BILL BURTON: "Romney has no coherent answers to basic questions about how profiting from driving a company to bankruptcy qualifies him to be President."
Now we know why Romney has avoided questions from reporters. He gave an extended interview to a right wing blogger where the answers on his private sector experience ranged from misleading to irrelevant. It is clear he is unprepared to answer questions on the experiences he claims qualify him to be President.
Romney begins by claiming that he shouldn’t be held responsible for decisions he and his firm made that lead to GST Steel's collapse because he wasn’t around when the company legally collapsed due to those decisions. Romney’s attempt to avoid responsibility for his decisions is akin to someone who turns on the bathtub then claims he was outside and can’t be blamed when the house floods.
The Washington Post reported, "Romney retained full, sole ownership of the firm" at the time GST collapsed. Additionally, the New York Times reported, “when it came to his considerable personal wealth, Mr. Romney never really left Bain.”
After taking heat from conservatives and liberals over his fictional claim to have helped create 100,000 jobs, Romney stopped using the figure. Today he repeated those claims, which the Washington Post wrote, “do not pass the laugh test."
Romney then attacks the auto rescue, arguing that President Obama’s attempt to save millions of jobs in the auto industry is akin to Romney’s decision to pay himself millions from companies he drove towards bankruptcy.
It is no surprise that Romney is avoiding reporters: He has no coherent answers to basic questions about how profiting from driving a company to bankruptcy qualifies him to be President.
Listen to Romney’s interview with a conservative blog today: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/16/hot-air-interview-with-mitt-romney/
Background
Romney Profited Even Though GST Was Driven To Bankruptcy, 750 Workers Were Fired and Lost Promised Health and Retirement Benefits. According to Reuters, “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.” Even though Bain only took over the company in 1993, “Bain got its money back quickly. The new company issued $125 million in bonds and paid Bain a $36.1 million dividend in 1994.” [Reuters, 1/6/12]
Washington Post: “Romney retained full, sole ownership of the firm for two more years as he worked on the Olympics.” [Washington Post, 10/21/07]
New York Times: “Yet when it came to his considerable personal wealth, Mr. Romney never really left Bain.” [New York Times, 12/18/11]
Conservatives, Liberals and the Media on Romney’s Fabricated 100,000 Jobs:
Washington Post, “Mitt Romney and 100,000 jobs: an untenable figure,” 1/10/12
Factcheck.org, “Romney’s Shaky Job Claims,”1/5/12
Daily Beast, “Romney Uses Bogus Job Numbers,”1/3/12
Politico, “The black box that is Bain,” 1/11/12
Daily Caller, “Is Romney backtracking on his 100,000 jobs created claim?” 1/17/12
Think Progress, “Romney Camp Admits That Its Bain Job Creation Number Is Bogus,” 1/4/11
PRIORITIES USA ACTION CAMPAIGN EXPOSES ROMNEY’S REAL RECORD AS CEO
PRIORITIES USA ACTION CAMPAIGN EXPOSES ROMNEY’S REAL RECORD AS CEO
“He promised us the same things he’s promising the United States. And he’ll give you the same thing he gave us. Nothing. He’ll take it all.”
LINK: http://youtu.be/fncJZXrzG8k
WASHINGTON, D.C—Priorities USA Action today began a new television and social media campaign to illustrate Mitt Romney’s private sector record. Throughout Romney’s career, he and his partners made millions, even when companies they took control of were driven into bankruptcy, employees lost their jobs, and promises for health and retirement benefits were broken.
The ad is the first in a series of a multi-million dollar campaign running on television and online in Colorado, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Priorities USA Action also launched www.RealRomneyRecord.com, a website outlining Romney’s record as CEO.
The campaign’s first ad features Pat Wells, a former employee at GST Steel in Missouri, who lost his job and promised benefits, while Mitt Romney and his firm walked away with nearly $9 million in profit.
“Mitt Romney’s tenure as CEO underscores his deeply-held belief that success only for the wealthy is good for America, even if it comes at the expense of the middle class,” said Paul Begala, Senior Adviser for Priorities USA Action. “As President, Romney has been clear he would pursue policies that benefit the wealthiest Americans like himself while cutting promised Medicare benefits and slashing educational and job opportunities for the middle class.”
Watch the ad at www.RealRomneyRecord.com or www.prioritiesusaaction.org.
SCRIPT: “Heads or Tails”
Pat Wells, Steelworker, GS Steel:
With Romney and Bain Capital, the objective was to make money.
Whether the companies they came in and worked with made money or not, was irrelevant. Bain Capital always made money.
If we lost, they made money. If we survived, they made money. It’s as simple as that.
He promised us the same things he’s promising the United States. And he’ll give you the same thing he gave us. Nothing. He’ll take it all.
Priorities USA Action is responsible for the content of this advertising.
BACKGROUND
Despite Company Being Driven to Bankruptcy, Bain Received A $12 Million Return On Its $8 Million Investment In GST Steel, Along With Over $4.5 Million In Consulting Fees. According to Reuters, “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.” Even though Bain only took over the company in 1993, “Bain got its money back quickly. The new company issued $125 million in bonds and paid Bain a $36.1 million dividend in 1994.” [Reuters, 1/6/12]
Workers Lost Promised Health Insurance, Severance Pay, And Life Insurance. According to Reuters, “GS Industries declared bankruptcy on February 7, 2001, and said it would shut down the Kansas City plant, eliminating 750 jobs. In a press release, the company said the bankruptcy was triggered in part by ‘the critical need to restructure the company’s liabilities.’ Workers soon found out what that meant. In April, GS said it was shedding the guarantees it had promised its workers in the event of a plant closure - the severance pay, health insurance, life insurance and pension supplements that had been negotiated during the 1997 strike. Workers could buy health insurance through the company’s plan, but the company would no longer share its costs. For many who were struggling with asbestosis or other ailments contracted during their years of work, the cost was prohibitive.” [Reuters, 1/6/12]
Workers Called New Management Inexperienced, Undermined Capabilities to Compete ‘With Anyone in the World.’ According to Boston Globe, “Out-of-work steelworkers in Kansas City, for example, blame Romney and Bain Capital for decisions that led to last year’s bankruptcy of a steel mill that opened its doors in 1888. Bain bought the operation, GST Steel Co., in 1993. Workers said the new owners cleaned house and brought in an inexperienced management team. Dan Misel, who worked at GST Steel for 35 years, said Baincame in ‘like the bully on the block,’ assuming its managers knew how to run the operation better than anyone already in place. ‘They brought in people to manufacture steel who had no idea of how to do it,’ Misel said. ‘It was kind of sad to me. We had the facilities and capabilities of producing with anyone in the world.’” According to Bloomberg, “GS Industries Inc., a steel company in Charlotte, North Carolina, filed for bankruptcy in2001 after workers said a chief executive hired under Bain made missteps, including installing managers who lacked industry expertise, former employees said.” [Boston Globe, 10/24/02 and Bloomberg News, 7/20/11]
By 1995, Two Years After Bain Took Over, GS Industries ‘was not on a sustainable course;’ company’s debt had grown to over ten times its operating income. According to Reuters, “Already, though, there were warning signs that the company was not on a sustainable course. Concerned about the level of debt, which totaled $378 million in 1995 on operating income less than a tenth of that amount, the merged company's new CEO, Roger Regelbrugge, negotiated a clause in his contract that would allow him to retire at the end of 1997.” [Reuters, 1/6/12]
GS Industries saw its operating income drop and losses grow from 1997 to 1999, making the firm’s massive debt even more of a problem. According to Reuters, “Nevertheless, net losses at the company grew to $52.9 million in 1999 from $16.1 million in 1997, while operating income dropped to $9.6 million from $37.9 million over the same period -- not enough to sustain the firm's debt and obligations for long.” [Reuters, 1/6/12]
Bill Burton Response to Koch brothers $6M ad blitz
Yesterday, we released an ad stating that 'Big Oil has pledged $200 million to help Mitt Romney.' Today, $6 million of that pledge was spent on television advertisements across the country. Billionaire oil executives like the Koch Brothers benefit from high gas prices financially and use that extra cash to support Mitt Romney because he has pledged to protect their billions in special tax breaks. While middle class families pay at the pump, Mitt Romney and the big oil companies bankrolling his campaign benefit from high gas prices financially and politically.
