Some of the new ads Mitt Romney is running are so vile and over the top that I will not serve them by adding to their YouTube hit count.
Category Archives: Mitt Romney
Krauthammer: Romney Simply Doesn’t Have The Capacity To Explain Conservative Ideas
Hawkins: Conservatives Will Have to Sell Their Souls if Romney Wins
Townhall.com John Hawkins:
If you were trying to come up with the most atrocious candidate imaginable to go toe-to-toe with Barack Obama in 2012, you couldn’t do much better than Mitt Romney. He was an unpopular moderate governor who lost 2 out of the 3 major elections he’s run in and whose signature issue Romneycare is an enormous failure. Moreover, he’s so uninspiring that he makes Bob Dole look like Ronald Reagan and that’s before you consider his incessant flip-flopping that makes it impossible to really know where he stands on any issue.
Romney’s candidacy also runs counter to almost every political trend in the book right now. He’s the antithesis of everything the Tea Party stands for — a moderate establishment-endorsed, principle-free Rockefeller Republican. On the other hand, he’s like a bad guy straight out of central casting for the Occupy Wall Street crowd, a conscience-free 1 percenter who makes $10,000 bets and lectures the public about how corporations are people — while hordes of poor and middle class Americans that he fired trail in his wake telling tales of woe about how Romney made their lives into a living hell.
At one time, I thought both Gingrich and Perry were more electable than Romney. I have, however, reassessed and now believe Gingrich, Perry, Santorum, and even Huntsman, who just left the race, are ALL more electable than Mitt. It’s also worth noting that all of those candidates, including Huntsman, are more conservative than Romney. It’s mind-boggling to consider the fact that if Romney wins, the conservative base will have chosen the guy behind Romneycare over the man behind the Contract with America, America’s premier social conservative, and the best job-creating governor in America, all of whom would also be more electable.
Here we are in what may be, forgive me for the cliché, the most important election of our lifetimes and the GOP may end up choosing a candidate who’s one part Charlie Crist and one part John Kerry as our nominee.
Read more HERE.
Nancy Pelosi: GOP knows Mitt Romney can’t win
“If the far right thought that Romney could win, they might be more enthusiastic about him,” Pelosi told POLITICO’s Mike Allen during Tuesday’s Playbook Breakfast. “But they question what he stands for and they don’t think he’s going to win. So what’s the sell? I’m not sure he knows what he stands for, and that makes it harder too.”
“I don’t know who knows him,” she added of Romney. “Does he know him?”
Video HERE.
Conservative Columnists Piling On: Romney Weak vs. Obama
Since I wrote this little blog post the other day, picked up at Real Clear Politics, all of a sudden (by coincidence; I’m not claiming I had anything to do with it, but just am remarking on how rapidly the ‘meme’ has taken off) all sorts of people are suddenly realizing that Mitt Romney is hardly the candidate with the best chance to beat Barack Obama.
It certainly isn’t all at the Center for Individual Freedom, but we did have a written colloquy on the subject the other day, with Troy Senik and Ashton Ellis insightfully joining me in weighing in. Actually, Jonathan Last made the case earlier, here. Tina Korbe, a rising star, argues the same thing at Hot Air. Phil Klein at the Washington Examiner makes the case that Romney’s flip-flopping is a big liability in a general election (as it was for Al Gore and to a certain extent John Kerry). Back in late December, John Hawkins at Right Wing News also argued the situation quite well. Of course, Peter Ferrara made the case right here at the Spectator, although he also segued into (strong) arguments against Romney’s ability to do a good job if he were elected anyway. William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection also has questions.
The scholarly take on it, again doubting Romney’s electability, was by Larry Lindsey at theWeekly Standard. From the center-left, the very smart former U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) thinks his (former) party doesn’t have much to worry about from Romney: “The fact, however, is that Democrats have not had to strain to plan the race they would run against Romney. For four days in the week, they will paint him as a flip-flopper who has occupied both sides of a lot of ground; for three days, as an entitled tool of corporate interests who made millions doling out pink slips on behalf of a shadowy management firm.” Also at NRO, Andy McCarthy doubtswhether we can know who is more electable.
