Winning the Present with TR and Civility

This piece was originally published eight months ago, on June 15, 2011 as the Republican presidential primary contest was just starting.  Its message is still relevant.

By Mary Claire Kendall

It might seem like an odd pairing, but what the GOP field needs is TR and civility to win the present — and defeat President Barack Obama in 2012.

TR, of course, refers to larger-than-life Republican Theodore Roosevelt[1], who served as president from 1901-1908, then ran on the Progressive Bull Moose ticket in 1912.

While he was a rock-ribbed Republican, when theory ran afoul of doing what’s right by the little guy, he always chose the latter[2].

His brand of politics is perfect for slaying today’s dragons that have gutted the middle class and precipitated runaway spending.

Take, for example, housing prices. The Case-Shiller index[3 ]recently revealed they’ve declined more steeply than during the Great Depression. The fact that 75% of consumers can’t even get loans to purchase a home, let alone refinance, is a big reason why.

Investment banker Christopher Whalen[4] , whose father served in Ronald Reagan’s “kitchen cabinet,” says the way around this problem is to raise the FHA loan cap and help small and medium size banks increase lending. This would mean giving more power and money to community banks. Obama prefers letting Wall Street call the shots — in spite of its role in precipitating the 2007-08 housing meltdown — while the little guy gets slammed.

But, Republicans, Whalen says, should out-progressive Democrats and do what is right, which is TR writ large. TR basically stared down Wall Street, thus saving it from itself; so should today’s Republicans.

One hundred years after TR’s Bull Moose gambit, many in the GOP field seem well-positioned to take up his mantle.

For instance, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty emphasizes Main Street production over Wall Street consumption. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has that “can do” spirit. And Texas Governor Rick Perry shares TR’s tough-as-nails persona.

Then there’s Mitt Romney, who, like TR, favors universal health care as the key to economic stability, signing it into law as governor of Massachusetts (2003-2007).

Many conservatives deride the 2006 Massachusetts law as ObamaCare’s twin and Tea Party poison — a comparison Obama smugly reinforces. But, in fact, ObamaCare and RomneyCare are apples and oranges. Whereas ObamaCare reduces what doctors are paid; RomneyCare ensures that doctors are, in fact, paid when a patient, who could otherwise afford it, lacks insurance.

Also, as Romney underscored in Monday’s CNN debate in Manchester, RomneyCare did not raise taxes, whereas ObamaCare does — to the tune of $500 billion — in addition to shifting $500 billion out of Medicare to fund it.

Sixty-three percent of Massachusetts residents favor the law, according to a recent poll by the Harvard School of Public Health and the Boston Globe, up 10 percentage points in the past two years, with only 21 percent opposed.

And what of the “individual mandate” that makes people think RomneyCare is ObamaCare? Well, considering there’s already a federal mandate to provide ER care to anyone regardless of ability to pay, it’s pretty important to make sure docs get paid, unless you want to drive them out of business a la ObamaCare.

Where it gets tricky is that an insurance mandate only make sense if, as in the case of automobiles, having coverage doesn’t encourage crashes, whereas standard health insurance increases utilization. Also, RomneyCare does not encourage medical savings accounts and streamlined, just-the-basics insurance.

But, as Romney is at pains to say, the Massachusetts law was a state solution to a state problem. He vows to rescind cost-prohibitive, one-size-fits-all ObamaCare if elected president — granting a waiver to all 50 states on Day One.

Meanwhile, Republicans have come up with a way to obviate a “mandate” — since understandably, it’s not everyone’s cup of tea — by assessing a fee on those who don’t buy insurance to hedge against costs incurred should they fall ill or suffer injury.

But, sensing political opportunity, Romney’s Republican opponents have been pouncing on him, with Sarah Palin tut tutting the Massachusetts law in Boston one hour before Romney announced for the presidency. Gov. Pawlenty called out “ObamneyCare” because, he explained in the debate, Obama claimed RomneyCare was his “blueprint.”

The good news, though, is Monday’s debate[5] signaled a truce of sorts.

Indeed, if Republicans hope to win the present, we must nominate a candidate who understands what ails the economy and how to cure it, of which health care is a big part. This means civility — honestly assessing opponents’ positions and presenting your own — will be critically important, lest we destroy ourselves from within.

So, with eyes on the prize, let the race be guided by the kind of civility our great Republican presidents, such as Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, and, yes, even TR, practiced; and inspired by TR’s overflowing common sense in making life better for the little guy, now suffering under the weight of Obamanomics.