Yesterday: Priorities USA Action and League of Conservation Voters Victory Fund Launch '$200 Million Man' Ad On Romney's Support from Big Oil. [New York Times, 4/25/12]
Today: Billionaire Oil Barons Charles and David Koch Spend $6 Million on TV Ads to Benefit Mitt Romney. [Huffington Post, 4/26/12]
NEW AD: Priorities USA Action and LCV Victory Fund Ad: Mitt Romney, In the Tank for Big Oil
Priorities USA Action and LCV Victory Fund Ad: Mitt Romney, In the Tank for Big Oil
WASHINGTON, D.C—League of Conservation Voters Victory Fund and Priorities USA Action today partnered to release a new television ad “$200 Million Man” to highlight Governor Romney’s pledge to protect Big Oil’s profits and billions in special tax breaks, at the expense of middle class Americans.
The ad is part of a major campaign running on television and online in Colorado and Nevada beginning today.
“With Governor Romney promising to keep the oil industry’s taxpayer-funded handouts, it’s not surprising that Big Oil is spending big money to protect its big subsidies,” said Gene Karpinski, President of the League of Conservation Voters Victory Fund. “Romney has whole-heartedly embraced an industry that is profiting twice off Americans: once at the pump and again when we pay our taxes.”
“While President Obama is taking serious action to make America less dependent on dirty and dangerous sources of Middle East oil and create clean energy jobs here at home, Governor Romney and the oil companies bankrolling his campaign are profiting from high gas prices politically and financially,” said Paul Begala, Senior Advisor for Priorities USA Action. “With Mitt Romney in Big Oil’s pocket, voters can be sure he won’t do a thing to drive down gas prices for the middle class.”
Watch the ad at www.prioritiesusaaction.org and www.lcv.org/romney.
SCRIPT: “$200 MILLION MAN”
He’s the two hundred million dollar man.
And big oil’s fingerprints are all over him.
Big oil’s pledged two hundred million to help Mitt Romney.
And Romney’s pledged to protect their profits and billions in special tax breaks.
So when you fill up your tank, remember who’s in the tank for big oil.
Mitt Romney. The two hundred million dollar man.
Priorities USA Action and LCV Victory Fund are responsible for the content of this advertising.
Background
Billionaire Oil Baron Koch Brothers Plan to Spend More Than $200 Million on 2012 – “Potentially Much More.” According to Politico, “David and Charles Koch plan to steer more than $200 million — potentially much more — to conservative groups ahead of Election Day, POLITICO has learned. That puts their libertarian-leaning network in the same league as the most active of the groups in the more establishment-oriented network conceived last year by veteran GOP operatives Rove and Ed Gillespie, which plans to raise $240 million.” [Politico, 10/11/11]
"Principle Goal" and “Real Focus” of Koch's is to Win Presidential Race. In an article about the Koch's attempted takeover of the Cato Institute, the Chairman of Cato's board said David Koch told him a primary goal of their groups was to defeat President Obama. According to Slate, "In early November, David Koch met with Bob Levy, chairman of Cato’s board of directors, at Dulles International Airport. They were joined by Richard Fink, Koch's chief adviser, and Kevin Gentry, a vice president of Charles Koch’s charitable foundation who’d been put on Cato’s board of directors. (Former Americans for Prosperity President Nancy Pfotenhauer had joined the board after the same meeting.) “They said that a principle goal was to defeat Barack Obama,” remembered Levy. “The way David [Koch] put it was, ‘We would like you to provide intellectual ammunition that we can then use at Americans for Prosperity and our allied organizations.’ AFP and others would apply Cato's work to advance their electoral goals.”" According to Mother Jones magazine reporting on the Kochs, “the real focus was making Barack Obama a one-term president.” [Mother Jones, November/December 2011; Slate, 3/5/12]
New Yorker: “The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama.” In a long investigative piece, the New Yorker looked at the Koch Brother’s ‘war against Obama.’ [New Yorker, 8/30/10]
Oil Company Profits Padded by Tax Breaks – Profits That are Recycled For Ad Campaigns. According to a New York Times editorial, “President Obama and the Senate Democrats have again fallen short in their quest to eliminate billions of dollars in unnecessary tax breaks for an oil industry that is rolling in enormous profits. A big reason for that failure is that some of those profits are being continuously recycled to win the support of pliable legislators, underwrite misleading advertising campaigns and advance an energy policy defined solely by more oil and gas production.” [New York Times, 3/30/12]
Romney: I Don’t Want to Raise Taxes on Oil Companies; Targeting Oil Tax Breaks is "Dangerous." In response to the ads that the Obama Campaign and Priorities USA Action were running, which criticized Romney's support for tax breaks for oil companies, Romney said at a townhall meeting, "He blames me for the high price of gasoline because I don’t want to raise taxes on oil companies. I don’t like raising taxes on anybody." He then calls the President's proposal to single out tax breaks for oil companies for elimination as "dangerous." [Romney Townhall in Delaware, 4/10/12]
Romney dismissed eliminating oil subsidies as a “gimmick.” In an April 17 press release, Romney stated that President Obama’s plan to “target oil and gas producers for higher taxes” is part of a “government by gimmick” strategy. [Romney press release, 4/17/12]
Romney also pledged support for oil company subsidies during the 2008 campaign. The New York Times reported: "In a written response to questions about his energy positions, Romney said Friday, ‘Now is not the right time to raise taxes on our oil companies.’” A graphic in the Times listed Romney's position on 'Tax Breaks For Oil And Gas Companies' as 'Would Not Repeal.' [New York Times, 11/28/07]
Romney Endorsed 2011 and 2012 Versions of Ryan Budget Plan. [Los Angeles Times, 3/20/12; Politico, 3/22/12; ABC News, 6/2/11; Romney Release, 12/8/11]
2011 and 2012 Ryan Plans Protect Tax Breaks for Oil Companies. According to an article by Newsweek’s White House Correspondent Daniel Stone, “When House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan unveiled the GOP blueprint for cutting government spending, he asked Americans to make sacrifices on everything from Medicare to education, while preserving lucrative tax subsidies for the booming oil, mining and energy industries.” According to the Center for American Progress, “But while high prices threaten the economy and family budgets, they enrich American oil companies with huge profits. Yet it appears that House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed FY 2013 budget resolution would retain a decade’s worth of oil tax breaks worth $40 billion.” [Newsweek/The Daily Beast, 6/17/11; Center for American Progress, 3/20/12]
Every 1 Cent Increase in Gas Prices Yields $200 Million Increase in Quarterly Profits for Just Top Five Oil Companies. “This Center for American Progress analysis finds that each penny rise in the average quarterly (three months) price of a gallon of gas corresponds to a $200 million increase in quarterly profits of the big five oil companies” [Center for American Progress, 2/28/12]
Higher gas prices increase oil companies’ profits. According to ExxonMobil, “Here’s a simple fact of economics that’s getting everyone in Washington pretty excited this week: When prices increase for a commodity like oil, companies that produce and sell that commodity earn more money.” [ExxonMobil Perspectives, 4/27/11]
Romney's top energy adviser is a billionaire oil executive. Bloomberg reported: “Mitt Romney, the front-runner for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination, appointed Oklahoma oil billionaire Harold Hamm as energy adviser to his campaign. Hamm, the 66-year-old founder, chairman and chief executive officer of Continental Resources Inc. (CLR), will be chairman of Romney’s Energy Policy Advisory Group, the candidate’s campaign office said in a statement today.” [Bloomberg, 3/1/12; Think Progress, 2/21/12]
American Energy Alliance Running Ads Attacking President Obama and Closely Tied to Koch Brothers, billionaire oil executives. According to Politico, “The group launching a $3.6 million ad campaign hitting President Barack Obama on gasoline prices has deep ties to the billionaire libertarian industrialists Charles and David Koch. The American Energy Alliance is the political arm of the Institute for Energy Research, and sources tell POLITICO that both groups are funded partly by the Koch brothers and their donor network. The groups are run by Tom Pyle, a former lobbyist for Koch Industries. Pyle regularly attends the mega-donor summits organized by the Koch brothers, including the 2012 winter summit in Indian Wells, Calif., where the Kochs raised more than $150 million to be directed to groups ahead of the general election.” [Politico, 3/29/12; American EnergyAlliance]
Oil-backed outside groups have spent over $16 million on energy attack ads since January, many targeting Obama. According to Think Progress, “In the first three-and-a-half months of 2012, groups including Americans for Prosperity, American Petroleum Institute, Crossroads GPS, and American Energy Alliance have spent $16,750,000 on energy attack ads.” Many of these ads have directly attacked President Obama. Americans for Prosperity and the American Energy Alliance are partially funded by the Koch brothers. Crossroads GPS does not disclose most of its donors, but its sister organization American Crossroads’ “donors include oil and gas executives,” as Think Progress noted. [ThinkProgress, 4/12/12]
Paid for by Priorities USA Action, www.prioritiesusaaction.org, and LCV Victory Fund, 202-785-8683, and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
VIDEO/MEMO: Governor Romney’s Education Cuts Hurt Massachusetts and His Agenda Would Make America Less Competitive
TO: Interested Parties
FR: Priorities USA Action & American Bridge 21st Century
Video and Memo: Governor Romney’s Education Cuts Hurt Massachusetts and His Agenda Would Make America Less Competitive
The Massachusetts decline from 37th to 47th in job growth under Governor Mitt Romney was not just a coincidence - his cuts to job training and higher education helped make Massachusetts less competitive. Now, Romney wants give massive new tax cuts to the wealthiest while making dramatic cuts to job training and higher education on a national level.
