Mitt Romney's Fatal Prescription for Health Care

by Avenging Angel

Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:51 AM PDT

Whatever ruling the nation's highest court hands down on President Obama's Affordable Care Act, Republican challenger Mitt Romney's prescription for health care is unchanged.  "Now if I'm able to repeal it--or if the Supreme Court is able to get that job done for us," he announced last week, "We want to replace it."  But what Romney wants to replace the ACA with  - "states with responsibility" to "make sure that every American has access to good health care" - is simply impossible.  His plan to gut Medicaid spending and vague proposals for tax deductions to purchase coverage wouldn't merely leave millions of Americans without health insurance, including hundreds of thousands in his home state of Massachusetts.  And as the sad history shows, without help from Washington universal coverage at the state level has a proven track record of failure.

The Washington Post's Ezra Klein noted that the Romney campaign's 330 word description doesn't offer many details on his scheme to "replace Obamacare."  As Klein explained:

Those words are enough to lay out a basic vision. Romney would turn Medicaid over to the states and -- though this appears in a separate policy paper -- cap its growth at inflation plus 1 percent, which would mean deep cuts to the program. He would allow private insurance to be sold across state lines, meaning that if health-care insurers find the rules in California too onerous, they can locate in South Dakota instead. This is basically how credit cards work today. He would cap non-economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits and encourage "Consumer Reports-type" ratings of health plans. The broad idea, his campaign says, is to make the market for health insurance look more like the market for things that aren't health insurance.But the key to his plan comes in these nine words: "End tax discrimination against the individual purchase of insurance." The problem is, there aren't any words after that.

But as Romney ally Ramesh Ponnuru fretted last month, the Republican's proposal to offer tax deductions for individuals to purchase health insurance in the private market is little different than George W. Bush's 2007 plan.  While the Affordable Care Act will enable coverage for 30 million people, previous estimates suggested the Bush framework would add 9 million at most. Sadly, that's just the beginning of President Romney's health care body count.
Like his new GOP twin in Congress Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney has proposed steep cuts to Medicaid spending and pledged to hand-over the shrunken pool of funds as block grants to the states. And it is precisely that formula that would smother his once-beloved Romneycare in its cradle. As the Boston Globe recently documented, President Romney "would probably cripple the Massachusetts health care law":

"It would have been impossible for Massachusetts to do what it did without increased federal Medicaid support,'' said John McDonough, a major architect of the state's health care overhaul law and now director of Harvard University's Center for Public Health Leadership. "What he's proposing is in direct opposition to what he did as governor,'' said Amy Whitcomb Slemmer, executive director of Health Care for All in Massachusetts, citing the Bay State's 98 percent coverage rate, the highest in the nation. "That kind of expansion would not have been possible under a block grant program,'' as Romney has proposed. Block grants give states more flexibility in spending federal money, but restrict funding increases.

As ThinkProgress explained, Romney in the past had been very up front about the crucial role federal funding - and flexibility - played in making his signature achievement possible:

"[F]rom the beginning the plan was a 50/50 deal between the federal government and the state government. The Feds fund half of it, they have from the very beginning." The Boston Globe notes that "approximately 56 percent of the gain in coverage was related to increased federal Medicaid support" in Massachusetts, and of the newly insured, "18 percent gained coverage through Medicaid, and another 38 percent gained coverage through Commonwealth Care, a program that federal Medicaid dollars pay half of."

But like the new insurance coverage for 30 million Americans nationwide under the Affordable Care Act, the gains in Massachusetts would be a thing of the past under a Romney administration in Washington. Projections from the Congressional Budget Office suggest that 48 million more people would be uninsured under Paul Ryan's House GOP budget, a scheme similar to Romney's. That figure would include hundreds of thousands in the state Romney once governed. Keep in mind that Massachusetts was a national leader in health care even before the 2006 passage of Governor Romney's reforms.  While the state's individual mandate and subsidies have lowered the uninsured rate to two percent, roughly 90 percent of Bay State residents already had coverage when the law took effect.  With 50 million people uninsured, the national rate is roughly 16%.  And in states like Mississippi and Texas, the ranks of the uninsured top 25 percent.

Ironically, as this chart from the Commonwealth Fund shows, health care performance is worst in those states where Republicans poll best.

Nevertheless, in keeping with GOP orthodoxy Mitt Romney declared last week that states can do it all:

What I would do is keep--as we have today--state responsibility for those that are uninsured...And states will learn from each other, and some will have good experiences and others will not. That's happening even today and states are learning and trying new ways to care for the uninsured. It's important for us in my view to make sure that every American has access to good health care.

Unfortunately, recent history shows that even relatively more affluent states have failed to deliver universal coverage when they try on their own.  As Ezra Klein's Washington Post colleague Sarah Kliff pointed out this week, Washington State's 1990's mandate-less reforms led to skyrocketing premiums and insurers fleeing the state.  Writing for the Washington Monthly back in 2007 ("Over Stated"), Klein looked at the grim fates of efforts in California, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, Tennessee and Illinois.  Thanks to their small markets, limited resources, unique populations and unsustainability in the face of recession-induced budget cuts, susceptibility to recessions, he concluded "the laboratories of democracy' can't achieve universal health care":

Letting states continue to take the lead would be disastrous, for one very simple reason: providing health care for all citizens is one of those tasks, like national defense, that the states are simply unequipped to manage on their own. The history of state health reform initiatives (and there's quite a history) is a tale of false hopes and great disappointments. The deck is stacked from the start, and the house--in this case the insurers, the providers, and other agents of the status quo--always wins....Over the years, states have tried programs of many different ideological and economic persuasions. All of them failed, and not because the programs were insufficiently inventive, but because states are structurally incapable of sustaining them.

Yet, that is precisely what Mitt Romney wants to do:

You see I believe in the 10th Amendment. I believe the states have responsibility to care for their people in the way they feel best. But to help states care for their own uninsured, I would take the Medicaid dollars that comes with all sorts of strings attached today, send them back to the states along with something known as the DSH money, and let states care for their own people in the way they think best. That--in my view--is the best way to care for the uninsured.

But Romney's prescription - slashing federal Medicaid spending over the next decade and turning what remains over to the states - is a toxic one.
Currently, the $300 billion Medicaid program serves roughly 60 million Americans. On average, the federal government picks up 57% of the tab, with poorer states like Mississippi and Alabama getting 75% of the funding from Washington. Averaging 21.8% of states' spending, Medicaid is now the largest budget item for most. Medicaid not only pays for a third of nursing home care in the United States; it covers a third of all childbirths. (In Texas, the figure is one-half.) As with Medicare, Medicaid provides insurance for substantially less than private insurers (27% less for children, 20% for adults.) With the passage of the Ryan 2012 budget proposal, Republicans voted to slash Medicaid funding by $1 trillion over 10 years while sending the remaining dollars as block grants to the states.  As the Center on Budget Policy and Priorities documented, Romney's plan is even more draconian.  As it turns out, that gambit would not only gut the 2010 Affordable Care Act law, but guarantee than millions of low income Americans are deprived of health care. As Jonathan Cohn explained:

If the law changes and Medicaid becomes a block grant, then every year the federal government would simply give the states a lump sum, set by a fixed formula, and let the states make the most of it. Conservatives claim block grants would give states the flexibility they need to make their programs more efficient. But, as Harold Pollack has noted in these pages, states already have some flexibility. And because demand for Medicaid tends to peak during economic downturns, when state tax revenues fall, the likely impact of a block grant scheme would be to make Medicaid even less affordable at the time it is most necessary.That's not to say plenty of governors wouldn't take advantage of block grant status to change their Medicaid programs in ways they cannot now. They surely would--by capping enrollment, thinning benefits, increasing co-payments, and so on.