Originally published in Pajamas Media on June 15, 2010 http://pjmedia.com/blog/winning-the-present-with-tr-and-civility/

________________________________________

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/winning-the-present-with-tr-and-civility/

URLs in this post: 

[1] Theodore Roosevelt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt

[2] chose the latter: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/175141/teddy-right/jonah-goldberg

[3] The Case-Shiller index: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-09/shiller-says-u-s-home-price-declines-of-10-to-25-wouldn-t-surprise-me-.html

[4] Christopher Whalen: http://blogs.reuters.com/christopher-whalen/

[5] Monday’s debate: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/14/who-was-the-nights-biggest-winner/

Copyright © 2011 Pajamas Media. All rights reserved.

The Wealth of Romney

Mitt and Ann Romney
Source: RomneyCentral.com

By Mary Claire Kendall

National Journal’s Amy Walter said on ABC’s This Week that former Governor Mitt Romney will have to “defend his wealth.”  Is she serious?  Presidents with wealth are the norm.  President George Washington (1789-1797) in today’s dollars was worth $525 million. Presidents Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy were all immensely wealthy, as well. 

The big push since Sarah Palin and company started squawking about it was for Romney to release his tax returns to reveal just how wealthy he is.  Romney was skewered after he responded “maybe” when John King asked at the CNN debate in Charleston if he would follow his father, Governor George Romney’s example. In 1967, he released all his taxes when he was running for president, thus inaugurating the tradition of presidential candidates releasing their returns.

The press pounced saying Romney’s “maybe” showed his utter lack of preparation and possible cover-up, which is pure poppycock. Rather, it was simply a son saying I’m going to think for myself instead of moving lock-step with my father.  This simple explanation apparently occurred to no one. The allegation this was a major flubbed answer was repeated ad nauseam during the news cycle after the debate. 

But, bowing to reality, on Tuesday, January 24, Mitt Romney released his taxes for 2010 and 2011.  

He didn’t need to do this.  As the Tax History Project notes, “Individual income tax returns—including those of public figures—are private information, protected by law from unauthorized disclosure. Indeed, the Internal Revenue Service is barred from releasing any taxpayer information whatsoever, except to authorized agencies and individuals.” 

JFK clung to this right. But, last I checked he was not being denounced in history books as a greedy capitalist. 

Of course, the reason Washington and TR could not release their tax returns is that there were no income taxes. Until the 16^th amendment passed in 1916, enabling this pernicious tax on precious income, two-thirds of federal revenue was derived from the alcohol tax. The income tax was a sop to the prohibition lobby in order to banish alcohol from the land.  The rest of the federal pie was garnered from tariffs, which successfully protected American industry and thereby our economy and work ethic.

But, Romney waved his right.  And, what did his returns show?  He paid more taxes than he owed. Furthermore, when factoring in his charitable contributions, he gave away about 40% of his income.

To suggest his reticence to release his tax returns is proof he’s hiding something is, therefore, also pure poppycock.  Rather, it shows his class and sensitivity to the feelings of others in these tough times when many can’t afford new clothing but only a patch to fix their old clothing.  But then, the essence of wealth is what you hold in your heart not your bank account, which countless souls, who are not so materially blessed as the Romneys, know—in spades.  Still, Romney’s reticence to flaunt his wealth is laudable.

The irony is that Romney’s own true wealth lies in his desire to make life better for his fellow Americans by turning around the disastrous Obama economy—the worst since the Great Depression.  Obama, for his part, disregards Americans’ feelings as he goes about spending lavishly on himself and his re-election campaign with taxpayer money—including unnecessary million-dollar-plus trips on Air Force One to swing states—acting as cool as a cucumber except when excoriating Republicans.

Obama’s crooning  provides more alleviation of pain than his policies. But, President Romney will know the right levers to pull on Day One in January 2013 to start ameliorating the suffering of Americans—by singing the right policy tune when, once again, to quote President Calvin Coolidge, “the business of America (will be) business.”

Yet, Romney still doesn’t cut it for some. For instance, Doris Kearns Goodwin asserted on Meet the Press that all wealthy presidents had some life experience that enabled them to relate to the sufferings of ordinary people.  TR lost his wife and mother the same day—Valentine’s Day 1884.  FDR had polio.  And, JFK was Captain of PT 109 in World War II. Not so Romney.  

What she conveniently overlooks is that when presented with one of the greatest challenges a man can face—his wife Ann’s diagnosis with Multiple Sclerosis in 1998 and later breast cancer—Mitt Romney was precisely in the tradition she points to. Indeed, the compassionate way he handled this crisis in his life shows his greatest wealth lies in his heart.

Update: The hue and cry over Governor Romney's comment regarding the “very poor” in the wake of his Florida landslide, overlooks the obvious.  Of course, he “cares” about the “very poor.”  His 10% annual tithing, much of which benefits the “very poor,” is proof of that.  But, it is by focusing on the shrinking “middle class” strata, that many who are now “very poor,” will leave those ranks. For, if Romney is anything, he’s focused.