At the New York Post, John Podhoretz writes a piece about Romney headlined “Never Has a Winner Looked so Beaten.” The column is brutal. It calls Romney “one of the weakest major candidates either party has ever seen.” Also: “[N]obody loves him. No one is inspired by him.… Claiming he should be president because he knows how to run a business may be the least stirring message any candidate has seized upon since Michael Dukakis foundered in 1988 by claiming he could bring ‘competence’ to the White House. And his liabilities are undeniable.
More…..
And Jonah Goldberg writes that Romney’s “authentic inauthenticity problem isn’t going away.”
I see, first, a candidate who “fails to inspire.” This is hugely important. It’s the old Dole/McCain/Bush 41 thing again: Without energizing one’s base, it doesn’t matter if you can get a few extra percentage points from “swing” voters (even assuming it’s true that those extra few points are achievable — which is probably not true anyway, because if you aren’t inspirational, you aren’t inspirational, period, meaning you don’t inspire the middle either). It’s also true that millions of voters really can decide to stay home; remember that Karl Rove estimated that up to 4 million expected Evangelical Bush backers stayed home in 2000
Read on HERE.
K.L. South: Romney’s behavior at Bain is a question of character, not capitalism.
K.L. South writes in the famed Furthermore Blog that the issue with Mitt Romney’s behavior at Bain is a question of character, not capitalism:
There is a huge difference between capitalism and ‘predatory capitalism’ or ‘corporate raiding’. The latter is more of a chop-shop mentality of ‘creative destruction.’ It is still a form of capitalism, sure, even if not held in high regard. That is not the issue. And, I agree most capitalism is moral… the problem is that people defend ALL OF IT equally. You cannot. But, the court of public opinion doesn’t do nuance very well.
No rational person would defend ALL matters of transportation equally; drunk driving, car hijackings, exploits of TSA agents in airports; are abusive or exploitative practices. As is a car salesman who knowingly sells you a lemon where the car will predictably break down 6 months later. Hereto, it is a free market transaction, right? It is capitalism, too.
More…
Mitt Romney has been a rank opportunist throughout his political career. Mitt Romney was a clever money-making opportunist throughout his business career. The leveraged buyout business, which does not have to be an evil business, is a business that is ripe for heartless exploitation of vulnerable companies and individuals.
More…
What about Romney benefiting from a $10 million federal bailout and pocketing $4 million dollars directly? It’s not difficult to understand why Romney is not against federal bailouts, having been the beneficiary of them. Perhaps Romney should explain to us how TARP and federal bailouts are free-market capitalism? Romney’s main accomplishment in his one term as governor was RomneyCare, which openly funded abortions for a $50 co-pay. Do Romney supporters call that capitalism too?
Bain defunded pension funds and kept the money – when companies went bankrupt, the pensions had to be paid out of ERISA – government insurance – paid for by those of us who pay taxes. A federal government insurance agency ponied up $44 million to bailout one of Bain Company’s underfunded pension plan. Nevertheless, Bain profited on the deal, receiving $12 million on its $8 million initial investment and at least $4.5 million in consulting fees.
While at Bain, and as Governor, Romney showed an example of the government stepping into the marketplace, picking winners and losers, providing profits to business owners and leaving taxpayers stuck with the bill. Romney’s Bain made avid use of public-private partnerships, something that many conservatives consider being “corporate welfare.” It is a commitment that carried over into his term as governor. Bain Capital has been a corporate welfare hog under Romney’s tenure and beyond. If one can make millions of dollars whether a company succeeds or fails then where is the risk-taking Romney speaks of so fondly?