Which is exactly what they are already doing now. Ezra Klein summed up the findings from a recent study by Kaiser Family Foundation and the Bipartisan Policy Center:

Twenty states implemented benefit restrictions in the past year. In fiscal year 2010, 39 states implemented Medicaid provider rate cuts or freezes (up from 33 in fiscal year 2009), and 37 states have provider rate restrictions planned for the next fiscal year.

For Medicaid block grant supporters like Mitt Romney and Haley Barbour, America's future is Mississippi's present:

Mississippi provides some of the lowest Medicaid benefits to working adults in the nation. A parent who isn't working can qualify only if annual family income is less than 24 percent of the poverty line. Working parents qualify only if they make no more than 44 percent of the federal poverty level. Seniors and people with disabilities are eligible with income at 80 percent of the poverty line...Translated from the federal poverty guidelines, that means a working Mississippi couple with one child could earn no more than $8,150 a year and still qualify for Medicaid, seniors and people with disabilities could earn no more than $8,700, and a pregnant woman could earn no more than $20,000 a year.

That's a far cry from what's happening today in Mitt Romney's home state of Massachusetts.  By most measures, Romney's signature 2006 health care law has been a tremendous success. Enjoying the consistent support of Bay State residents by a 2 to 1 margin, the bill Governor Mitt Romney signed into law lowered the uninsured rate from about 10  percent to a national low of two percent. In March, a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) showed that universal coverage in Massachusetts is indeed making people there healthier. Meanwhile, the rate of growth for business and individual insurance premiums has slowed dramatically, a trend state regulators recently announced will result in only a 1.2% increase. Unfortunately, what Governor Romney giveth, President Romney will taketh away.
* Crossposted at Perrspectives *

It's Not the Money, Mitt; It's Your Willful Ignorance

by irishwitch

Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 12:01 PM PDT

The rIch are different

So said F.Scott Fitzgerald.  In his famous novel The Great Gatsby which several generations of high school students have been forced to read. he depicts the tragic love for Jay Gatsby, a man with a shady past and low class origins, for Daisy Buchanan, who is beautiful, vivacious, charming and socially prominent. She and her husband made their money the old-fashioned way: they inherited it. She and her husband are vain, shallow, self-absorbed, and uncaring.  Someone has always cleaned up their messes for them. Someone will always be  on a flow of bathtub gin, pretty people without a care--and they hurt so many others  with their carelessness and lack of awareness. 

At first glance, Mitt doesn't seem to have much in common with the Buchanans. He's a straight-laced Mormon, who doesn't drink alcohol or even coffee or tea. He finds a Mormon church wherever he goes so he can worship on Sunday.  He married young, and it appears he's never even looked at another woman. He's the anti-John Edwards, faithful and supportive of her even during her breast cancer fight and her current battle with MS--many men would have sought comfort in the arms of a healthy woman, but Mitt didn't. He appears to be devoted to his children. And, while his time at Bain  can be criticized for lots of reason, there's not even a hint of his doing anything illegal.

In short, he sounds like the perfect presidential candidate: no sex scandals, no dirt in his background, pure as the driven snow.

Looks that way, doesn't he?

But it takes more to make a good president that being without bimbo eruptions or shady dealings--and that's where Mitt proves himself to be a handsome cardboard cutout.

He is so isolated from the reality of everyday Americans that he can't even recognize a donut when he sees one. He thinks his wife having  two Cadillacs is proof he believes in America, not getting that most of us struggle to make payments on old clunkers. His wife promises they won't take fancy overseas vacations because they value family above everything, and they have "places"they like to go--like the compound in New Hampshire or the huge mansion they're building on the California shoreline or the palace in Vail. ANd she doesn't seem to realize that the rest of us struggle to pay mortgages on the single home we own that has lsot far too much of its value.

He's the perfect president for the 1%. FOr the other 99%, not so much.

It isn't the money, Mitt. It isn't the private schools (though that hair-cutting incident at Cranbrook Academy should give people pause; bullying Putin won't go over well) or the Harvard education. It isn't owning all those houses or the two Cadillacs or the car elevator or the dressage horse   or the fact that you make 30 times (20 million) in dividends what the average American has said would be the best  amount of money to liou didn't learn from them because you didn't see the need--after all they're only workers, and they don't really count in your world..

We've had some damned good presidents  who came from privileged backgrounds. Teddy Roosevelt and FDR and Jack Kennedy,  had money. But they had thing you seriously lack: an awareness of reality.  They realized that when the 99% are suffering, the country suffers--and even in this day of diversification of assets and hedge funds and offshore accounts and global commerce, that suffering eventually affects the rich along with the poor. This recession, like the Great Depression (surely they told you about that in school?), is having a negative effect everywhere in the world, and its even beginning to hurt China.  Just making money for your pals won't cut it this time. Grover Norquist and his ass-kissing sycophants are wrong about not raising taxes. Even Reagan knew that there are times when you have to raise taxes and spend money putting the rest of us back to work. And that means, yes, the bulk of the tax hikes should be borne by the people who have suffered the least: the 1%.

That Ryan budget you cleave to so fervently?  It's a disaster for everyone but the rich. Ending Medicaid and Medicare?  Ditto.  You've never worried about taking a sick child to the ER, have you?  Your wife never had to worry about not getting treatment for her breast cancer, did she? She just picked the best doctor and the best hospital. When you get old and end up in the hospital with pneumonia as my Dad (50K for 10 days), you won't have to worry about how to pay for it.  You'll never worry that you can't pay for good insurance like a friend of mine: the two grand a month they pay for their insurance for a family of four is a third of his salary before taxes.

You're completely unqualified to be president of America. You don't have the vaguest understanding of the effects your philosophical decisions will  have on ordinary people.

It's all theoretical for you, happening to faceless, nameless strangers who don't count because they're not of your faith or your ethnic group or your income level.

You could have learned a lot from the Kennedy brothers.  Maybe it's because they were only one generation removed from Irish working class folks that they seemed to get what life was like for the rest of us. Because they were Irish and Catholic, it didn't matter that they had the mayor of Boston for  their grandfather or that their father had been Ambassador to the Court of Saint James (he'd also made his money from bootlegging which was just Not Done)--they were Irish and Catholic and could never, ever be considered acceptable in the best society, even if Jack was president.

For all their money, the Kennedys didn't forget their roots. You talk about  a family member selling paint from the back of his car, but you don't understand that this is how many of us live.  It seems to you like a quaint story of a long-gone past--because by the time you were in school, your father was a politician and you attended the fancy private school where you bullied others unmercifully because you knew there'd be no consequences (something else you have in common with the Buchanans in the novel). You can't recognize a donut when you see one and you complained because the cookies at one meet-n-greet were storebought, not homemade, as if most of us have cooks.

Teddy beat the crap out of you when you ran for his Senate seat, and there are reasons for your loss, the same problems you have today.  People knew him and liked him and understood that got their problems--and that when they called his office with problems, his staff would make sure the problems went away, if humanly possible. He could go into a working class bar and hoist a beer (yeah, we know you don't drink alcohol, but even Mormons drink Cokes) and gab with the men there.  If it was an Irish bar, he could sing rebel songs with the best of them.He was at home in a small church in a Black neighborhood as he was at high Mass at St. Peter's. He cared about potholes and late Social Security checks.He tried to get healthcare passed for decades; in my first job, I attended one of his briefings. He tried so hard because he knew that real people don't have a spare 100K tucked away to pay for cancer treatments--not without a second mortgage on their home. He knew that some people--single Moms making minimum wage, for example--couldn't afford a doctor's visit for a sick child so they brought them to the ER where the law said they had to be treated. He knew that when you shut down a company and sell off the pieces, it may make a ton of money for your investors, but it destroys the lives of the people who worked there. He understood that actions have consequences. You don't.

Obama gets it too. Obama had a mother who had to get food stamps to feed her family. Yes, he attended a good school, but it was on scholarship. He paid for his education at college and law school on scholarships and student loans which he only paid off a few years ago. As a community organizer, he helped people in Chicago get the help they needed, from getting potholes fixed to getting AFDC. He understands what life is like for the Other 99%.