Even with college costs increasing, Romney bragged about his cuts to higher education and his answer to a student asking about affordability was ‘shop around’ or join the military. Romney’s rhetoric on college reflects his priorities and worldview: cutting taxes for the wealthy is more important than investing in an economy that works for the middle class.
Governor Romney’s record made Massachusetts less competitive and his agenda would make America less competitive.
Background
Massachusetts Ranked 47th Out Of 50 In Jobs Growth While Romney Was Governor; Manufacturing Declined by Twice National Average. According to Marketwatch, “And during that time, according to the U.S. Labor Department, the state ranked 47th in the entire country in jobs growth. Fourth from last. The only ones that did worse? Ohio, Michigan and Louisiana. In other words, two rustbelt states and another that lost its biggest city to a hurricane.” According to the Boston Globe, “Manufacturing payroll employment throughout the nation declined by nearly 1.1 million or 7 percent between 2002 and 2006, but in Massachusetts it declined by more than 14 percent, the third worst record in the country.” [Boston Globe, 7/29/07; Marketwatch, 2/23/10]
2006: Romney Cut $37.8 Million For Higher Education. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, “The latest flare-up came after the governor used his emergency fiscal powers to cut $425-million from the state budget, including $37.8-million for higher education. College officials said the cutbacks could delay capital improvements, reduce long-promised pay increases for faculty and staff members, and lead campuses to raise student fees to cover spring-semester costs. The reductions threaten to cancel much of a $64-million, or 7 percent, spending increase approved by the state legislature just four months ago, the first significant increase in several years for public colleges.” [Chronicle of Higher Education, 11/24/06]
2003: Romney Wanted To Cut $150 Million From Higher Education Spending. According to the Boston Herald, “Romney wants to cut $150 million from state higher education spending and spin off UMass-Amherst from the rest of the university system. The move is intended to boost the campus’ stature, but those who had gathered to present the letters to legislators were skeptical.” According to the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, “The overall cut to higher education programs in the budget is $285 million, but this will be balanced by provisions allowing institutions to retain tuition, resulting in a net cut of $156 million.” [Massachusetts Budget And Policy Center, 3/5/03; Boston Herald, 4/3/03]
Romney Called For $100 Million In Higher Ed Cuts And $50 Million In Tuition Increases. According to The Associated Press State & Local Wire, “Romney’s higher education plan calls for $100 million in cuts, $50 million in tuition increases, adding $44 million to financial aid, and administrative reorganization. Perlman said 20 percent cuts to small community colleges might force them to increase fees.” [The Associated Press State & Local Wire, 4/23/03]
Romney’s 2004 State Budget Proposal Increased Tuition By 15 Percent. According to The Boston Globe, “Romney’s 2004 state budget, announced Wednesday, includes a business-focused model for state colleges: a decentralized system dedicated to economic growth, which also trims $150 million from the state budget… Romney envisions saving $100 million in administrative costs, yet the plan adds a layer of regional bureaucracy. Schools should focus on training students for ‘great jobs,’ Romney said - but that priority has been in place since the administration of Governor Michael S. Dukakis. The plan’s author is a no-new-taxes Republican, yet his proposal raises most tuitions by 15 percent, which some students say is a backhanded tax increase. It asks outside business people to help craft curricula, even though faculties still hold that power exclusively. Though Romney said the University of Massachusetts at Amherst will not be privatized, Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey says it will, some day.” [The Boston Globe, 3/3/03]
College And University Fees Increased By 63% As A Result Of Romney’s $140 Million In Higher Education Cuts. According to the Boston Globe, “Another shift hit students at state colleges and universities, where fees soared 63 percent during Romney’s tenure, from an average of $2,959 in 2003 to $4,836 in 2007, according to the state Board of Higher Education. The fee hikes were enacted by each campus to offset deep budget cuts of about $140 million, or about 14 percent, during the fiscal crisis.” [Boston Globe, 6/29/07]
Former Romney Backer: “Higher Education Really Stood Still” During Romney’s Time In Office. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, “‘I think higher education really stood still’ in affordability and quality during Mr. Romney’s time in office, says Robert Karam, a former chairman of the University of Massachusetts Board of Trustees and a onetime backer of Mr. Romney, who felt that the governor had reneged on a promise to provide more support to the university.” [Chronicle Of Higher Education, 11/23/07]
Romney Wanted To Cut $12 Million From Job Training Initiatives. According to the Associated Press State & Local Wire, “Less than a month after taking office, Romney asked the state legislature to cut $12 million in funding for job training initiatives.” [Associated Press State & Local Wire, 1/30/03]
Romney Opposed, Vetoed Workforce Training Funding. According to the Boston Globe, “Romney argues that the stimulus package that lawmakers approved was too expensive. Among other vetoes, Romney cut $4.5 million from $6 million in workforce training grants; cut in half the Legislature’s proposed $15 million “John Adams Innovation Institute,” which would provide infrastructure support to technology companies; and eliminated the $5 million “Massachusetts Technology Development Corp.” and a $2 million international tourism initiative.” According to the Boston Business Journal, “Business leaders are looking to salvage various projects following Gov. Mitt Romney's 39 vetoes of sections of the economic stimulus bill passed earlier this month. Among those items top on the list: worker training money, international trade stimulus and tax incentives and funding for manufacturing companies …Restoring $11 million in new work force training money begged for by business leaders during the legislature's job growth listening tour last year tops both Bosley's and Rodrigues' agendas.” [Boston Business Journal, 6/3/06; Boston Globe, 1/12/04]
Romney: “I Became Governor And We Had To Cut Back On Our State Funding Of Institutions Of Higher Learning” At a town hall at the Garfton County Senior Center on 8/24/11 Romney said “I became governor and we had to cut back on our state funding of institutions of higher learning. We cut back - I don’t recall the exact percent but it was as much as 10% in some cases. I’m not one who says we need to be sending more federal money to state schools and universities and colleges in general.” [Mitt Romney Townhall, Garfton County Senior Center, 08/24/11]
Romney: “I’m Not One Who Says We Need To Be Sending More Federal Money To State Schools And Universities And Colleges In General.” At a town hall at the Garfton County Senior Center on 8/24/11 Romney said “I became governor and we had to cut back on our state funding of institutions of higher learning. We cut back - I don’t recall the exact percent but it was as much as 10% in some cases. I’m not one who says we need to be sending more federal money to state schools and universities and colleges in general.” [Mitt Romney Townhall, Garfton County Senior Center, 08/24/11]