Bain, at times, pursued a practice of socializing their losses to banks and pension insurers while privatizing their gains in the same kind of Wall Street practice that led to the mortgage crisis. They leveraged government assistance to boost profits. Is it anti-capitalist to ask if an average worker is an expendable line on a spreadsheet as that worker’s tax dollars were needed to bailout Bain and financiers? And let’s note; as a supporter of the TARP Wall Street bailout, Romney’s “creative destruction” applied only to Main Street, not Wall Street.
And this just scratches the surface folks. Read on at Furthermore…
William Cohen: When Romney ran Bain Capital, his word was not his bond
Fortune Magazine’s William Cohen is someone that this editor has always respected. He is all about the free market tempered with personal restraint and personal responsibility, which is one of the themes of this very web site.
Read this carefully….
William D. Cohan in the Washington Post:
Yet, there is another version of the Bain way that I experienced personally during my 17 years as a deal-adviser on Wall Street: Seemingly alone among private-equity firms, Romney’s Bain Capital was a master at bait-and-switching Wall Street bankers to get its hands on the companies that provided the raw material for its financial alchemy. Other private-equity firms I worked with extensively over the years — Forstmann Little, KKR, TPG and the Carlyle Group, among them — never dared attempt the audacious strategy that Bain partners employed with great alacrity and little shame. Call it the real Bain way.
Here’s how it worked. Private-equity firms are always eager to find companies to buy, allowing them to invest chunks of the billions of dollars entrusted to them and from which they earn hundreds of millions in fees. One ready source of these businesses is Wall Street bankers hired to sell companies through private auctions. The good news is that when a banker puts together a detailed selling memorandum about a company, chances are very high that company will be sold; the bad news is that these private auctions tend to be very competitive, and the winning bidder, by definition, is most often the one willing to pay the most. By paying the highest price, you win the company, but you also may reduce the returns you can generate for your investors.
By bidding high early, Bain would win a coveted spot in the later rounds of the auction, when greater information about the company for sale is shared and the number of competitors is reduced. (A banker and his client generally allow only the potential buyers with the highest bids into the later rounds; after all, you can’t have an endless procession of Savile Row-suited businessmen traipsing through a manufacturing plant if you want to keep a possible sale under wraps.)
For buyers, the goal in these auctions is to be one of the few selected to inspect the company’s facilities and books on-site, in order to make a final and supposedly binding bid. Generally, the prospective buyer with the highest bid after the on-site due-diligence visit is selected by the client — in consultation with his or her banker — to negotiate a final agreement to buy the company.
This is the moment when Bain Capital would become especially crafty. In my experience — which I heard echoed often by my colleagues around Wall Street — Bain would seek to be the highest bidder at the end of the formal process in order to be the firm selected to negotiate alone with the seller, putting itself in the exclusive, competition-free zone. Then, when all other competitors had been essentially vanquished and the purchase contract was under negotiation, Bain would suddenly begin finding all sorts of warts, bruises and faults with the company being sold. Soon enough, that near-final Bain bid — the one that got the firm into its exclusive negotiating position — would begin to fall, often significantly.
Of course, some haggling over price is typical in any sale, and not everything represented by sellers and their bankers is found to be accurate under close examination. But Bain Capital took the art of negotiation over price into the scientific realm. Once the competitive dynamics had shifted definitively in its favor, the firm’s genuine views about what it was willing to pay — often far lower than first indicated — would be revealed.
[This is what we call negotiating in bad faith. It is wrong and in other contexts (such as insurance for example) would be illegal – Editor]
At such a late date, of course, the seller is more than a little pregnant with the buyer. Attempting to pivot and find a new buyer — which knew it had not been selected in the first place, but was now being called back — would be devastating to the carefully constructed process designed to generate the highest price. Once Bain’s real thoughts about the price were revealed, the seller either had to suck it up and accept the lower price, or negotiate with a new buyer, but with far less leverage.
Needless to say, this does not make for a very happy client (or a happy banker). By the end of my days on Wall Street in 2004, I found the real Bain way so counterproductive that I no longer included Bain Capital on my buyer’s lists of private-equity firms for a company I was selling.