Call it the common touch--Kennedy had it. So does Obama.

And you don't.

Worse, you don't seem to want to understand the problems of the people you'll be reigning--er, representing as president.  When someone complains about Citizens United  and buying political clout, you tell him  "Corporations are people, my friend" in the condescending tone of a professor correcting a particularly dense student.  You say it would have been a good thing for the car companies to go bust, ignoring the fact that many, many people would have lost their jobs, and probably never gotten another one. You don't have a clue and you have no interest in getting one.

You'd make a great president for the 1%.

For the rest of us, you'd be a disaster, Mr. Clueless.

Remarks by President Obama on college affordability, June 21, 2012

by Transcripts EditorsFollow for Transcripts and Documents

Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:54 AM PDT

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
______________________
For Immediate Release                         June 21, 2012REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON COLLEGE AFFORDABILITY
East Room
1:36 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Thank you, everybody.  Thank you.  Everybody have a seat.  (Applause.)  Well, it is good to see all of you.

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  We love you!

THE PRESIDENT:  I love you guys back.  (Laughter.)  I have to say, the -- I don’t know about the choice of music coming in here, though.  (Laughter.)  I love my Marine Band, but this is kind of a young demographic for the piano cocktail hour.  (Laughter.)

So some of the most fun I've had as President is when I get a chance to talk with you, college students, about the importance of earning a higher education in today's economy.  And I'll admit that the East Room isn't as rowdy as Carmichael Arena at UNC, or -- we got any UNC folks here in the house?  There we go.  Coors Center at CU Boulder -- any -- no?  Okay.  (Laughter.)  I have to say that most of you are much more dressed up than usually when I see you in your own natural habitats.  (Laughter.)

But our message today is serious.  Right now, the unemployment rate for Americans with a college degree or more is about half the national average.  They earn twice as much as those who don’t have a high school diploma.  So whether it's at a four-year college, or a community college, or a technical program, some form of higher education, something beyond high school has never been more important.  It's the surest path to finding a good job, earning a good salary, making it into the middle class.

And at the same time, over the last two decades, the cost of college has doubled -- it's actually more than doubled.  And that means -- and I don’t have to tell you, because you're probably tallying it up right now -- the cost for you to take out loans has increased, and you are more likely to rack up more debt.

The average student who borrows to pay for college now graduates with about $26,000 of debt from their student loans. 

 Americans as a whole now owe more on student loans than they do on their credit cards.  

And that is wrong, because we cannot afford to price the middle class and folks who aspire to go into the middle class, we can't price them out of the college education market.  We can't stand by when millions of young people are already saddled with debt just as you're starting off.

Your parents, your grandparents, oftentimes they were in a position where when they got that first job, the first thing they're thinking about is, how do I save to buy a home and start a family.  And if you're already dealing with a big bunch of debt before you even get started, that’s a problem.  And it's mind-boggling that we've had this stalemate in Washington that threatens to make the situation even worse.

So the reason you're all here, the reason all these fine-looking young people behind me are here is that in just over a week the interest rates on federal student loans are scheduled to double.  I’ve been talking about this now for what -- a month and a half, two months, three months, five months -- I’ve lost track. (Laughter.)  We’ve been talking about it for a long time.  If Congress does not get this done in a week, the average student with federal student loans will rack up an additional $1,000 in debt over the coming year.  If Congress fails to act, more than 7 million students will suddenly be hit with the equivalent of a $1,000 tax hike.  And that’s not something that you can afford right now.

Now, as I said, if this warning sounds familiar, we’ve been talking about this for months.  Congress has had the time to fix this for months.  It’s part of the reason why everybody here looks impatient.  (Laughter.)  This issue didn’t come out of nowhere; it’s been looming for months.  But we’ve been stuck watching Congress play chicken with another deadline.  

So we’re  nine days away from thousands of American workers having to walk off their job because Congress hasn’t passed a transportation bill.  

We’re 10 days away from nearly 7.5 million students seeing their loan rates double because Congress hasn’t acted.  

This should be a no-brainer.  It should not be difficult.  It should’ve gotten done weeks ago.

Now, the good news is there are folks in Congress trying to do the right thing.  Last month, Democrats in the Senate put forward a plan that would have kept these rates in place without adding a dime to the deficit.  Unfortunately, Senate Republicans got together and blocked it.  Over in the House, the Republicans said they’d keep these rates down only if we agreed to cut things like preventive health care for women, which obviously wouldn’t fix the problem, but would create a new problem.

This is -- even as they were voting in lockstep for an economic plan that would cut financial aid for nine million college students by an average of $1,000 and give a $150,000 tax cut to wealthy Americans.  So I recognize that there’s been some effort to change the subject from this rate hike.

One Congressman warned that this is all about giving college students “free college education” -- which doesn’t make much sense, because the definition of a loan is it’s not free -- (laughter) -- you have to pay it back.  Others have said we’re just talking about student loans to distract from the economy.  That doesn’t make much sense because this is the economy.

This is all about the economy.  This is all about whether or not we are going to have the best-trained, best-educated workforce in the world.  That improves our economy.  And higher education cannot be a luxury reserved just for a privileged few. It’s an economic necessity for every family, and every family should be able to afford it.

So you guys, during this period when you’ve been in college have been some of the toughest economic times since the 1930s,  and there are still a lot of challenges ahead globally.  And we can’t control every economic headwind that we face, but this is something we can control.  This is something we can do something about.  Stopping student rates from doubling at the end of the month is something we can do right now to make a difference in the lives of all the American people.

There’s still 10 days for Congress to do the right thing.  I understand that members of both parties say they want to get this done, and there are conversations taking place, but they haven’t done it yet.  And we’ve got to keep the pressure on.

That’s where all of you come in.  Over the past few months, there are so many students and parents who have been working hard to shine a light on this issue.  You’ve rallied on campuses, in your communities.  You’ve called, you’ve emailed, you’ve tweeted your representatives in Washington.  So you’ve played your part in making sure your voice is heard and your democracy is responsive.

My main message is, as you guys embark on this day of action, I want to make sure you keep this going.  Don’t stop until it’s actually done.  There is nothing more powerful than millions of voices that are calling for change, and all of your voices can make a difference.  So keep telling Congress to do what’s right, to get this done.  Tell them now is not the time to double interest rates on your student loans.  Tell them to double down on an investment in a strong and secure middle class -- and that means your education.  Tell them now is the time to double down on an America where everybody who works hard has a fair shot at success.

And for those who are not here and are watching, if you tweet, use the hashtag #dontdoublemyrate -- (laughter) -- #dontdoublemyrate.  But I tell you, when I look out at this group right here, you give me confidence in America.  You make me optimistic, not only because you’re getting a great education, but also because all of you are participating and making sure that this democracy works the way it’s supposed to.  We need outstanding engineers, and we need outstanding nonprofit leaders, and we need outstanding entrepreneurs, but we also need outstanding citizens.  And that’s what you guys are displaying by your presence and your activities.

So, keep it up.  Let’s get this done.  Thanks, everybody.  (Applause.)
                                           END                1:47 P.M. EDT

How Censorship of the Word "Vagina" by the Michigan House Is Related to Child Sexual Abuse

by RH Reality Check

Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 12:07 PM PDT

By censoring Rep. Lisa Brown's use of the word "vagina," lawmakers in Michigan are sending a powerful message to young people that certain things (and body parts) are so shameful adults can't even hear about them.  It is just this attitude that creates environments where years of abuse - like what is being alleged in the trial of Jerry Sandusky - can go on in silence.

Written by Claudia Trevor-Wright for RH Reality Check. This diary is cross-posted; commenters wishing to engage directly with the author should do so at the original post.

An Open Letter to the Michigan House of Representatives:

I write to you today wearing several hats — I am a health educator and an attorney. I am also the mother of a four-year-old son, and tremendously fortunate to be expecting another son in August.

