economy. Regulations function as a hidden tax on Americans, with the federal government’s own Small Business Administration placing the price tag at $1.75 trillion annually—much higher than the entire burden of individual and corporate income taxes combined.

How did we reach this state of affairs? A look across the landscape shows that federal agencies today have near plenary power to issue whatever regulations they see fit. Though most are nominally controlled by the president, in actual practice agencies are frequently able to act autonomously with little or no presidential oversight. The end result is an economy subject to the whims of unaccountable bureaucrats pursuing their own agendas. A new regulation can suddenly transform a profitable investment into an unprofitable one or render employees unproductive. This produces uncertainty with all its attendant economic ills.

This is in line with the traditional doctrine coming from the Right Wing for decades now. Do conservatives think some regulations are good? I'm sure they do, but the overall thrust of their position is that regulations are a burden and the least involved government is, then the better our economy will be. We've been seeing how the Ayn Rand types have been deregulating the financial/banking industry with their bedrock principle being that government/regulations need to get the hell out of the way. This started with Reagan and Bush continued the tradition. I watched a documentary on Monsanto and President Bush toured their facility and said to the cameras how he is going to reduce regulations because "we're in the deregulating business."

Mitt is just continuing this tradition while at the same time playing his game of flip flop to appease everyone on both sides. He draws near to them with his lips, so to speak. But his heart is clearly aligned with the Right Wing philosophy of deregulation. This is the same guy who says his plan deals with preexisting conditions when in fact all it does is say he hopes the states will deal with them. This is the same guy who says he will not support a tax cut that adds to the deficit, while refusing to explain how his 20% across-the-board cut won't add to the deficit. You see he can say anything he wants, but if it doesn't add up, why believe him?

Romney's duplicitous behavior on this point was covered yesterday in the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... ll-street/

=================================


How a moderate Mitt Romney says he’d regulate Wall Street

Last night, Mitt Romney styled himself as a moderate centrist who would—of course—support regulating Wall Street. “There are some parts of Dodd-Frank that make all the sense in the world,” Romney said..Romney didn’t get too specific about what he liked about Dodd-Frank or his own version of financial reform. But he finally did offer one very concrete example of the kind of regulation that he would support—and presumably preserve in some form—and it would certainly put him at odds with the right flank of his party.

The problem with Dodd-Frank, Romney said, wasn’t simply that it was too much bad regulation, but that it was too vague when it came to good regulations:

Dodd-Frank correctly says we need to have qualified mortgages, and if you give a mortgage that’s not qualified, there are big penalties, except they didn’t ever go on and define what a qualified mortgage was.

It’s been two years. We don’t know what a qualified mortgage is yet. So banks are reluctant to make loans, mortgages. Try and get a mortgage these days. It’s hurt the housing market because Dodd-Frank didn’t anticipate putting in place the kinds of regulations you have to have. It’s not that Dodd-Frank always was wrong with too much regulation. Sometimes they didn’t come out with a clear regulation.

So Romney essentially came out in favor of a new provision under Dodd-Frank, the Qualified Mortgage rule, which lays down new standards that lenders can use to determine if potential homebuyers can actually pay off their mortgages. The idea is that lenders shouldn’t be offering mortgages to homebuyers who can’t actually afford them, and that potential homebuyers shouldn’t be able to take those risks either.
As such, Romney shed some new light on the kind of regulations that he would support, going well beyond the vague principles for financial reform that his economic plan laid out. Romney’s comment that the law as written isn’t specific enough and has taken too long to come out reads more as a criticism of process than substance, and it’s one that some supporters of the regulation would share as well.

But Romney also risked putting himself at odds with the banking industry and conservative Republicans he’s successfully allied himself with so far. The American Banking Association, for one, claims that the proposed qualified mortgage rule would ”dramatically harm credit availability, the viability of the mortgage lending business and the housing recovery.” Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tx.), chair of the House Republican Conference, singled out other new mortgage rules for criticism in July, declaring that the Qualified Residential Mortgage regulation “will increase mortgage interest rates by one to four percentage points, according to Moody’s Analytics”; conservatives claim it would penalize buyers by forcing them to cough up a bigger downpayment.

So it will be worth seeing whether Romney continues on this defiantly centrist course and break from the conservative orthodoxy that’s directed so much of his campaign to date. After all, Romney has repeatedly vowed to abolish the very agency that’s writing and enforcing the qualified mortgage rules—the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Would moderate Mitt agree?

=============================

In a nutshell Romney says he wants to regulate, only after he has deregulated like mad. This is like he and Ryan saying they do not plan to get rid of medicare because they'll just call their planned system "medicare" just the same. How naïve can you be man?

[_Bob Loblaw]

In a nutshell Romney says he wants to regulate, only after he has deregulated like mad. This is like he and Ryan saying they do not plan to get rid of medicare because they'll just call their planned system "medicare" just the same. How naïve can you be man?