The real Bain way may be nothing more than a clever tactic to eliminate competition from a heated auction in order to buy a business at an attractive price. After all, Bain Capital is seeking the highest returns for its investors. But Bain’s behavior also reveals something about the values it brings to bear in a process that requires honor and character to work properly. If a firm’s word is not worth the paper it is printed on, then its reputation for bad behavior will impair its ability to function in an honorable and productive way.
Huckabee: Mitt has tried to become the nominee by destroying the people around him….
Huckabee in 2008: “McCain and me. We’ve been on the receiving end of millions of dollars of Mitt Romney’s negative attack ads. So we understand that Mitts tried to become the nominee by destroying the people around him.”
Santorum: Romney’s Super PAC is lying about me too…
See the video HERE.
Rick Santorum:
I did vote in the United States Senate that someone who was a felon, who served their time, came out of jail, had served their parole and probation, and after all of that sentencing, then they could go out and have their voting rights renewed. Which by the way is the exact law that’s in South Carolina.
Now Governor Romney has taken that and said ‘Rick Santorum is for felons voting.’ Now that is a lie! … And so to go out and mislead the people of South Carolina as to what our record is on this is just, YUCK!
I expect that from Barak Obama. I don’t expect that from a Republican running for president. We’re better than that!
John Kass: Barack Obama wins in ’12
Conservative columnist John Kass from the Chicago Tribune gives a grim reality check to the current campaign…
As the Republican presidential candidates and their mouthpieces prattle on the TV from sunny South Carolina, I look up from the screen and out the window and sigh, a conservative heretic at rest, staring at all that cold Midwestern snow.
There’s a yellowed sketch tacked to the wall of my work space, a cowboy Ronald Reagan smiling in eternal optimism. And on a bookshelf is a dusty, dog-eared copy of Russell Kirk’s “The Conservative Mind.”
Surrounded as I am by such dry artifacts of forgotten times, I sometimes wonder why I keep them. It could be self-mockery, or something like the way an amputee decides to keep the unused boot in the closet, out of sight, but near.
And still, I can’t ditch this feeling that I might be boiled in oil for the heresy I’m about to spout:
President Barack Obama will win re-election in 2012.
The reason he’ll win?
He knows who he is. And the Republican politicians don’t know who they are. They’ve forgotten what they’re about, or perhaps like some isolated tribe, they’ve lost the language necessary to explain it to themselves.
Their voters know this and don’t really believe them anymore.
And that’s why Obama will win.
And the Republican establishment that seeks to unseat him?
Their guy Mitt Romney calls himself a conservative. But he’s really a John Kerry in Republican clothing, right down to the phony laugh, and his past flips and flops will haunt him in defeat.
Shouldn’t the Romney types form their own party and call themselves the Corporatists? They’re often mistakenly called “pro-business moderates” by news organizations, but that’s not quite accurate.
For all the rhetoric about opposing regulation on business, they’re not opposed to those regulations that crush their competitors.
But do they know why their party is adrift? Can they even articulate the problem? I doubt it.
What’s bothersome is that I disagree with almost every single Obama policy, often vehemently, because what he’s doing amounts to feeding handfuls of steroids to the federal leviathan gorging on our individual rights and freedoms.
But being anti-Obama isn’t enough to vote him out. Republican voters have to believe, and I don’t think they do. They see the game unfolding. And they don’t want to be suckers again.
Another reason not to believe tonight… Huntsman endorses Romney after trashing him for months….
Huntsman endorses Romney after trashing him for months….
After trashing Mitt Romney as a serial flip flipper who changes his stance week to week in a long series of ads and campaign videos John Huntsman is set to endorse Mitt Romney tomorrow.
Jon Huntsman will drop out of the Republican presidential race on Monday, a campaign spokesman told ABC News.
Huntsman spokesman Tim Miller said the former ambassador to China and Utah Governor was “proud of the race that he ran” but “did not want to stand in the way” of rival Mitt Romney, the current front-runner for the Republican nomination.