Over the past few weeks, I have had the distinct displeasure of following the criminal trial of former Penn State Assistant Coach Jerry Sandusky. He stands accused of over 50 separate counts of sexually abusing ten children over a 15-year period. One witness testified that Sandusky anally raped him repeatedly, causing tearing and bleeding from his rectum. Another testified that Sandusky forced him to perform oral sex. A third witness testified he screamed for help while being raped in Sandusky’s basement.

You may ask — what does your silencing Representative Lisa Brown for her use of the word “vagina” have to do with these horrendous allegations?

According to the Rape Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN), 44 percent of victims of sexual violence are under age 18, and for 93 percent of them, their attackers are trusted adults. Their attackers are family members or acquaintances. These children remain silent. In fact, most instances of sexual violence still go unreported. These children have every incentive to keep silent about their abuse. They may be deeply ashamed. They may blame themselves. They may be confused. Their safety or the safety of their loved ones may have been threatened. They may not have words to express the horrible things that are happening to them. In this silence, they remain vulnerable to continued abuse. And in this silence, they suffer. The World Health Organization reports these children are more likely to experience depression or post-traumatic stress disorder, and to consider suicide.

Yet here you stand — in your position of tremendous authority — raising the volume of that silence to a deafening roar.

My husband and I raise our son to be proud of his body, and to know and understand how it works. He has also watched my body grow and change as I progress through this pregnancy, and we use these teachable moments to help him understand the miraculous things our bodies can do. He knows to call his penis a "penis," and his testicles "testicles" (although at first it sounded more like "bicycles" to the great amusement of his grandparents).  Had we been blessed with a daughter, we would have taught her about her “vulva” and “vagina” so that she could know and appreciate her body.  Our son knows nobody should touch his body in a way that he doesn't like, and that he is the one person who gets to make that decision. I pray that he never experiences unwanted touching. But if he does, I pray that he would reach out to his father and me for help, using his voice and the words we have taught him to tell us what happened.

What does it say to him and the other sons and daughters of this world that grown men find the use of the word “vagina” — the medically accurate term for a part of the human body — to constitute a lack of decorum? “Vagina” is not a slur. “Vagina” is not slang.  It is, in fact, the only appropriate word to be used when referring to this body part, which I suspect is why it was repeatedly used in the legislation being debated at the time.

Your actions say that the human body is inherently shameful. Your actions say that talking about our bodies makes other people — grown adults — uncomfortable. Your actions tell us all to remain silent.
Your discomfort and your inability to engage in discourse regarding matters of biology using medically accurate terminology perpetuate an environment in which silence thrives, and predators serially offend for years uninterrupted.

That is truly shameful.

Sincerely,

Claudia Trevor-Wright, MA, JD

2008: Darrell Issa Voted "YES" to Fund Project Gunrunner & Merida Initiative

by cc

Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:30 AM PDT

    The Merida Initiative is the, and was the, basis for the 2008 HR-6028 Bill which specifically funded "Project Gunrunner."
     Darrell Issa pretends he has never heard of Project Gunrunner, yet in 2008 he specifically voted to fund Project Gunrunner.
     Apparently, there is more than just a huge connection between Merida Initiative and Project Gunrunner whereby Project Gunrunner funding, per HR-6028, is directly enveloped into the Merida Initiative.
     In October 2007, President Bush and President announced the Mérida Initiative, is a Billions of dollar aid package to support Mexico's President Calderón's war on drugs by, among other things, sending military grade weapons and helicopters to Mexico.  Project Gunrunner was Legislated into the Merida Initiative through HR-6028 in 2008.  After ample Congressional debate on conditionality and appropriations, the US Congress approved the initiative in HR-6028 without any strings attached.
IMPORTANT FACTS:

1)  Rep. Darrell Issa voted "yes" specifically to Fund: "Project Gunrunner" in June 2008. 2) In January 2008: ATF went to Congress and asked Congress to Fund Project Gunrunner for 3 years.
3)  In 2008, HR-6028 combined "Project Gunrunner" with the "Merida Initiative" also known as the "Merida Program."
4)  The Title of the Bill HR-6028 is:
Assistance for Mexico and Central America for Anti-Drug Programs (Merida Program)
5)   A SubSection of the Bill HR-6028 is Titled: PROJECT GUNRUNNER INITIATIVE
6)  Among other things, Project Gunrunner is directly funded through Merida Initiative
7)  In 2007 the Congress held hearings on Merida Initiative
8) Merida Initiative is complicated because it is an initiative that crosses through: Homeland Security, Secretary of State, ATF, FBI & DoJ.

    Merida is kind of like an octopus as Merida has many tentacles that go through many different areas of US security departments.      The notion that Darrell Issa had never heard of Project Gunrunner is bullsh!t since Issa voted "yes" to specifically fund Project Gunrunner in 2008.

    The 2007 Merida Initiative, along with Project Gunrunner, signed into law by President Bush in June 2008, not only allowed guns to walk into Mexico but also provided for America to send all kinds of military grade weapons, helicopters & training to and for Mexico.
JANUARY 2008:
ATF ASKS CONGRESS TO FUND PROJECT GUNRUNNER FOR 3 YEARS
      On January 16, 2008, William Hoover at the ATF briefed the House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Relations and stated Project Gunrunner a.k.a. "Merida initiative" was to be funded between 2008-2010

ATF Expands Efforts to Combat Illegal Flow of Firearms Into Mexico      The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives(ATF) plans to add additional staff members, including 35 special agents and 15 industry operations investigators, to the southwest border and deploy eTrace technology in nine U.S. consulates in Mexico in an effort to stem the illegal flow of firearms to Mexico as part of Project Gunrunner ATF Acting Director Michael J. Sullivan and Director ArthurDoty of the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) today announced.
    ATF is also part of the Administration’s recently announced “Merida initiative.” This initiative is a comprehensive U.S. strategy to address drug smuggling, firearms trafficking, and increasing violence in Mexico and Central America.
     To address the overwhelming increase of violence and firearms trafficking along the Southwest border ATF has initiated “Project Gunrunner”, a comprehensive strategy that incorporates ATF’s expertise and resources to attack the problem both domestically and internationally.
     I would like to conclude by again stating that ATF has developed and is actively implementing our “Project Gunrunner” initiative which is modeled upon our border successes over the years, and that is designed to actively disrupt, deter and dismantle the criminal enterprises and infrastructures seeking to ensure a continued and viable supply of U.S. sourced firearms for criminal purposes to Mexico, but which is also designed to address and eliminate the actual sources of the firearms and ammunition that have become so readily available for criminal purposes in both Mexico and in the U.S.
~Assistant ATF Director William Hoover to Congress in January 2008

 
DECEMBER 2007:
CONGRESSIONAL ACTIONS ON MERIDA INITIATIVE & PROJECT GUNRUNNER
     In December 2007, Congress held meetings meetings to debate and discuss funding for the Merida Initiative:

The legislative process to pass the authorization of the Merida Initiative began after President Bush submitted his supplemental request of $45.9 billion to the U.S. Congress on October 22, 2007. ~Sen Dick Lugar; December 21, 2007

HR-6028 Bill Language JUNE 2008:
     On June 10 2008, Rep. Darrell Issa Voted "YES" to Fund Project Gunrunner via HR 6028.      