Sure, it's a principle among us evil conservatives that excessive and burdensome regulation is a bad thing, but you seemed to be implying that conservatives do not believe in regulation at all. That's ridiculous. So is your statement that we want to gut all regulation before we do any regulating at all. Bah.

I like the "voucher" plan, actually. If I want to stick with traditional Medicare, I can. If I want to opt out of Medicare because I want something better, I can. Would it change the system? Sure, but for those who want Medicare, it's still there pretty much in its existing form. The reasoning behind the proposal is not about cutting benefits to people, but rather that a lot of people will take their vouchers elsewhere, which will reduce federal liability for healthcare. I'm interested in knowing why you think this is such a terrible idea. Who knows, you might change my mind.

[_Kevin Graham]

Sure, it's a principle among us evil conservatives that excessive and burdensome regulation is a bad thing, but you seemed to be implying that conservatives do not believe in regulation at all. That's ridiculous.

How many times have conservatives insisted that the "markets regulate themselves"? Conservative icons like Milton Friedman was notorious for his anti-regulation remarks, insisting that government needed to stay out of just about everything that involved services. For example, Milton believed the government shouldn't regulate the medical industry at all. Anyone should be able to practice as a doctor, and if you get killed in the process, well then the market will correct itself because you won't return to that doctor as a paying customer. Well, no crap you won't return, because you're dead!

The fact is you don't hear Right Wingers talking about implementing regulations. They believe that everything is already OVER regulated, so saying they believe "some" of the existing regulations are necessary is just empty talk when their overall objective is to decrease regulations because they believe government only gets in the way of things. In this instance Romney is only talking about new regulations after he strips all the current regulations, and then makes it more difficult for the federal government to impose subsequent regulations in the future.

Romney says a major contributor to America’s faltering economy has been what he views as excessive regulation.[73] He has promised to repeal the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The Act implemented Wall Street reform with goals that included "improving accountability and transparency in the financial system" and protecting consumers. Romney criticized the Act as being "overwhelming" in length, but he said that one provision, distinguishing between home mortgages and high-risk securities in terms of the capital requirements, "does make sense",[74] and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was enacted to prevent accounting scandals such had occurred with the Enron corporation, with plans to eventually replace them with more streamlined regulations.[75][76][77] He also proposes instituting measures that would make it more difficult for federal agencies to impose new regulations.[73][78]

Regarding the Occupy Wall Street protests, Mitt Romney has stated he favors growing the middle class but said blaming Wall Street bankers is the wrong way to go.[79]

Some of us see through this charade for what it really is.

So is your statement that we want to gut all regulation before we do any regulating at all. Bah.

That is what Romney wants to do. Who is this "we" you keep talking about? Are you on the ticket?

I like the "voucher" plan, actually. If I want to stick with traditional Medicare, I can. If I want to opt out of Medicare because I want something better, I can. Would it change the system? Sure, but for those who want Medicare, it's still there pretty much in its existing form. The reasoning behind the proposal is not about cutting benefits to people, but rather that a lot of people will take their vouchers elsewhere, which will reduce federal liability for healthcare. I'm interested in knowing why you think this is such a terrible idea. Who knows, you might change my mind.

And yet he refuses to be honest about what he and Ryan are planning to do, which is to phase out the current system altogether. He just prefers to call it Medicare to keep up the deception. I guess it would take a Mormon to show us that the limits of dishonesty in politics had yet to be breached. Mormon apologists must really be loving the kind of dancing Romney is doing.

[_Kevin Graham]

Oh, and about your claim that folks could still opt for traditional medicare after they implement their voucher system, that's just another baseless claim Romney makes to make people feel better.

Paul Van de Water, an economist and senior fellow at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities wrote:

Chairman Ryan claims that his proposal "ensur[es] that traditional Medicare remains an option." Unfortunately, that's not the case. Under premium support, traditional Medicare would tend to attract a less healthy pool of enrollees, while private plans would attract healthier enrollees (as occurs today with Medicare and private Medicare Advantage plans). Although the proposal calls for "risk adjusting" payments to health plans -- that is, adjusting them to reflect the average health status of their enrollees -- the risk adjustment process is highly imperfect and captures only part of the differences in costs across plans that stem from differences in the health of enrollees.