Huntsman plans to endorse Romney at an 11 a.m. press conference Monday in Myrtle Beach, SC.
After a disappointing third place finish in New Hampshire – a contest on which he had staked his candidacy – Huntsman vowed to fight on. In his concession speech in New Hampshire, he told his supporters: “I say third place is a ticket to ride, ladies and gentleman! Hello, South Carolina!”
But just six days from the South Carolina primary, Huntsman has said goodbye to the Palmetto state after all.
While Huntsman will be throwing his support to Romney on Monday, it was only a week ago that he told ABC’s John Berman just the opposite.
When asked if he trusts Governor Romney, Huntsman replied, “He has not put forth reason to give us a reason for us to trust him.”
Poll citing 21 point Romney lead in SC is bogus…
I just saw the Reuters poll showing Mitt Romney with a 21 point lead in South Carolina.
The poll is a joke for two reasons
1- Because half of the sample were Democrats. Why would you poll Democrats about a REPUBLICAN primary??? (Answer: to reflect the candidate the media wants to run against Obama.)
2- The sample was merely “registered voters” and not “likely voters” which skews the sample to the left. Since “Motor Voter” almost every non-voting Joe is registered to vote.
Democrats: Romney’s job creation claims are fundamentally dishonest
The Democrats are already jumping on the Romney/Bain bandwagon. While these critiques are not totally fair they will have an impact.
Reuters has a firsthand example of this. Today’s special report chronicles the story of GS Technologies in Kansas City, Missouri, a steel mill that had been in business since 1888—and for decades was a major local employer. The mill work was hard, but the wages were fair, and the mill lifted “countless families into the middle class,” allowing them to buy homes, cars, and college educations.
That is, until Bain showed up.
“Less than a decade later, the mill was padlocked and some 750 people lost their jobs. Workers were denied the severance pay and health insurance they’d been promised, and their pension benefits were cut by as much as $400 a month. What’s more, a federal government insurance agency had to pony up $44 million to bail out the company’s underfunded pension plan. Nevertheless, Bain profited on the deal, receiving $12 million on its $8 million initial investment and at least $4.5 million in consulting fees.”
That’s right. The man who denounced President Bush’s bank bailouts in 2008 and President Obama’s successful rescue of the auto industry relied on a federal bailout to profit off a bankrupt company.
Mitt Romney has made the central argument of his candidacy the fact that he has been a private-sector job creator—to the tune of 100,000 jobs.
That is fundamentally dishonest—and it’s a slap in the face to those who have lost their livelihoods to Mitt Romney’s profiteering ways.
In Defense of Private Capital
A solid piece by Tamara de Silva HERE.
The Atlantic: Is Private Equity Bad For the Economy?
For another valid view on private equity firms, Jordan Wiessmann has an excellent column where he asks:
Do private equity buyouts hurt workers?
Yes, then no. More workers get fired in the aftermath. Then more get hired.Do private equity firms drive companies into bankruptcy?
The data isn’t complete, but some indicators say no.
Does private equity make the whole economy more efficient?
Possibly. Industries with lots of private equity activity actually see faster growth.
Limbaugh: Romney attacks people more conservative than he is for not being conservative enough
Rush also makes a another stellar point: If you let people make a profit you would never need TARP
The Truth About RomneyCare
Why is it that Mitt won’t talk about the whole story on RomneyCare. Keep in mind that this is the policy he refuses to walk away from… price controls and all…..
PJ Media Paul Hsieh, MD:
Now that Mitt Romney has shown himself politically vulnerable after Iowa, more people are taking a closer look at his claims about the “RomneyCare” health care plan he helped create as Massachusetts governor. In this interview from April 2010 which recently recirculated last month, Romney attempts to draw some distinctions (as well as acknowledge similarities) between his RomneyCare plan and the national ObamaCare plan. One of the alleged virtues of RomneyCare over ObamaCare is that Romney’s plan does not contain “price controls,” whereas ObamaCare does. But how does this stack up against reality?