2008: HR 6028
Assistance for Mexico and Central America for AntiDrug Programs (Merida Program)
Bill Passed - House (311 - 106) Yea
     Title 1: SEC. 101. FINDINGS
         Congress finds the following:
          (9) On October 22, 2007, the United States and Mexico issued a joint statement announcing the Merida Initiative, a program to fight illicit narcotics trafficking and criminal organizations throughout the Western Hemisphere.      SEC. 402. REDUCTION OF SOUTHBOUND FLOW OF ILLEGAL WEAPONS.
     a) Sense of Congress- It is the sense of Congress that--
        (5) On January 16, 2008, ATF announced that it will add 25 special agents and 15 inspectors to their Project Gunrunner along the Southwest Border. And, the ATF Budget request for fiscal year 2009 includes funding for another 12 inspectors;
     (b) PROJECT GUNRUNNER INITIATIVE.—
         (1) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall dedicate and expand the resources provided for the Project Gunrunner initiative (hereafter in this subsection referred to as the ‘‘initiative’’) of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to identify, investigate, and prosecute individuals involved in the trafficking of firearms across the United States-Mexico border.
          (2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—
To carry out this subsection, there are authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General $9,500,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2010.

    Notice in HR 6028 "Project Gunrunner" is dubbed "initiative" and then the Bill discusses "Mérida Initiative."  The Mérida Initiative and Project Gunrunner were President George Bush's brainchildren that Congress: debated, passed and was signed into law
     ... and yet Darrell Issa pretends he never heard a thing about Project Gunrunner. LACK OF OVERSIGHT ON MERIDA
     One of the biggest problems with Meridia Initiative is that Congress passed it without mandating oversight on the progress of Merida.  In June 2009, Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick wrote HR 3239 which would have mandated Homeland Security provide Congress with updates and progress of Merida --

HR 3239: Mandated Homeland Security report to Congress regarding the Merida Initiative's effects on: (1) border security; (2) border violence; (3) the illicit flow of arms, bulk cash, human trafficking and smuggling, and illegal narcotics across the U.S.-Mexico border; and (4) cooperation between DHS officials and agencies and their foreign counterparts participating in the Merida Initiative. Defines "Merida Initiative" as the program announced by the United States and Mexico on October 22, 2007, to fight illicit narcotics trafficking and criminal organizations throughout the Western Hemisphere.

JUNE 2011:
     In June 2011, Rep. Darrell Issa got pissed off when the Washington Post printed a story that Darrell Issa had been briefed on Project Gunrunner in 2010 and his staffer, Frederick Hill told the Daily Caller.
Hill said there was a briefing that Issa attended back in April 2010 on a similar subject.

    “There were questions at the time about the number of U.S. weapons that were ending up at Mexican crime scenes,” he said. “Basically, [it was about] the efforts of the ATF to stop cartels from doing this.”
     Did gun walking or Operation Fast and Furious come up at that briefing at all? Hill says “they certainly did not.”

    But wait Fred Hill!  Your boss, Darrell Issa, Voted to FUND "Project Gunrunner" in 2008 -- where was his concern then?      Was Darrell Issa in a coma in December 2007 when Congress was debating Merida?
     Was Darrell Issa in a coma in January 2008 when ATF met with Congress to ask for funding specifically for Project Gunrunner?
     Did Darrell Issa fail to read the Bill he signed that specifically talked about funding Project Gunrunner?
2006:
     In 2006 the DEA and ATF had already launched similar 'projects' in their effort to reduce organized crime domestically and in foreign countries:

(2005) Foreign-deployed Advisory and Support Team (FAST), Electronic Trace Submission System, and
Operation BlackJack

    Notice the term FAST was first used as an acronym in reducing gun smuggling and drug smuggling in 2005.  The DEA first piloted FAST in Afghanistan and Iraq and then the AFT picked up FAST to use in the Southwest border and in Mexico. RECENT FRIGHTWING UPROAR OVER 2nd AMENDMENT:
     In December 2007, the Mexican Armed Forced addressed the Second Amendment issue to Congress.  The Secretaria de la Defense Nacional, Mexican Armed Forces official told Congress:

``the [Mexican] military does not want to be involved in law enforcement any more than it has to, but it has no choice, regular police cannot compete with Ak-47s and grenade launchers. We understand your Second Amendment, but along the border states thousands of gun shows occur a year, and little is done to make sure that those guns stay in the U.S.''

    Yesterday, Rush Limpballs said:

You know the purpose of Fast and Furious, one of the purposes was, to get those guns across the border in the hands of Mexican drug cartels, have crimes committed, and then say we gotta do something about the Second Amendment.

    I guess old Limpballs thinks President Bush was in on the plot to get rid of the 2nd Amendment with his Operation Wide Receiver & other Gunrunner operations that went down under the Bush Administration.      I guess Darrell Issa is also part of the plot to get rid of the 2nd Amendment as Darrell Issa vote yes to specifically fund the Project Gunrunner operations (plural) in 2008.
     My questions: Why hasn't anyone in the media connected Project Gunrunner to Darrell Issa's yes vote to fund Project Gunrunner and why hasn't anyone in the media connected Project Gunrunner to Merida Initiative?

France and Germany Face Delicate Talks Over Economy

Christophe Ena/Associated Press

President François Hollande of France and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany in Chicago last month.

June 21, 2012 1:06 pm

By STEVEN ERLANGER / The New York Times

PARIS -- Armed with a new mandate and a solid legislative majority, France's François Hollande is off to do battle with Germany in the name of growth, prosperity and human decency. Or that's the popular image, at least, of what is in fact a more delicate and nuanced relationship between the new French president and the German chancellor, Angela Merkel.

The partnership between Europe's two largest economies has been vital to the functioning of the European Union and the 17-nation euro zone. And it has thrived under leaders from similar parties or different ones; the euro itself is a French-German confection.

But the marriage is now under considerable strain, and France is very much on the defensive, not just because of the endless euro crisis, which is now undermining its southern European allies Spain and Italy, but because of the growing weakness of the French economy as well, which makes the French-German couple less than equal.

Pascal Malville, 49, selling pastries at a Paris market, said he thought the Germans had it essentially right. "Hollande will be obliged to yield to German power," Mr. Malville said, "because it's Germany that's on the good path."

On Friday, Mr. Hollande will go to Rome to meet with Ms. Merkel and the Italian and Spanish prime ministers, Mario Monti and Mariano Rajoy, to discuss the euro zone crisis before next week's European Union summit meeting. On the agenda are plans to develop cross-border banking supervision and a proposal from Mr. Monti to use the union's bailout funds to buy sovereign debt to help hold down interest rates for countries like Italy and Spain.

It is not a new idea -- there are not many of those -- and Ms. Merkel has been reluctant to accept the proposal because it could be another form of blank check signed by German taxpayers. Mr. Hollande is determined to show the French that he is willing to stand up to Berlin, to push Ms. Merkel to contribute even more than before toward a lasting solution of the euro mess, which is both financial and institutional. He believes that the German prescription -- heavy on fiscal discipline, light on new spending -- does not fit the euro disease in a recession. And he sees himself as the leader of what he hopes will be a new wave of left-leaning social democratic governments in Europe after a long period of right-wing leadership.

The problem for Mr. Hollande is that Ms. Merkel, while expressing support for some of his milder growth initiatives, is pushing back in a way that challenges France to the core.

Mr. Hollande brings to the table an argument for collectivized debt, or so-called euro bonds, and for the European Central Bank to be able to loan directly to banks and to the European bailout funds. In general, he wants the bank to operate more like the United States Federal Reserve, able to act as a lender of last resort to guarantee the debts of euro zone countries.

In response, Ms. Merkel contends that these steps must be a result of a closer political and economic union, not a precursor to it. Shared debt can work only if there is shared decision-making over budgets, taxes and pensions, she says.

That is why Ms. Merkel is pushing to move ahead with the long-stalled process of European integration. As Joschka Fischer, a former German foreign minister and Green party stalwart, said, "You can't mutualize the debt without mutualizing sovereignty; you can't have the financial benefits of a state without having one."

But "more Europe" would mean a considerable loss of French sovereignty over its national budget and the French financial system, an extraordinarily delicate issue for Mr. Hollande and his Socialist Party, which split badly on a similar issue in 2005.