Romney When Asked If He Could Help With High Interest On Federally Subsidized Loans: “Hopefully Get You A Real Good Job That Gets You Real Good Pay.” At a town hall meeting with Romney and Governor Nikki Haley on 12/17/2011, Romney was asked ”I'm in dental school and I took out a ton of federally subsidized loans and they're at like 7.9% interest. Can you do anything about that?” to which Romney replied?) Hopefully get you a real good job that gets you real good pay.” [Romney and Governor Nikki Haley Hold a Town Hall Meeting, 12/17/2011]
Romney In March Responded to Question About College Affordability by Suggesting Students Shop Around or Join Military. According to the New York Times’ David Firestone, “There wasn’t a word about the variety of government loan programs, which have made it possible for millions of students to get college degrees. There wasn’t a word urging colleges to hold down tuition increases, as President Obama has been doing, or a suggestion that the student consider a work-study program. And there wasn’t a word about Pell Grants, in case the student’s family had a low enough income to qualify. That may be because Mr. Romney supports the House Republican budget, which would cut Pell Grants by 25 percent or more at a time when they are needed more than ever. Instead, the advice was pretty brutal: if you can’t afford college, look around for a scholarship (good luck with that), try to graduate in less than four years, or join the military if you want a free education.” [New York Times, 3/5/12]
Romney: “You Know I Wish I Could Tell You That There Is A Place To Find Really Cheap Money Or Free Money And We Could Pay For Everyone's Education - That's Just Not Going To Happen.“ At a town hall at Capital University in Ohio, Romney was asked “I just started law school and they are doing away with unsubsidized loans for grad students which makes it almost impossible to pay off our debts, have a house, have a car, have a family, before we retire. What are you going to do for people like me?” to which Romney replied: “You know I wish I could tell you that there is a place to find really cheap money or free money and we could pay for everyone's education - that's just not going to happen. [Mitt Romney Townhall Capital University Bexley Ohio. 02/29/12]
Romney Accused The Government Of “Taking Over The Student Loan Business“ Romney: At a town hall at Capital University in Ohio, Romney was asked “I just started law school and they are doing away with unsubsidized loans for grad students which makes it almost impossible to pay off our debts, have a house, have a car, have a family, before we retire. What are you going to do for people like me?” to which Romney replied: “You know I wish I could tell you that there is a place to find really cheap money or free money and we could pay for everyone's education - that's just not going to happen. What's going to have to happen is we're going to have to have rates as low as we can possibly have. I'd like to see more competition in the lenders. Now the government is taking over the student loan business I think it gets less competition, I'd rather have more competition with private lenders as well as governmental lenders.“ [Mitt Romney Townhall Capital University Bexley Ohio.” 02/29/12]
Romney Backed GOP Budget Would Cut Grants to Help Students Go To College By Nearly 25% - 1 Million Would Lose Pell Grants Entirely. “The GOP budget plan that Romney wants to adopt would make steeper cuts to Head Start, Pell Grants and workforce training than to other programs. Romney would completely eliminate funding for a program backing remedial literacy in low-income schools, as well as federal assistance that helps low-income families pay their heating and cooling bills. Ultimately, as a result of such cuts — combined with the budget reductions passed on Obama’s watch — ‘157,000 at-risk children up to age 5 could lose education, health, nutrition, and other services under Head Start, while funds for Pell Grants that help students go to college would fall by nearly 25 percent,’ according to a CBPP analysis of the House GOP proposal.” The Huffington Post reported, “More than 1 million students would lose Pell grants entirely over the next 10 years under Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget, according to an analysis that the national reform organization Education Trust provided to The Huffington Post.” [Huffington Post, 3/27/12; Washington Post, 11/4/11]
The Republican Budget authored by Rep. Paul Ryan would cut investment in education and training by 48 percent. According to the Center for American Progress, “The Ryan budget cuts per capita investment in education and training by 48 percent, cutting from a current level of $426 per person to a mere $223 per person by 2022. (see Figure 1) This proposal would cut investments from K-12 education nationally, including education for children with disabilities and investments in educational innovation.” [Center for American Progress, 3/20/12]
MEMO: What is Hiding in Romney’s Returns?
To: Interested Parties
FR: Bill Burton, Priorities USA Action
RE: Sunday Memo: What is Hiding in Romney’s Returns?
Governor Mitt Romney has a choice. He could decide to face months of bipartisan criticism for a failure to release his tax returns or he could confirm damaging information including further tax avoidance, new offshore accounts, and an even lower tax rate in previous years.
If there were nothing damaging in his tax returns, Romney would have already released them and avoided the spectacle of publicly refusing to show the American people what he has already shared with John McCain.
Instead, Romney appears to have decided that the information in his returns is so problematic that he will endure criticism from the right and left for his refusal to follow a well-established standard of transparency for Presidential candidates.
Release of Romney’s tax records would allow voters to fairly determine how his tax policy may be informed by personal experience. Among the things voters would learn are:
Extent of Romney tax avoidance in the Cayman Islands – Based on thorough reporting, we already know that Romney used funds based in the Cayman Islands that help him avoid paying a specific tax. This directly contradicts what the Romney Campaign told the public when confronted about Romney’s holding in the notorious tax haven. Tax records could clarify how long and to what extent Romney has been employing this technique.
Unreported foreign accounts – In just one year of tax returns, it was revealed that Romney had a multi-million dollar Swiss bank account as well as holdings in notorious tax havens in Europe and the Caribbean. Tax records would show whether Romney has a personal interest in the US Government’s efforts to crack down on foreign tax havens.
Romney’s lowest rate – In 2010, Romney was already beginning his second run for President and certainly had a team of lawyers and accountants review his tax returns. While Romney paid only 13.9% in taxes in 2010, it is likely his rate previous years was even lower, possibly even zero. Tax records would show Romney’s lowest tax rate and would provide context for his opposition to proposals like the Buffett Rule.
Senator Santorum correctly pointed out that the man who is running for President entirely based on his private sector financial success is the one who is most unwilling to share with the American people how he attained that success. It is time for Romney to stop stonewalling.