Romney’s claim may have been technically true at the time the plan was enacted. But according to the New York Times, this was a deliberate choice on the part of Romney and the Massachusetts lawmakers when they passed the law in 2006. They aimed for “universal coverage” first, and decided to worry about controlling costs later. In other words, they knew that costs would be a problem but chose to kick the can down the road. It’s like borrowing money from a loan shark then saying, “At least I don’t owe him any money right now!”
But even before Romney’s 2010 claims, the state had already implemented some price controls. As Michael Tennant notes, “Requiring insurers to cover those with pre-existing conditions at the same rates as healthy individuals – another feature of the Massachusetts law that Romney praises — surely qualifies as a price control.”
Similarly, requiring insurance companies to provide numerous mandatory benefits (including lay midwives, orthotics, and drug-abuse treatment) and then denying insurers’ requests for rate increases to cover their increased costs is another form of price control.
Yet another price control considered (but ultimately not implemented) was a proposal to compel doctors to accept patients covered by the state’s “Affordable Health Plans” at government-set payment rates or else lose their state medical licenses.
And because costs continue to rise faster in Massachusetts than in the rest of the country….
Read the rest HERE.
CBS: Romney not polling well with Tea Party, low income men, independents.
Translation – the parts of the GOP base that want/need/demand policy results don’t trust Mitt Romney to deliver. As Romney supporters Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham said; the more that Romney is pressured and the closer he gets to the general election the more to the left he will go.
CBS:
Tea Partiers Can’t Stand Him
To this point, though, the Tea Party movement has wanted nothing to do with Romney. Judson Phillips, the founder of Tea Party Nation, endorsed Newt Gingrich. The Tea Party Fund created a website – NotMittRomney.com – to inform voter’s of his liberal positions on key issues. And, Karen Martin, South Carolina Tea Party organizer said on National Public Radio recently that “no Tea Partier that I talk to in the state or nationally would want to promote Romney.”
In the Iowa caucuses, Romney finished tied for fourth among strong supporters of the Tea Party movement, 14 points back of Rick Santorum. In New Hampshire, although he won a plurality of the vote among Republicans who strongly back the movement, he received noticeably less support than he did from Republicans who were less supportive of the movement.
Low Income Men Can’t Relate to Him
Low income, white men have long been an important part of the Republican base. Romney, though, has alienated many of them with comments during the campaign that were perceived as being insensitive. At a debate last month in Iowa, he tried to make a $10,000 wager with Rick Perry over how his health care plan was characterized in his book. This past week, he commented that he liked to “fire people” that provide services to him.
These gaffes are showing their impact at the polls. In the past two contests, Romney has done poorly among low income, white men. In the Iowa caucuses, he received less than 15 percent of their support. In the supposedly friendly confines of New Hampshire he did not fare much better. He received only 27 percent of the vote from low income, white men in New Hampshire, trailing Ron Paul by 11 points.
Independents Don’t Support Him
Self-identified independents are a key swing group in presidential elections. Winning their support doesn’t ensure electoral success, but losing it by a wide margin almost guarantees defeat. In 2008, Barack Obama defeated John McCain among independents 52 percent to 44 percent on his way to winning the presidency.
Despite all his success in the nomination campaign, Romney has been unable to attract much support from independents. In Iowa, Paul crushed Romney among self-identified independents, besting him 43 percent to 19 percent. Things improved in New Hampshire, but on a night, in which Romney won most demographic groups, he managed to lose independents again. Paul beat Romney 32 percent to 29 percent.
Romney’s weakness among independents appears to stem from views about how to solve the federal budget deficit, likely to be a major issue in the fall campaign. Among independent voters in the New Hampshire GOP primary who thought the deficit was the most important issue, they supported Paul over Romney by a whopping 48 percent to 23 percent margin.