"Merkel's call for fuller political, fiscal and budgetary union in the euro zone, though without details, creates problems for Hollande," said Thomas Klau of the European Council on Foreign Relations. "Hollande will have to accept or reject a course to euro zone integration sooner rather than later, and that will revive the French debate over how much sovereignty to transfer to Brussels."
In his tango with Ms. Merkel, Mr. Hollande is seeking support not just in Rome and Madrid, but even in Ms. Merkel's backyard: last week, he invited leaders of Germany's Social Democrats to Paris for talks.

By inviting her opposition, Mr. Hollande was judged to be sending a barbed message to Ms. Merkel, who openly supported his predecessor, President Nicolas Sarkozy, and refused to meet with Mr. Hollande while he was campaigning this year.

There are dangers, of course, in too much antagonism. "Without a partner in Paris ready to cooperate, overcoming the crisis is not conceivable," a front-page editorial in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung said this week.

So at the same time, Mr. Hollande has sent softer signals, wanting to modify the French-German equation, but not destroy it. His first visit, within hours of taking office, was to Berlin -- despite a lightning storm that threatened to stop his flight. He has named German speakers to major posts, including Jean-Marc Ayrault as prime minister, and he has spoken often of the need to work with Berlin. And his actual proposals for a "growth pact" to go alongside the German-inspired fiscal treaty are modest, making it easy for Ms. Merkel to accept most of them.

But any moves toward a deeper union within Europe will require constitutional change. Because Mr. Hollande does not have the necessary three-fifths majority in Parliament, he would face an almost irresistible demand for a public referendum. "That's the one scenario where the French president loses his power to French politics and the voters," Mr. Klau said. The Gaullist center-right would attack him, and it would reopen the political arena to more extreme anti-European voices on the far right and far left.

The issue of sovereignty is real for France, in part because it is so much weaker economically than Germany, which has emerged bigger and stronger than ever, having overcome many of its problems from creating a united Germany after the collapse of the Berlin Wall.

France has always wanted what Charles de Gaulle called "L'Europe des patries," or the Europe of homelands or nations, which keeps important decisions firmly in the hands of national leaders. But "more Europe means more centralized institutions with more power, and that means more Germany," said a senior diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the issue. "To agree to a more supranational Europe is also to agree to more German leadership in Europe."
Despite all the attention on the growth versus austerity debate, Ms. Merkel has already signaled she will accept the major elements of Mr. Hollande's modest proposal for a "growth pact" at next week's European summit meeting.

And it will not cost her much to do so. The total spending in the program is about 120 billion euros, or $152 billion, but it involves very little new money. The French package redirects 55 billion euros in existing European Union funds, or about $70 billion, for job creation, calls on the European Investment Bank to make an additional 60 billion euros or $76 billion in loans to private businesses and creates five billion euros or $7.3 billion in "project bonds" for infrastructure.
At best, the sum represents less than 1 percent of annual European Union economic activity, too little to make much of an impact.

More important will be proposals pushed by the European Central Bank and the European Commission for European-wide banking regulation and deposit insurance. But as with the Italian plan to allow Europe's bailout fund to buy sovereign debt directly, it is not clear whether Germany will accept either one.

At their first press conference in Berlin, Mr. Hollande and Ms. Merkel said that they would come forward with joint proposals before the June 28-29 summit meeting. So far, they haven't.
But there is still time. On Monday, Ms. Merkel's deputy, Georg Streiter, said that "she does not associate France with concern, but with hope." Ever since the end of World War II, Germany has enjoyed "very close, trusting and friendly relations" with France, Mr. Streiter said. "That is not going to change."

Melissa Eddy and Nicholas Kulish contributed reporting from Berlin, and Palko Karasz from Paris.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
First Published June 21, 2012 1:02 pm

Pentagon Gets Attention, but Planned Cuts Range Far and Wide

By JENNIFER STEINHAUER

Published: June 21, 2012

WASHINGTON — It is no secret here that come January, barring Congressional action, huge spending cuts will hit the Pentagon. Congressional Republicans, President Obama’s secretary of defense and military contractors have taken pains to denounce the planned reductions, which were scheduled as part of the resolution to the debt-ceiling crisis of last year.

But other government programs are facing equally large cuts, though they have received a scintilla of the attention and outrage that the planned Pentagon cuts have attracted.

From cancer research to farm inspectors to grants to cities and states and law enforcement agencies, nearly every sector of government would be affected by the planned $1.2 trillion in cuts, especially in the first year of the nine-year reductions.

While many mandatory programs, like Medicare, Social Security and others, are exempt or virtually untouched under the scheduled cuts, known as sequestration, roughly $321 billion would be cut from the “nondefense discretionary” category, which represents scores of government spending areas outside of the military.

“There has been a great deal of attention to the defense side,” said Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington. “I think a lot of people simply aren’t aware” of the other cuts, she added. Ms. Murray has introduced a measure that would compel the Office of Management and Budget to deliver a report on the impact of all of the planned whacks.

The fact that Congress might have to force the Obama administration to detail where budgets would be sliced underscores one of the key reasons that so little attention has been turned to the impending cuts to nonmilitary programs.

The White House — along with some top Democrats — has concluded that Republicans care so deeply about the roughly $492 billion in planned Pentagon cuts that the military budget will become a bargaining chip that Democrats can use at the end of the year to pursue new revenues and leverage in the debate over extending the Bush tax cuts.

While Democrats are no more fond of the cuts than Republicans are — especially the roughly 8 percent cuts to various programs they cherish in the first year — many believe the reductions are less painful than any agreement they could reach with Republicans toward deficit reduction in the current political climate.

“Congress should do its job and pass a balanced plan for deficit reduction,” Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for the administration budget office, said in an e-mail. He added: “There is time for Congress to act, and we hope that it will. Should it get to a point where it appears that Congress will not do its job and the sequester may take effect, we will be prepared.”

Further, the Pentagon and those who service it — largely military contractors — have been a loud, unified voice, pressuring members of Congress about the cuts and their potential impact on local economies. This month, for example, a group of executives from the Northrop Grumman Corporation met with members of the Connecticut delegation to announce that they were closing a plant in Norwalk and laying off 315 workers in part because of the impending sequester, said a person who attended the meeting but could not be identified speaking publicly about it. (A spokeswoman for the company declined to comment on the meeting.)

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has come to Capitol Hill more than once to complain about the cuts, and Republicans have offered several bills, including one that has passed the House, to undo sequestration. Members hammer the issue daily; the House Armed Services Committee has devoted its entire Web home page to the issue.

In contrast, the cuts to nonmilitary programs would be spread across scores of industries and groups, few of which have coalesced in a similar manner. While some administration officials have testified that the cuts would be harmful to government programs, few lawmakers have seized on their remarks and run with them.

There is an effort under way to write a letter to members of Congress from leaders of various groups, and the Coalition for Health Funding is trying to build awareness of the cuts through town hall meetings and other gatherings. “This is really a ‘Hey, what about us?’ effort,” said Emily J. Holubowich, the group’s executive director.

Further, because certain programs like Social Security and Veterans Affairs have been exempt from the cuts, there is a feeling among some Democrats that they have less at risk than Republicans defending Pentagon cuts. Republicans find that view baffling. “I guess they think it’s O.K.,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who said he believed cuts to both types of spending would be devastating.

“There is political pain and substantive pain” in the cuts to nonmilitary spending, said Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning research group, who noted that roughly a quarter of those cuts would affect Americans at or below the poverty line.

“When people start saying, ‘This means you’re going to cut the National Cancer Institute or air traffic control or the F.B.I. or Border Patrol by 8.4 percent, those little phrases can ring bells with the American public.”

According to the groups’ research, a portion of nonmilitary discretionary monies are in grants to states and local governments, including education programs, law enforcement and fire departments. “I voted against the deal for those reasons,” said Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Democrat of New York. “I think those cuts would be devastating for New York.”

A recent report prepared by the Bipartisan Policy Center found that the sequester cuts in total could reduce the gross domestic product in the United States by roughly half a percentage point in 2013.