Background
Priorities USA Action and American Bridge 21 Century Website: www.releaseyourreturns.com
Santorum: Since Romney Running on Economic Experience, We Should See How He Managed His Own Economy. Senator Santorum: “I don’t know why he isn’t releasing his tax returns. I think he should. I think it is appropriate that if you are going to run for federal office that you let folks know. Particularly someone with the enormity of wealth and he keeps going out there talking about, how he has all this experience, how he’s done all these things and he understands the economy. Well, let’s see how he managed his own economy.” [Santorum on Laura Ingraham via Daily Caller, 1/16/12]
Wall Street Journal: Romney Campaign Statement That He Received No Tax Benefit from Caymans “May Be Wrong or Misleading.” According to the Wall Street Journal, “Mitt Romney’s campaign has attacked an ABC News report on the candidate’s offshore investments, saying his holdings in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere have no effect on the amount he pays in U.S. taxes. But the campaign’s assertions may be wrong or misleading. Tax experts said some of the offshore holdings are likely intended to help Mr. Romney avoid paying an obscure but hefty tax of as much as 35% on some of those investments, held in a tax-deferred retirement account.” [Wall Street Journal, 1/19/12]
New York Times: Romney Appears to Have Used Cayman Islands for Tax Avoidance Technique. According to the New York Times, “The technique in question allows nonprofit institutions and large retirement funds to exploit the advantages of shell companies set up in tax havens like the Cayman Islands by investing money with private equity firms like Bain Capital, which Mr. Romney ran. Ordinarily, such private equity investments are frequently subject to something called the unrelated business income tax. But by going offshore, pension funds, universities, foundations and even large individual retirement accounts can structure those investments to avoid that heavy tax…Tax experts and former Finance Committee staff members say that Mr. Romney’s I.R.A. appears to have used the technique, and that he may have benefited personally.” [New York Times, 2/7/12]
Romney Tax Rate Likely Lower in Previous Years. According to the Huffington Post, “Mitt Romney's 2010 tax return is likely to serve as a flashpoint throughout the presidential campaign for critics who say the 13.9 percent effective tax rate he paid that year is unfairly low. It appears likely his tax burden was even lower the year before. Tax experts who closely reviewed returns released Tuesday told The Huffington Post that Romney probably did not pay any taxes on his investment income in 2009.” [Huffington Post, 1/24/12]
Romney Tax Rate “Much Lower” Than 13.9 In Previous Year. According to Talking Points Memo, “But as tax lawyer Ed Kleinbard told reporters during a Tuesday conference call organized by the DNC, “that means he paid no tax on any of his capital gains in 2009, including tax on his carried interest in 2009.” That’s not necessarily because Romney actually lost money in 2009, either. As Kleinbard explained, a common tactic for Americans with capital gains is to “harvest” — by selling off certain investments that lose value investors can count the losses against gains elsewhere in their portfolios. If those losses exceed the gains by more than a certain amount, they roll over into the following tax cycle. Unless Romney had significant sources of non-investment income, that suggests his effective tax rate in 2009 was much lower than 13.9 percent. And remember, he jokes he’s been unemployed for years.” [Talking Points Memo, 1/25/12]
Los Angeles Times: “Romney tax returns highlight tax code's breaks for rich” According to the Los Angeles Times, “Romney's tax returns reveal a sophisticated low-tax investment strategy that includes offshore funds and a now-shuttered Swiss bank account, contributing to a fortune that has emerged as a potential liability in his quest for the White House… The documents underscore how Romney, the wealthiest candidate to seek the presidency in recent history, has benefited from a tax code that lets investors pay taxes at a much lower rate than people who earn wages or salaries… Experts said Romney's low rate of taxation puts a focus on a tax code that has contributed to a widening gap between the rich and poor. "The question is whether this is appropriate policy going forward," said Kleinbard, who joined national Democrats on Tuesday in critiquing Romney's returns. "Is this candidate so financially invested in certain tax positions that he cannot divorce himself from decisions that are in the country's best interest?" [Los Angeles Time, 1/24/12]
NEW AD: Romney's Big Oil Trail
New Priorities USA Action TV Ad Traces Mitt Romney’s Big Oil Trail
WASHINGTON, D.C—Priorities USA Action today released a television ad “Romney’s Big Oil Trail” to expose the true motivations of big oil’s attacks on President Obama—to elect Mitt Romney who stands to protect big oil’s profits at the expense of middle class Americans.
“While President Obama is taking serious action to make America less dependent on dirty and dangerous sources of Middle East oil and create clean energy jobs here at home, Mitt Romney and the oil companies bankrolling his campaign are profiting from high gas prices politically and financially,” said Paul Begala, Senior Advisor for Priorities USA Action. “How can the American people trust Governor Romney to bring down gas prices when he and his biggest backers benefit so much from gas prices being so high?”
The ad will run both on television and online in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia.
Watch the ad at www.prioritiesusaaction.org.
Script: “ROMNEY’S BIG OIL TRAIL”
Who’s behind this ad smearing President Obama?
Big Oil, that’s who.
The money they make from high gas prices – is going right into Mitt Romney’s campaign.
Big oil executives have pledged two hundred million to help him.
And Mitt Romney’s pledged to protect their record profits – and their billions in special tax breaks too.
These guys all profit. You pay the price.
Priorities USA Action is responsible for the content of this advertising.
Background
Charles and David Koch and their allies are tied to the $3.5 million dollar ad campaign criticizing the President on gas prices. According to Politico, “The group launching a $3.6 million ad campaign hitting President Barack Obama on gasoline prices has deep ties to the billionaire libertarian industrialists Charles and David Koch. The American Energy Alliance is the political arm of the Institute for Energy Research, and sources tell POLITICO that both groups are funded partly by the Koch brothers and their donor network. The groups are run by Tom Pyle, a former lobbyist for Koch Industries. Pyle regularly attends the mega-donor summits organized by the Koch brothers, including the 2012 winter summit in Indian Wells, Calif., where the Kochs raised more than $150 million to be directed to groups ahead of the general election.” [Politico, 3/29/12]
Oil Companies Profit From High Gas Prices. According to the Center for American Progress, “While higher oil prices are bad news for the economy and families, oil price increases over the past decade have helped grow profits for the big five oil companies: BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell. It's not a coincidence that these five oil companies set profit records in 2008, the same year that oil reached its all-time high of $147 per barrel. When oil prices crashed in 2009, so did profits.” [Center for American Progress, 2/28/12]
Higher gas prices increase oil companies’ profits. According to ExxonMobil, “Here’s a simple fact of economics that’s getting everyone in Washington pretty excited this week: When prices increase for a commodity like oil, companies that produce and sell that commodity earn more money.” [ExxonMobil Perspectives, 4/27/11]
Koch Brothers Have Pledged $200 Million Before Election to Defeat Obama and Democrats. According to Politico, "The billionaire industrialist brothers David and Charles Koch plan to steer more than $200 million — potentially much more — to conservative groups ahead of Election Day, POLITICO has learned… at the latest installment of the twice-a-year gatherings of major donors sponsored by the Koch brothers’ privately owned oil, chemical and consumer products company, Koch operatives signaled they “are going to focus a great deal on the presidential race,” according to someone who attended the meeting." [Politico, 10/10/11]
The Koch brothers control Koch Industries, an oil and gas business. According to the New Yorker, "With his brother Charles, who is seventy-four, David Koch owns virtually all of Koch Industries, a conglomerate, headquartered in Wichita, Kansas, whose annual revenues are estimated to be a hundred billion dollars. The company has grown spectacularly since their father, Fred, died, in 1967, and the brothers took charge. The Kochs operate oil refineries in Alaska, Texas, and Minnesota, and control some four thousand miles of pipeline." [New Yorker, 8/30/10]
Mitt Romney said he would sign the House budget authored by Paul Ryan. ABC News reported that “On health care, Romney responded ‘yes’ when asked if he would sign the plan written by Rep. Paul Ryan that would restructure Medicare if it reached his desk as President, but quickly added that he would be offering his own plan.” [ABC News, 6/2/11]
Romney Endorsed 2012 Version of Ryan Plan. Politco wrote, “To ensure the plan landed well nationally, Ryan personally reached out to presidential candidates to brief them on it. Romney endorsed the plan this week.” According to the Los Angeles Times, “Paul Ryan's new budget plan drew praise from GOP presidential front-runner Mitt Romney, and an attack from President Obama's reelection campaign Tuesday. The House Republicans' fiscal blueprint for 2013 would slash federal spending, lower tax rates and substantially overhaul Medicare in an effort to free the nation "from the crushing burden of debt," Ryan wrote in a document outlining the plan.” [Los Angeles Times, 3/20/12; Politico, 3/22/12]
Newsweek: 2011 Ryan Protects Tax Breaks for Oil, Gas and Mining While Cutting Medicare. According to an article by Newsweek’s White House Correspondent Daniel Stone, “When House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan unveiled the GOP blueprint for cutting government spending, he asked Americans to make sacrifices on everything from Medicare to education, while preserving lucrative tax subsidies for the booming oil, mining and energy industries.” The article pointed out that Ryan could personally benefit from his continuation of tax breaks for oil and gas companies. [Newsweek/The Daily Beast, 6/17/11]
2012 Ryan Plan Protects Tax Breaks and Subsidies for Big Oil. According to the Center for American Progress, “American families have been plagued by higher oil and gasoline prices over the past several years despite a significant increase in domestic oil production and rigs, and decline in consumption. But while high prices threaten the economy and family budgets, they enrich American oil companies with huge profits. Yet it appears that House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed FY 2013 budget resolution would retain a decade’s worth of oil tax breaks worth $40 billion. And his budget would cut billions of dollars from investments to develop alternative fuels and clean energy technologies that would serve as substitutes for oil and help protect middle-class families from volatile energy prices as well as create jobs. In short, the Ryan budget compounds the cost of high oil and gasoline prices on the middle class.” [Center for American Progress, 3/20/12]
Oil tax breaks cost American taxpayers $4 billion a year. According to National Journal, “In fact, Republicans have long opposed President Obama’s call to roll back the $4 billion in tax breaks enjoyed annually by the oil industry, and Republicans frantically tried to scramble away from the remarks. Privately, Republican aides complained Boehner was painted into a corner by a question that rhetorically set up the tax breaks as indefensible.” [National Journal, 4/27/11]
Romney Opposed Proposal to End Oil Company Tax Breaks. According to the New York Times, "In a written response to questions about his energy positions, Romney said Friday, ''Now is not the right time to raise taxes on our oil companies.'' He expressed doubt about requirements to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions." [New York Times, 11/28/07]
In the same year that crude oil prices hit record highs, ExxonMobil set a record for profit earned by a U.S. company. According to CBS News, “Exxon Mobil Corp. on Friday reported a profit of $45.2 billion for 2008, breaking its own record for a U.S. company, even as its fourth-quarter earnings fell 33 percent from a year ago. The previous record for annual profit was $40.6 billion, which the world's largest publicly traded oil company set in 2007. The extraordinary full-year profit wasn't a surprise given crude's triple-digit price for much of 2008, peaking near an unheard of $150 a barrel in July. Since then, however, prices have fallen roughly 70 percent amid a deepening global economic crisis.” [CBS News, 2/11/09]
MEMO: Big Oil's Investment in Mitt Romney
TO: Interested Parties
FR: Bill Burton, Priorities USA Action
RE: Sunday Memo: Big Oil's Investment in Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney and the oil companies bankrolling his campaign are profiting from high gas prices politically and financially. This week, big oil began their general election effort to help Romney with $3.5 million in television ads across the country.