American Spectator: RINO Romney Is the Least Electable
Long History of Rejecting Conservatism
Romney assured Massachusetts voters when he was running for the Senate in 1994 that he did not want to go back to Reaganomics. He said during that campaign, “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”
Romney was also one of the few Republicans in 1994 to refuse to sign on to Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America. He said during that campaign, “In my view, it is not a good idea to go into a contract, like what was organized by the Republican Party in Washington, laying out a whole series of things that the party says ‘these are the things we are going to do.’ I think that’s a mistake.” That mistake led to an historic Republican takeover of Congress in 1994. But Romney was one of the few Republicans to lose that year.
True to form, even today Romney is effectively promising not to take America back to pro-growth Reaganomics. Cowed by President Obama’s class warfare rhetoric, Romney promises to eliminate taxes on capital gains, interest, and dividends, but only for middle income Americans. He says he would do that because they, not the wealthy, were the ones most hurt by the recession.
But effective tax policy does not distribute tax cuts based on who “needs” a tax cut the most. That is Obama neo-socialist class rhetoric. Effective tax policy enacts tax cuts that will do the most to promote economic growth and prosperity.
That is what Reagan did in cutting tax rates across the board for everybody, including the wealthy who have the most resources to invest. That is what the middle class and working people actually need most, cutting tax rates that will promote their jobs, higher wages, and personal prosperity.
Read the rest HERE.
You paid the high cost of RomneyCare in Massachusetts….
This study from the Beacon Hill (Economics) Institute at Suffolk University illuminates the disastrous results of the failed experiment known as RomneyCare and yet presidential candidate Mitt Romney continues to stand by the program.
Here are the key findings from the Beacon Hill study:
The High Price of Massachusetts Health Care Reform
http://www.beaconhill.org/BHIStudies/HCR-2011/BHIMassHealthCareReform2011-0627.pdf
We find that, under health care reform:
• State health care expenditures have risen by $414 million over the period;
• Private health insurance costs have risen by $4.311 billion over the period;
• The federal government has spent an additional $2.418 billion on Medicaid for Massachusetts.
• Over this period, Medicare expenditures increased by $1.426 billion;
• For a total cumulative cost of $8.569 billion over the period; and
• The state has been able to shift the majority of the costs to the federal government.
The federal government continues to absorb a significant cost of health care reform through enhanced Medicaid payments and the Medicare program. Health care reform has also increased the rate for Medicare Advantage plans in Massachusetts, which has contributed to an increase in Medicare health care expenditures through prices for medical service delivery.
This is not defendable.
It gets worse. The Beacon Hill Institute did a fraud study to determine how the RomneyCare system is being “gamed”:
Massachusetts Health Care Reform Mandates: The Gaming Gamble
http://www.beaconhill.org/BHIStudies/HCR-2011/GamingMandates2011-1128.pdf
The law requires that individuals with sufficient means purchase health insurance and that businesses with more than ten employees make a “fair and reasonable” contribution toward their employees’ health insurance. Under the law, health insurance companies cannot refuse to cover individuals with preexisting conditions. Individuals and businesses face fines if they fail to comply with the mandates.
Because the fines imposed by the law cost are often less than the cost of insurance, the law is vulnerable to the problem of moral hazard.
Individuals can game the mandate by buying insurance only upon being diagnosed as needing a non‐emergency procedure such as a hip replacement and then canceling their insurance after receiving the treatment or procedure. Businesses can likewise game the mandate by canceling their health insurance plans and shifting their employees to newly subsidized state plans. Massachusetts taxpayers and health insurance policyholders pick up the tab for these “jumpers and dumpers.”
The Beacon Hill Institute (BHI) has estimated the prevalence and cost of gaming the mandates. We find that:• In tax year 2008 (the latest data available) 26,000 individuals paid a total of $16 million in fines, while 758 businesses paid $7.1 million.
• In 2009, between 2,089 and 2,659 individuals gamed the individual mandate at an estimated cost to insurance carriers of between $29.3 million and $37.3 million.