The end game for Democrats, according to half a dozen aides, is to wait for Republicans to become excessively nervous about large Pentagon cuts and start their bargaining to undo the entire package from there. For example, Democrats would like to end the Bush-era tax cuts for high earners, close tax loopholes for some companies and other revenue measures. “I imagine you will hear more about all of these things as we get closer,” Senator Bob Casey, Democrat of Pennsylvania. 

Related

• Some Lawmakers Look for Way Out as Defense Cuts Near(June 4, 2012)

• Military Will Remain Strong With Cuts, Obama Tells Cadets(May 24, 2012)

Immigration

America is a nation of immigrants. We are not a nation bound by ethnicity, but one bound by the pristine idea that all people are endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is why our ancestors came to America and why so many today wait in line to come to our shores. Welcoming newcomers who share our ideals and work hard to secure a better life for themselves and their families is part of our heritage. A strong legal immigration system is an integral component of what makes America exceptional. 

But today, our immigration system is broken.

A porous border allows illegal immigrants to enter the United States, violent cartel members and terrorists possibly among them. Certain states and municipalities grant benefits to illegal immigrants that act as magnets that draw illegal immigrants across the border. At the same time that unskilled workers are able to come here illegally, we do not grant enough visas to high-skill job creators and innovators seeking to come here legally. The system requires us to send away the great majority of the over 300,000 foreign students who are earning advanced degrees at U.S. universities. And it is too difficult for businesses to secure visas for foreign workers to make up for labor shortages and gaps in skills.

Obama's Failure

President Obama has failed to solve our immigration problems. Indeed, he has failed even to address them. As a candidate for president, he promised to tackle immigration in his first year in office. He broke that promise, and has since only made our problems worse.
President Obama has done nothing to improve our visa system to bring in more high-skill job creators and innovators. Our system still turns away even those foreign students whom we educate here and to whom we grant advanced degrees.
President Obama has utterly failed to secure the border. And instead of taking a strong stand on illegal immigration, he has ordered immigration officials to enforce immigration laws “selectively,” leading to the dismissal of many deportation cases. At the same time, his Department of Justice has sued to stop states from assisting the federal government in enforcing immigration laws.

Mitt's Plan

Mitt Romney believes that legal immigration is a boon to America. He will strengthen our           immigration system so that it benefits the U.S. economy, ensures our security, bolsters the rule of law, and carries on America’s tradition as a nation of legal immigrants.

Attract the Best and Brightest

To ensure that America continues to lead the world in innovation and economic dynamism, a Romney administration would press for an immigration policy designed to maximize America’s economic potential. The United States needs to attract and retain job creators from wherever they come. Foreign-born residents with advanced degrees start companies, create jobs, and drive innovation at an especially high rate.
While lawful immigrants comprise about 8 percent of the population, immigrants start 16 percent of our top-performing, high-technology companies, hold the position of CEO or lead engineer in 25 percent of high-tech firms, and produce over 25 percent of all patent applications filed from the United States.

• Raise visa caps for highly skilled workers
• Grant permanent residency to eligible graduates with advanced degrees in math, science, and engineering

A Strong Stand Against Illegal Immigration

Mitt Romney will protect legal immigration and the 4.5 million who are waiting in line to enter the United States legally by taking a strong stand against illegal immigration. He believes that illegal immigration must end and has a proven track record of advancing that goal.

• Secure The Border

Mitt Romney will complete a high-tech fence and provide the necessary number of border patrol to finally secure our southern border.

• Turn Off The Magnets
  

Mitt Romney opposes all “magnets” that entice illegal immigrants to come to our country illegally and stay here. He will establish a tamper-proof employment verification system like E-Verify that will enable employers to hire only those legally permitted to work and deny jobs to those here illegally. This will turn off the jobs magnet that attracts so many unskilled workers to cross the border illegally or overstay their visas.
Mitt also opposes all other magnets. As governor, he vetoed in-state tuition benefits for illegal immigrants and opposed driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.

• Enforce The Law

Mitt Romney believes in the rule of law and will fully enforce federal immigration law. As governor, he authorized state police to assist the federal government in immigration enforcement.

• Oppose Amnesty

Mitt Romney opposes amnesty because he believes that it acts as a magnet encouraging illegal immigration. The last amnesty law passed in 1986 granted legal status to 2.7 million illegal immigrants. In the decades since, the illegal immigrant population has quadrupled. Mitt believes that an amnesty should not be permitted to happen again. Illegal immigrants who apply for legal status should not be given any advantage over those who are following the law and waiting their turn. Mitt absolutely opposes any policy that would allow illegal immigrants to “cut in line.

In Speech, Romney Takes Softer Tone on Immigration

By MICHAEL D. SHEAR and TRIP GABRIEL

June 21, 2012, 12:28 pm

 

 

Charles Dharapak/Associated PressMitt Romney spoke to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials conference on Thursday in Orlando.

Mitt Romney on Thursday offered what he called a strategy for “bipartisan and long-term immigration reform” in an address to a convention of Latino elected officials in Florida.

In the speech, which also touched on the economy, Mr. Romney dropped the confrontational tone he took on immigration during the Republican primary. Instead, he promised to work in a series of areas to help immigrants and their families while discouraging people from coming to the country illegally.
“Immigration reform is not just a moral imperative, but an economic necessity as well,” Mr. Romney said. “We can find common ground here, and we must. We owe it to ourselves as Americans to ensure that our country remains a land of opportunity – both for those who were born here and for those who share our values, respect our laws, and want to come to our shores.”

But Mr. Romney, who has refused to say whether he would overturn a policy announced last week by President Obama that would stop the deportation of some illegal immigrants who were brought to the country as children, again sidestepped that question.

“Some people have asked if I will let stand the president’s executive action,”  he said. “The answer is that I will put in place my own long-term solution that will replace and supersede the president’s temporary measure.”

Even as he started speaking, Mr. Romney’s campaign released an outline of his plan, which would include giving green cards to immigrants who earn advanced degrees at American universities; providing a path to legal status for illegal immigrants who serve in the military; and cutting red tape.
“As president, I will stand for a path to legal status for anyone who is willing to stand up and defend this great nation through military service,” Mr. Romney said.


The nearly twenty-minute speech was met with tepid applause and moments of pointed silence. He seemed to hit his stride near the middle of his remarks, when he talked about balancing the budget, giving parents a choice of where to send their children to school, and providing a path to legal status for immigrants who have served in the military. At the end, about half the room stood up to applaud.
Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida, said that the fact that Mr. Romney addressed the conference was a meaningful gesture.

“It was a great speech, I was real impressed with it and I’m glad he came,” Mr. Bush said. “I think he was received respectfully and warmly.”

Democrats criticized Mr. Romney on immigration issues even before the speech was delivered.
In a memo to reporters, Bill Burton, a founder of Priorities USA Action, a “super PAC” backing Mr. Obama, wrote that Mr. Romney was attempting to hide his real views on the issue from voters.
“Mitt Romney’s speech in Florida today will be an attempt to cover up the divisive rhetoric and draconian policies he has espoused for years on immigration,” Mr. Burton wrote. “Today’s slick speech will not change the fact that Romney has repeatedly used divisive language to propose an extreme immigration policy.”

The issue of immigration is shaping up as a critical one in the presidential election. Mr. Romney trails President Obama by wide margins among Hispanic voters, a gap which could provide the difference in important swing states like Colorado, Nevada, Florida and Virginia, where Latino populations are growing.

Mr. Obama is scheduled to speak to the same group on Friday. But for now, the pressure is on Mr. Romney to increase his appeal among Hispanic voters.

Advisers inside and outside Mr. Romney’s campaign have urged him to shape a positive message to Hispanics on immigration and dispel the harsh image he created during the primaries.