These ads represent a down payment on the oil industry’s investment in an election they view as a unique business opportunity. These are their terms for the 2012 election:
Revenue: As gas prices rise, oil companies see their revenue soar. While middle class families and many sectors of the economy struggle with the high cost of gasoline, oil companies benefit directly from high prices. The five largest oil companies set record profits the same year that oil and gasoline prices reached a record high.
Investment: With their newfound revenue from high gas prices, oil companies want to ensure their profits for the long term. Therefore they invest hundreds of millions in electing politicians like Mitt Romney, who have promised to protect their special tax breaks and subsidies while slashing investments in clean alternative energy. The billionaire oil barons Charles and David Koch alone have pledged $200 million to defeat President Obama.
Return on Investment: Helping Mitt Romney and Republicans in Congress would guarantee continued special tax breaks and subsidies that cost American taxpayers $4 billion a year. Oil companies would also benefit from further deregulation, allowing them to manipulate prices and gouge consumers.
Competitive Advantage: A Romney Administration would eliminate big oil’s main competitors. Romney would eliminate investments in clean energy technology of the future, leaving us dependent on fluctuating oil prices for the long-term.
While average Americans suffer every time they fill up, oil executives are toasting their record profits and unprecedented political spending to benefit politicians like Mitt Romney who will always put oil company profits ahead of middle class families.
Background
Charles and David Koch and their allies are tied to the $3.5 million dollar ad campaign criticizing the President on gas prices. According to Politico, “The group launching a $3.6 million ad campaign hitting President Barack Obama on gasoline prices has deep ties to the billionaire libertarian industrialists Charles and David Koch. The American Energy Alliance is the political arm of the Institute for Energy Research, and sources tell POLITICO that both groups are funded partly by the Koch brothers and their donor network. The groups are run by Tom Pyle, a former lobbyist for Koch Industries. Pyle regularly attends the mega-donor summits organized by the Koch brothers, including the 2012 winter summit in Indian Wells, Calif., where the Kochs raised more than $150 million to be directed to groups ahead of the general election.” [Politico, 3/29/12]
Oil Companies Profit From High Gas Prices. According to the Center for American Progress, “While higher oil prices are bad news for the economy and families, oil price increases over the past decade have helped grow profits for the big five oil companies: BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell. It's not a coincidence that these five oil companies set profit records in 2008, the same year that oil reached its all-time high of $147 per barrel. When oil prices crashed in 2009, so did profits.” [Center for American Progress, 2/28/12]
Higher gas prices increase oil companies’ profits. According to ExxonMobil, “Here’s a simple fact of economics that’s getting everyone in Washington pretty excited this week: When prices increase for a commodity like oil, companies that produce and sell that commodity earn more money.” [ExxonMobil Perspectives, 4/27/11]
Koch Brothers Have Pledged $200 Million Before Election to Defeat Obama and Democrats. According to Politico, "The billionaire industrialist brothers David and Charles Koch plan to steer more than $200 million — potentially much more — to conservative groups ahead of Election Day, POLITICO has learned… at the latest installment of the twice-a-year gatherings of major donors sponsored by the Koch brothers’ privately owned oil, chemical and consumer products company, Koch operatives signaled they “are going to focus a great deal on the presidential race,” according to someone who attended the meeting." [Politico, 10/10/11]
The Koch brothers control Koch Industries, an oil and gas business. According to the New Yorker, "With his brother Charles, who is seventy-four, David Koch owns virtually all of Koch Industries, a conglomerate, headquartered in Wichita, Kansas, whose annual revenues are estimated to be a hundred billion dollars. The company has grown spectacularly since their father, Fred, died, in 1967, and the brothers took charge. The Kochs operate oil refineries in Alaska, Texas, and Minnesota, and control some four thousand miles of pipeline." [New Yorker, 8/30/10]
Mitt Romney said he would sign the House budget authored by Paul Ryan. ABC News reported that “On health care, Romney responded ‘yes’ when asked if he would sign the plan written by Rep. Paul Ryan that would restructure Medicare if it reached his desk as President, but quickly added that he would be offering his own plan.” [ABC News, 6/2/11]
Romney Endorsed 2012 Version of Ryan Plan. Politco wrote, “To ensure the plan landed well nationally, Ryan personally reached out to presidential candidates to brief them on it. Romney endorsed the plan this week.” According to the Los Angeles Times, “Paul Ryan's new budget plan drew praise from GOP presidential front-runner Mitt Romney, and an attack from President Obama's reelection campaign Tuesday. The House Republicans' fiscal blueprint for 2013 would slash federal spending, lower tax rates and substantially overhaul Medicare in an effort to free the nation "from the crushing burden of debt," Ryan wrote in a document outlining the plan.” [Los Angeles Times, 3/20/12; Politico, 3/22/12]
Newsweek: 2011 Ryan Protects Tax Breaks for Oil, Gas and Mining While Cutting Medicare. According to an article by Newsweek’s White House Correspondent Daniel Stone, “When House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan unveiled the GOP blueprint for cutting government spending, he asked Americans to make sacrifices on everything from Medicare to education, while preserving lucrative tax subsidies for the booming oil, mining and energy industries.” The article pointed out that Ryan could personally benefit from his continuation of tax breaks for oil and gas companies. [Newsweek/The Daily Beast, 6/17/11]
2012 Ryan Plan Protects Tax Breaks and Subsidies for Big Oil. According to the Center for American Progress, “American families have been plagued by higher oil and gasoline prices over the past several years despite a significant increase in domestic oil production and rigs, and decline in consumption. But while high prices threaten the economy and family budgets, they enrich American oil companies with huge profits. Yet it appears that House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed FY 2013 budget resolution would retain a decade’s worth of oil tax breaks worth $40 billion. And his budget would cut billions of dollars from investments to develop alternative fuels and clean energy technologies that would serve as substitutes for oil and help protect middle-class families from volatile energy prices as well as create jobs. In short, the Ryan budget compounds the cost of high oil and gasoline prices on the middle class.” [Center for American Progress, 3/20/12]
Oil tax breaks cost American taxpayers $4 billion a year. According to National Journal, “In fact, Republicans have long opposed President Obama’s call to roll back the $4 billion in tax breaks enjoyed annually by the oil industry, and Republicans frantically tried to scramble away from the remarks. Privately, Republican aides complained Boehner was painted into a corner by a question that rhetorically set up the tax breaks as indefensible.” [National Journal, 4/27/11]
Romney Opposed Proposal to End Oil Company Tax Breaks. According to the New York Times, "In a written response to questions about his energy positions, Romney said Friday, ''Now is not the right time to raise taxes on our oil companies.'' He expressed doubt about requirements to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions." [New York Times, 11/28/07]
In the same year that crude oil prices hit record highs, ExxonMobil set a record for profit earned by a U.S. company. According to CBS News, “Exxon Mobil Corp. on Friday reported a profit of $45.2 billion for 2008, breaking its own record for a U.S. company, even as its fourth-quarter earnings fell 33 percent from a year ago. The previous record for annual profit was $40.6 billion, which the world's largest publicly traded oil company set in 2007. The extraordinary full-year profit wasn't a surprise given crude's triple-digit price for much of 2008, peaking near an unheard of $150 a barrel in July. Since then, however, prices have fallen roughly 70 percent amid a deepening global economic crisis.” [CBS News, 2/11/09]
MEMO: Romney’s Etch-a-Sketch Plan Still Dismantles Medicare
TO: Interested Parties
FR: Bill Burton, Priorities USA Action
RE: Sunday Memo: Romney’s Etch-a-Sketch Plan Still Dismantles Medicare
The Romney-Ryan Medicare plan released this week is perhaps the first example of policy guided by the Etch-a-Sketch method of trying to erase voters' memory. In 2011, House Republicans introduced, and Romney promised to sign, a plan that would replace Medicare with a voucher program for private insurance. The election year iteration of that proposal is this week’s plan that would create vouchers for private insurance to compete with Medicare.