Inadequate risk adjustment would mean that traditional Medicare would be only partially compensated for its higher-cost enrollees, which would force Medicare to raise beneficiary premiums to make up the difference. The higher premiums would lead more of Medicare's healthier enrollees to abandon it for private plans, very possibly setting off a spiral of rising premium costs and falling enrollment for traditional Medicare. Over time, traditional Medicare would become less financially viable and could unravel -- not because it was less efficient than the private plans, but because it was competing on an unlevel playing field in which private plans captured the healthier beneficiaries and incurred lower costs as a result. Ryan also would allow private plans to tailor their benefit packages to attract healthier beneficiaries and deter sicker ones, which only makes this outcome more likely. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/28/12]

Brookings Institute senior fellow Henry Aaron:

The claim that the Ryan plan leaves American's over age 55 unaffected is untrue because it is likely to raise the amount they have to pay out-of-pocket for insurance. The reason is technical, but easy to understand. The premium for those who stay in traditional Medicare under the Ryan plan would be calculated as under current law, but the average cost of serving those who remain in traditional Medicare would go up as private insurance companies market selectively to those with relatively low anticipated costs.

The average cost of those who remain in traditional Medicare would therefore increase. As a result of this gap, the financing for traditional Medicare would become progressively less adequate, throwing into doubt the very survival of the program. [Brookings Institute, 8/20/12]

[_Bob Loblaw]

How many times have conservatives insisted that the "markets regulate themselves"? Conservative icons like Milton Friedman was notorious for his anti-regulation remarks, insisting that government needed to stay out of just about everything that involved services. For example, Milton believed the government shouldn't regulate the medical industry at all. Anyone should be able to practice as a doctor, and if you get killed in the process, well then the market will correct itself because you won't return to that doctor as a paying customer. Well, no s*** you won't return, because you're dead!

I do not know a single conservative who believes in eliminating all regulations and letting the "markets regulate themselves." Not one.

The fact is you don't hear Right Wingers talking about implementing regulations. They believe that everything is already OVER regulated, so saying they believe "some" of the existing regulations are necessary is just empty talk when their overall objective is to decrease regulations because they believe government only gets in the way of things. In this instance Romney is only talking about new regulations after he strips all the current regulations, and then makes it more difficult for the federal government to impose subsequent regulations in the future.

I think we're overregulated, but more importantly a lot of the regulation makes no sense and does nothing to solve the problems it was intended to solve. I think that's true of Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank. Do we need transparency and regulation of business and banking? Of course, but regulation for the sake of regulation is pointless. And I think Dodd-Frank was gutted and distorted by the finance industry such that it doesn't actually do much but protect the larger banks.

Romney says a major contributor to America’s faltering economy has been what he views as excessive regulation.[73] He has promised to repeal the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The Act implemented Wall Street reform with goals that included "improving accountability and transparency in the financial system" and protecting consumers. Romney criticized the Act as being "overwhelming" in length, but he said that one provision, distinguishing between home mortgages and high-risk securities in terms of the capital requirements, "does make sense",[74] and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was enacted to prevent accounting scandals such had occurred with the Enron corporation, with plans to eventually replace them with more streamlined regulations.[75][76][77] He also proposes instituting measures that would make it more difficult for federal agencies to impose new regulations.[73][78]

Regarding the Occupy Wall Street protests, Mitt Romney has stated he favors growing the middle class but said blaming Wall Street bankers is the wrong way to go.[79]

Just out of curiosity, what is the source of that quote? I don't know where this idea came from that all regulation is good, and all deregulation is bad. Some regulation is terrible and does real damage, as is some deregulation. This notion that we conservatives want to eliminate all government regulation is as silly as the notion that Obama wants to turn our country into a socialist state.

Some of us see through this charade for what it really is.

And some of us recognize political caricature when we see it.

That is what Romney wants to do. Who is this "we" you keep talking about? Are you on the ticket?

I'm probably more conservative than Romney is, but I'd like to see where he's said he wants to deregulate everything before implementing any regulations.

And yet he refuses to be honest about what he and Ryan are planning to do, which is to phase out the current system altogether. He just prefers to call it Medicare to keep up the deception. I guess it would take a Mormon to show us that the limits of dishonesty in politics had yet to be breached. Mormon apologists must really be loving the kind of dancing Romney is doing.

So, your objection is that the system is changing? Again, please explain why allowing seniors to stick with Medicare or opt out is a bad idea. If it's so terrible, I'm ready to change my mind. The Obama campaign has dishonestly claimed that Romney would force all seniors off Medicare and put them at the mercy of private insurance companies. You have no problem with that, and yet you're outraged that they won't say they want to kill Medicare (which they don't).

And since you've already responded, the Ryan plan is not the Romney plan. In fact, a lot of conservatives wondered if Ryan would accept the VP spot because it would mean backing off on a lot of his proposals.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Oh, and about your claim that folks could still opt for traditional medicare after they implement their voucher system, that's just another baseless claim Romney makes to make people feel better.

Right. This is directly from the Romney Medicare plan on his campaign web site:

“Traditional” fee-for-service Medicare will be offered by the government as an insurance plan, meaning that seniors can purchase that form of coverage if they prefer it.

No matter what you insist, Romney's plan is not the same as Ryan's proposals. Ryan's plan completely relies on private insurance, whereas Romney's retains traditional Medicare coverage as an option for seniors.