“Ultimately what we’re talking about here is the tone is what has hurt Republicans in the past, not the policies,’’ said Alberto Martinez, an adviser and spokesman for the campaign on Hispanic issues.
But that effort is likely to run headfirst into some of Mr. Romney’s conservative supporters. Many in the Republican base believe that any solution that lets illegal immigrants remain in the country is unacceptable. During the primary race Mr. Romney courted these voters with talk of “self-deportation” and his approval of Arizona’s harsh immigration law.

In two previous addresses to Hispanic groups, Mr. Romney ignored immigration. On Wednesday the Romney campaign abruptly cut short a telephone press conference when all the questions were about immigration – and the campaign wanted to talk about the economy.

“The reason that immigration is important is not because it’s the priority issue but because it’s the issue that can turn Hispanics off,’’ said Ana Navarro, a Florida-based adviser to Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign in 2008. “If a candidate has the wrong tone and the wrong rhetoric on immigration, Hispanics won’t listen to any of his proposals on anything else.

Ahead of the Florida speech on Thursday, Mr. Romney’s campaign promised to forge “lasting solutions” to what he called the “nation’s broken immigration system.” He said he would work with both parties to pass immigration reform.

But the brief outline did not say how he would overcome the gridlock that has blocked comprehensive immigration reform in the Congress for more than a decade.

Senator McCain, Republican of Arizona, also promised to work with Democrats on illegal immigration reform. He abandoned that effort in 2007 in the face of intense opposition by conservatives.

Mr. Obama also pledged during the 2008 campaign to pursue comprehensive changes to the immigration system in the country. The president increased border enforcement, but faced similar opposition among Republicans in Congress to pursuit of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the country.

Ashley Parker contributed reporting from Florida.

Bowles Says Romney Plan Would Require Ending Tax Breaks

By Richard Rubin - Jun 20, 2012 12:39 PM ET

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Mitt Romney during a campaign event in front of the Bavarian Inn Lodge on June 19, 2012 in Frankenmuth, Michigan.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s plan to reduce tax rates would need to be financed by ending widely used benefits such as the mortgage interest deduction, said Erskine Bowles, who was co-chairman of President Barack Obama’s deficit-reduction commission.

Play Video

June 19 (Bloomberg) -- Former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles tells Bloomberg's Judy Woodruff that the U.S. economy hitting the 'fiscal cliff' is not a question, but rather an inevitability. For the full interview, tune in to "Conversations with Judy Woodruff" on Friday June 22 at 9:30PM. (Source: Bloomberg)

Enlarge image

Erskine Bowles, who was co-chairman of President Barack Obama’s deficit-reduction commission. said, “One area that Governor Romney is wrong is you can’t just affect the top 15 percent” of Americans. Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

Romney is “partly right and partly wrong” when he says he can cut tax rates by 20 percent and make up the money by curtailing tax breaks, Bowles said on Bloomberg Television’s “Conversations with Judy Woodruff,” airing this weekend.
“One area that Governor Romney is wrong is you can’t just affect the top 15 percent” of Americans, said Bowles, whose bipartisan plan would cut spending and raise taxes. “It’s just not enough money there in getting rid of the tax expenditures that only affect the upper-income people. You’re going to have to affect people down through the brackets.”
Romney and Obama are clashing over tax policy, with the president maintaining that Romney would cut taxes for top earners and the former Massachusetts governor saying his plan would unleash economic growth.
Romney wants to reduce all individual income tax rates by 20 percent, reducing the top rate to 28 percent from 35 percent. He would lower the corporate tax rate to 25 percent from 35 percent, eliminate the estate tax and end taxation of investment income for people making less than $200,000 a year.

Broaden Base

Romney, 65, said he embraces the concept of lowering tax rates and broadening the base that Bowles and commission co- chairman Alan Simpson used. There’s one big difference: Bowles and Simpson want to use some of the revenue from curtailing tax breaks to reduce the budget deficit. Romney would dedicate all of the money to pay for lower tax rates and assume that faster economic growth would make up some of the difference.
Romney said he would make sure the tax code is as progressive as it is today.
“One of the absolute requirements of any tax reform that I have in mind is that people who are at the high end, whether you call them the 1 percent or 2 percent or half a percent, that people at the high end will still pay the same share of the tax burden they’re paying now,” Romney said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on June 17. “I’m not looking for a tax cut for the very wealthiest.”

$5 Trillion

Romney’s plan would cost the government about $5 trillion in forgone revenue over the next decade on top of the cost of extending the income tax cuts now scheduled to expire Dec. 31. Romney hasn’t specified which tax breaks he would limit.
The Bowles-Simpson plan would cut the top tax rates on individuals and corporations to 28 percent. It would limit tax breaks for mortgages, charitable contributions and health insurance without eliminating them. Bowles is a Democrat who was White House chief of staff to President Bill Clinton. Simpson is a Republican former senator from Wyoming.
Unlike Romney, Bowles and Simpson include two features that would raise taxes for high-income or wealthy taxpayers. They would treat capital gains and dividends as ordinary income. They also would assume that the estate tax continues with a top rate of 45 percent.
Deficit reduction should take place over 15 years so that it doesn’t slow down the economy, Bowles said.
“What they tried to do in the U.K. was to do it really quickly, trying to get it, you know, to a balanced budget within five years,” he said. “We have it over a much longer period of time, so we don’t disrupt this very fragile economic recovery.”

Most Similar

In a memo released yesterday, the Obama campaign said its plan -- not Romney’s -- was the one that most closely resembled the Simpson-Bowles plan.
“Despite his praise for the Simpson-Bowles approach, Romney’s plans are fundamentally incompatible with it,” wrote James Kvaal, the campaign’s policy director.
Obama, 50, disagrees with the Simpson-Bowles plan’s cuts to defense and Social Security, the memo said.
Like Romney, Republicans in the U.S. House have proposed tax rate cuts without specifying what tax breaks they would cut.
An estimate released by the Democratic staff of the congressional Joint Economic Committee attempted to calculate the effect of reducing rates while eliminating tax breaks for health care, charitable contributions, state and local taxes and mortgage interest. It said individual middle-class families would pay more taxes under such a plan, while higher-income families would pay less, compared with allowing all the expiring tax cuts to lapse.

Investment Rates

The report “pulls up the skirts” on Republicans’ refusal to specify what tax breaks they would curtail, said Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat who requested the analysis. Schumer said the report would prompt Republicans to look at changes to investment tax rates that would disproportionately affect high-income households.
“If Republicans will put capital gains on the table, it will open up all kinds of possibilities for doing tax reform in a way that’s not regressive,” he said on a conference call with reporters.
The estimate doesn’t reflect an actual Republican plan, show how much tax revenue the model plan would raise or the fact that some of the Republican changes to rates and breaks would affect corporations. Sage Eastman, a spokesman for House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp, a Michigan Republican, said it “doesn’t even pass the laugh test.”

‘Partisan Attack’

“They made a host of bogus assumptions to levy a partisan attack on tax reform,” he said in an e-mailed statement today. “The American people want a flatter, simpler tax code that eliminates special interest loopholes in order to lower tax rates and make the code fairer.”
Bowles said he didn’t expect Republicans to stick to their no-tax-increase pledge, particularly because the end-of-year fiscal cliff could throw the economy into recession.
“I’m not worried about it a bit, because I think you will see, as we get closer and closer to this fiscal cliff, you will see more and more Republicans come out and say, you know, we have to have some revenue,” he said.
Two current Senate Republicans -- Mike Crapo of Idaho and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma -- were on the Bowles-Simpson panel and supported the proposal.
The plan, released in December 2010, was three votes short of the 14 votes needed on the debt commission to send it to Congress. Among the opponents were Camp and Senator Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, the top two tax-writers in Congress.
Bowles also said he thought the Obama administration was prepared to make significant changes to entitlement programs, based on conversations he has had with administration officials.
To contact the reporter on this story: Richard Rubin in Washington at rrubin12@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jodi Schneider at jschneider50@bloomberg.net