On Medicare, Romney’s policy change is an illusion because both policies have the same goal and outcome. The 2011 plan would dismantle traditional Medicare to pay for tax cuts benefiting the wealthy. The 2012 plan would dismantle traditional Medicare by intentionally making the program unworkable to pay for tax cuts benefiting the wealthy.
What has changed between 2011 and 2012 is not the Republican goal of essentially ending Medicare but simply a recognition that they need to change the way they promote their plan. They conducted 50 polls to find better words to use, brought political operatives into the Capitol and most importantly, “the 2012 plan is — simply put — to not talk about the plan too much.” For Republicans, not actually talking about their new plan for Medicare is critical because a close examination reveals that the end result is still the elimination of traditional Medicare.
The 2012 plan provides vouchers for seniors to purchase coverage from private insurance companies. The result, intentionally, is that older and less healthy seniors would stick with traditional Medicare’s guaranteed benefit. This would, intentionally, make traditional Medicare unworkable. The result would be, as the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities writes, “the gradual demise of traditional Medicare."
House Republicans proposed a similar plan to create a competitor for Medicare in the 1990s. In an unintentionally candid statement, then-Speaker Newt Gingrich said the intention of the program was to cause traditional Medicare to “wither on the vine.”
And, like 2011, the rationale for essentially ending Medicare is not to reduce the deficit. Instead, the ‘savings’ from cutting health care for seniors goes overwhelmingly to finance $4.6 trillion in new tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthy.
The 2012 Romney-Ryan Medicare plan simply rephrases the 2011 Romney-Ryan Medicare policy into poll-tested election year talking points. No matter how hard Romney tries to shake, the Republican plan to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy by dismantling Medicare is not going to be erased.
Background
2011: Mitt Romney said he would sign the House budget authored by Paul Ryan. ABC News reported that “On health care, Romney responded ‘yes’ when asked if he would sign the plan written by Rep. Paul Ryan that would restructure Medicare if it reached his desk as President, but quickly added that he would be offering his own plan.” [ABC News, 6/2/11]
Romney Endorsed 2012 Version of Ryan Plan. Politco wrote, “To ensure the plan landed well nationally, Ryan personally reached out to presidential candidates to brief them on it. Romney endorsed the plan this week.” According to the Los Angeles Times, “Paul Ryan's new budget plan drew praise from GOP presidential front-runner Mitt Romney, and an attack from President Obama's reelection campaign Tuesday. The House Republicans' fiscal blueprint for 2013 would slash federal spending, lower tax rates and substantially overhaul Medicare in an effort to free the nation "from the crushing burden of debt," Ryan wrote in a document outlining the plan.” [Los Angeles Times, 3/20/12; Politico, 3/22/12]
Politico: Republicans Focused on Repackaging Medicare Changes Using Poll-Tested Language. According to Politico, “The party polled on Medicare in 50 battleground districts. It vetted the plan with a dozen conservative groups. It reached out to rank-and-file lawmakers and asked them what they needed to support the sweeping conservative spending plan. Ryan briefed the Republican presidential candidates and won a quick public endorsement of the plan from Mitt Romney. And perhaps most important, the GOP learned how to use the right poll-tested words. The 2012 plan is — simply put — to not talk about the plan too much. Ryan and Republicans no longer talk about their plan as a stand-alone.” [Politico, 3/22/12]
CBPP: Ryan Plan Would Likely Mean “Gradual Demise of Traditional Medicare.” According to the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the plan would, “Likely lead to the gradual demise of traditional Medicare by making the pool of Medicare beneficiaries smaller, older, and sicker — and increasingly costly to cover.” [CBPP, 3/19/12]
Plan Mimics Gingrich’s Goal to Have Medicare “Wither on the Vine.” According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, “Premium support would replace Medicare’s guarantee of health coverage with a flat payment, or voucher, that beneficiaries would use to buy private health insurance or traditional Medicare. Although billed as a kinder, gentler form of premium support, the Ryan-Wyden plan has the same basic features as earlier proposals. It is similar to a 1995 proposal from then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich that Gingrich said would have caused traditional Medicare to “wither on the vine.”” [CBPP, 3/19/12]
AARP: Ryan Plan would “simply increase costs for beneficiaries while removing Medicare’s promise of secure health coverage.” According to the AARP, “The typical Medicare beneficiary today, living on an income of roughly $20,000, already struggles to pay for their ever-rising health and prescription drug costs — and nearly 20 percent of their income currently goes to health care costs. By creating a “premium support” system for future Medicare beneficiaries, the proposal is likely to simply increase costs for beneficiaries while removing Medicare’s promise of secure health coverage — a guarantee that future seniors have contributed to through a lifetime of hard work.” [AARP Statement, 3/21/12]
Plan Would Put Medicare at Inherent Disadvantage, Forcing its Gradual Unraveling. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “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 consequence. Ryan-Wyden 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.” [CBPP, 3/19/12]
Ryan Plan Would Cut Taxes for Millionaires and Companies Shipping Jobs Overseas. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, “The Ryan budget would provide income tax cuts for millionaires averaging at least $187,000 in 2014. The plan would also reduce corporate income taxes and would increase the (already considerable) incentives for corporations to shift profits and jobs overseas.” [Citizens for Tax Justice, 3/22/12]
Ryan Plan Adds $4.6 Trillion to Bush Tax Cuts, Both Benefiting Wealthy Primarily. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, “These tax cuts all would come on top of President Bush’s tax cuts, which also are very expensive and tilted toward the nation’s most affluent people and which Chairman Ryan would make permanent. The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center (TPC) estimates that extending the Bush and other expiring tax cuts would cost $5.4 trillion over the next decade and that Chairman Ryan’s additional tax cuts would cost another $4.6 trillion. That means Chairman Ryan is proposing nearly $10 trillion in tax cuts (relative to current law) that heavily favor high-income Americans even while claiming that his budget’s severe cuts in basic low-income programs like Medicaid, food stamps, and Pell Grants are needed to rein in unsustainable deficits.” [CBPP, 3/22/12]
Wall Street Journal: GOP 2011 Plan Would “Essentially End Medicare.” According to the Wall Street Journal, “The plan would essentially end Medicare, which now pays most of the health-care bills for 48 million elderly and disabled Americans, as a program that directly pays those bills.” [Wall Street Journal, 4/4/11]
Los Angeles Times: “Seniors Would End Up Paying Almost Twice As Much.” According to the Los Angeles Times, “But because commercial insurers cost more to run than government plans, the Wisconsin Republican's proposal to privatize Medicare starting in 2022 would actually spark a dramatic increase in how much the nation spends on healthcare for the elderly, according to an independent analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Even as the federal government cut its own spending, seniors would end up paying almost twice as much out of their own pockets — or more than $12,510 a year, the CBO estimates. Altogether, the total cost of insurance would be higher.” [Los Angeles Times, 4/7/11]