• Between June 2006 and June 2010 enrollment in state subsidized insurance plans increased by 319,000, while the private group (employer) market was flat and the individual market increased by 83,000.
In essence, the incentives in RomneyCare, just as in ObamaCare, are backwards. They encourage people to behave in ways that maximize costs and inefficiency. This is what economists refer to as an “Adverse Selection Spiral”. Eventually the system collapses under the weight of its own costs and inefficiency.
UPDATE – Thomas Zaleski adds:
Wouldn’t it be great if you could purchase AUTO insurance AFTER you had an accident? That is PRECISELY what Romney care is. Break a leg, BUY insurance the SAME day!
Newt: If that is the price of being president I don’t want it (video)
This is the kind of moral clarity I admire…
Devastating New Ad: Pious Baloney (Video)
Some ads are good and some are bad, some do their best to be at least directionally accurate in one minute or less, this one hits the nail on the head….
New Ad: Romney the Taxman
Mitt Romney broke his tax pledge over and over and over and over again….
Romney: Requiring people to have health insurance is “conservative”
This man is a disaster….
Requiring people to have health insurance is “conservative,” GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney told MSNBC on Wednesday, but only if states do it.
The argument aims to improve Romney’s appeal to Republican voters concerned about the healthcare reform plan he signed into law as governor of Massachusetts in 2006. The Massachusetts law contains an individual mandate similar to the one in President Obama’s healthcare law, which conservatives despise.
“Personal responsibility,” Romney said, “is more conservative in my view than something being given out for free by government.”
I know the difference between personal responsibility and a government mandate and I imagine our fine readers do too….
Romney Says He Won’t Release Tax Returns
This is a double edged sword. Romney cannot exactly ding President Obama for his incredible lack of transparency, especially after he promised repeatedly to be the mots transparent president in history, when Romney will not be transparent himself.
On the other hand, if Romney releases the tax returns every point in it will be spun and lied about, 1% nonsense etc. It would give Obama something to run against.
NYT:
Mitt Romney, who is one of the wealthiest men ever to seek the presidency, said on Wednesday that he had no intention of releasing his tax returns if he became the Republican presidential nominee, breaking with a long tradition in both parties.
Mr. Romney made the statement in an interview with MSNBC on Wednesday, but the network did not show that part of the interview. Mr. Romney, a multimillionaire who made his fortune running a private equity firm, was asked whether he planned to release his tax return.
“I doubt it,” Mr. Romney said, according to a transcript of the interview provided by NBC News. “I will provide all the financial info, which is an extraordinary pile of documents which show investments and so forth.”
“But you won’t do the tax returns?” asked Chuck Todd, host of “The Daily Rundown.”
“I don’t intend to release the tax returns. I don’t,” Mr. Romney responded.
A spokesman for President Obama‘s re-election campaign blasted Mr. Romney and questioned whether he had something to hide in his finances.
Mitt Romney Schools Occutard: Corporations Are People (Video)
We are tough on Mitt because we believe that there is much to be tough on Mitt about, but giving credit where credit is due, this was great. Nice Work Governor [With that said there are some corporations who over reach at the expense of employees and when they do that they encourage government and occutards to go on their wealth destroying campaigns].
Newt Gingrich Highlights from Today’s NBC/Facebook New Hampshire Debate
Newt: Can We Stop Mitt’s Pious Baloney?
Newt: EPA is “Increasingly Radical & Imperious”
More:
Levin: Romney Used Dirty Tricks to Smear Fred Thompson in ’08
And we are seeing the same tricks being used now.
Devastating New Ad on Mitt Romney
The Romney Con
Notice Romney dodges the tough interviews while the other candidates are taking them on regularly? Granted this is a Ron Paul ad, but this one, unlike so many of his other ads, is pretty honest and has a point about the lack of tough interviews after the Brett Beier disaster where Romney just lied through it, and the big lobbying money.