Brookings Institution Senior Fellow: “Most of the savings from spending reductions would go to finance tax cuts.” According to Henry Aaron, a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, “Ryan justifies such cuts in the name of deficit reduction. In fact, deficit reduction would be minimal. Most of the savings from spending reductions would go to finance tax cuts - including cuts in the top tax rates from 39.6% to 25% for those who make $375,000 or more. And most of the rest of the claimed savings are illusory. Ryan's baseline assumes that military ventures in Afghanistan and Iraq will continue indefinitely. If one recognizes that these ventures will end, deficit reduction over the next decade would be just $155 billion, a tenth of what Ryan claims.” [Brookings,4/10/11]
Conservative Website: Conservative Groups Expect Romney to Simply Sign Congressional Republican Agenda. According to the conservative Daily Caller, “The tea party may never trust Mitt Romney’s conservative credentials, but tea party group FreedomWorks is hoping that if Romney does make it to the White House, his political leanings may not matter because all he’ll have to do is sign the agenda that the conservative House and Senate send to his desk.” [Daily Caller, 3/22/12]
SUPER TUESDAY MEMO: Romney’s Agenda for the Wealthy Hurting Him With Those Who Are Not
TO: Interested Parties
FR: Bill Burton, Priorities USA Action
RE: Super Tuesday Memo: Romney’s Agenda for the Wealthy Hurting Him With Those Who Are Not
Mitt Romney’s narrow win in his home state of Michigan was only possible because of overwhelming margins with the wealthiest Republican primary voters. In what has become a predictable outcome during the Republican nomination fight, Romney once again lost voters making less than $100,000 per year.
Between Cadillacs, Nascar, and $10,000 bets, Romney certainly has done his fair share to demonstrate an inability to understand the economic challenges facing most Americans. But more importantly, Americans understand that Romney’s policies would primarily help himself and other extremely wealthy individuals at the expense of the middle class.
On Wednesday, the Tax Policy Center released its analysis of Romney’s budget-busting tax plan showing that he would provide a new tax cut of $250,000 to those earning over $1 million a year but he would raise taxes on those struggling to get by. His other economic ideas seem designed to simply make life more convenient for the very wealthiest: deregulating Wall Street, rolling back clean air protections, cutting taxes for big corporations and bashing unions.
Romney’s agenda for the wealthy is measurably hurting him with those who are not. In a recent CNN poll, 65% of voters said Romney “favors the rich.” That’s substantially higher than any of his Republican primary opponents. Even John McCain and President Bush did not have such dismal numbers on a similar question. Exit polls have shown him underperforming with middle class votes in every primary so far and general election polls show a decisive majority of Americans believe Romney does not understand their needs.
In the Republican primary, Romney’s road to plurality has been based on running up large margins with the few voters who earn over $200,000 a year and allowing his various rivals to divide up middle class votes. While Romney seems likely to limp to the Republican nomination with this monopoly on the wealthiest voters, he will enter the general election as a millionaire whose nomination was ensured by millionaires after he promised policies to benefit millionaires.
Background
In Michigan, Romney Only Won Voters Making Over $100,000 Per Year. In Michigan exit polls, Romney only beat Santorum among those earning over $100,000 a year. His margin of victory was provided by winning a large majority of voters earning over $200,000 per year. [CNN Exit Poll]
In Iowa, Romney Only Won Voters Making Over $100,000 Per Year. In Iowa exit polls, the only income subgroup Romney won was those making over $100,000 a year. [CNN Exit Poll]
In New Hampshire, Romney Won Majority Only Of Voters Making Over $200,000. In New Hampshire exit polls, even though he won decisively, Romney only won a majority among voters making over $200,000 a year. His support declined corresponding to each drop in income level below$200,000. [CNN Exit Poll]
In SC, the Only Group Romney Won Was Over $200,000. In SC exit polls, Romney only won those earning over $200,000 a year. [CNN Exit Poll]
In FL, Romney Won Majority Only Of Voters Over $200,000. In Florida exit polls, even though he won the state decisively, Romney only won a majority among voters making over $200,000 a year. His margin declined corresponding to each drop in income level below $200,000. [CNN Exit Poll]
NBC/Wall StreetJournal Poll: Romney Far Under Water on Caring About Average People. In the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released March 5th, 23% of adults feels Romney cares about average people while 46% do not. The 23-point negative is an increase from 15-point negative in January. [NBC/Wall Street Journal, 3/5/12]
Pew Poll: Large Majority Believe Romney Doesn’t Understand Their Needs. By a 61-29 margin, voters do not believe Romney “Understands the needs of people like you.” [Pew People and the Press, 2/13/12]
ABC/Washington Post Poll: Decisive Margin for President Obama on Protecting the Middle Class. By a 56-37 margin, voters trust President Obama over Mitt Romney on “protecting the middle class.” [Washington Post, 2/5/12]
ABC/Washington Post Poll: Romney Losing Support Quickly from Middle and Lower Income Voters. Among those making under $50,000 per year, Romney unfavorable ratings jumped 20 points in the month of January. [Washington Post, 1/24/12]
CNN Poll: 65% of Voters Believe Romney favors the rich. According to a CNN poll this week, 65% of voters believe Romney favors the rich. That’s higher than any of his Republican opponents. On a similar question fewer voters believed Republican nominee John McCain and then-Republican nominee George Bush favored the wealthy in their policies. [CNN, 2/16/12; CBS News, 10/23/08; Gallup, 8/26/08]
Romney’s Tax Plan Would Cut Taxes for the Rich, Raise Taxes on Poor and Increase the Deficit. According to CNN, “Those making $1 million or more would receive an average tax cut of $250,000, an 8.1% tax rate reduction, while the average American would get $2,800, a 3.5% rate drop.” According to the Hill, Romney’s tax changes, “would tack an extra $3.4 trillion on to budget deficits over the next 10 years, compared to a world where the Bush-era tax rates were extended.” According to CNN, “the bottom 20 percent would see their average federal tax rate increase $149, or 1.3 percent.” [CBS, 3/2/12; The Hill, 2/29/12; CNN, 3/1/12]
Romney Proposed Repealing Wall Street Reform. According to Believe in America, Romney’s plan for jobs and economic growth included a proposal to “Repeal Dodd-Frank and replace with streamlined, modern regulatory framework.” [Believe in America: Mitt Romney’s Plan for Jobs and Economic Growth, Pg. 154, 9/6/11]
Romney Opposed Air Pollution Rules from Coal Plants and Criticized Other Environmental Regulations. [Foster Daily Democrat, Mitt Romney Op-Ed, 8/27/11; Mitt Romney’s Plan for Jobs and Economic Growth, 9/6/11]
In Michigan, Romney has appealed to Republican voters by attacking labor unions. According to McClatchy Newspapers, "Campaigning in Michigan, Romney is striking a far different note on organized labor than his late father did when he chaired American Motors from 1954-1962 and enjoyed good relations with unions. Instead, Mitt Romney is ripping labor unions at every turn. "Once upon a time, labor unions fought to secure important protections for American workers and help our economy grow," Romney's campaign said last week. "Unfortunately, today they too often stand as obstacles to growth and fight against the workers they are supposed to serve." [McClatchy Newspapers, 2/19/12]