You are hereBlogs / John Martin's blog / If You Think Romney Has Done Nothing Wrong, You're Missing The Point.

If You Think Romney Has Done Nothing Wrong, You're Missing The Point.

By John Martin - Posted on 19 January 2012

Mitt Romney has done nothing wrong. It's not his fault our tax system favors the ultra wealthy. We shouldn't blame him because only 15% of his income goes to the IRS. Likewise, it's not Romney's fault he has millions tucked away in the Cayman Islands. Mitt has done what any red-blooded American capitalist would have done under similar circumstances.

If Mitt Romney were just a regular rich guy, nobody would take any of this out on him personally. You're supposed to be able to get rich in America (or, in Romney's case, remain rich). That's the main reason people try so hard to get into our country. It's still one of the reasons we remain great. 
But just because Mitt is allowed to be super rich and take advantage of all the benefits that go with being rich, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be an issue come November. Voters got rid of Bush Sr. in part because he clearly didn't do his own grocery shopping. Voters rejected John Kerry because he windsurfed and spoke French. With the economy as bad as it still is, voters have every right to be skeptical that Romney is their guy and will actually enact policies that will help them.
If Mitt's economic plans reassured voters that he felt their pain, none of these brewing scandals around his personal finances would be an issue. He could be out there telling voters he plans on strengthening the social safety net, or will focus on increasing middle class earnings, but he's not. Instead, he's been promising to gut the Affordabe Care Act, and further cut taxes for the other Mitt Romneys out there. No wonder people see him as being so out of touch. He deserves everything that's coming to him.

I think more than Romney's riches, we need to focus on his polices which has impacted the everyday worker Instead of the wealth he holds. However, I do recognize that Romney’s practices of having nontaxable money in offshore accounts is a reflection as to what extent he will go to protect the rich and the loopholes which is used to preserve their wealth. It is clear that he will not close these avenues because it is a conflict of interest for him. Nonetheless, the real test is how did he govern???--- I have heard about his business ventures with saving several fragile businesses but how did he govern the State of Massachusetts besides saving businesses?? How did he implement policies to create jobs?

What was the unemployment rate at the time he was governor verses other States during that time??  Was he in favor or support of the Workers Unions?? Did he collaborate with the local community leaders to gain insight as to what were the needs of the surrounding communities? How did he engage all the stakeholders of the state and local municipalities??  What was his leadership style?? Was it Authoritarian or Democratic?? Did he implement policies to protect the seniors and disabled?? Example: In Chicago the Governor implemented a program to ensure that all seniors would ride public transportation for free. How did he address homelessness; did he address poverty?? What about the educational system??  Did he try to address the schools that were under performing by closing them or reforming it in a way that enhances the quality of the teachers and curriculum??


These practices reflect his true style in governing!!! If he has a tendency to look at social issues as SYSTEMS instead of people in the system, then he is going to govern from a very tunneled vision that excludes how policies affect people’s lives. President Obama Governs from a peripheral point of view, which allows him to see how his policies affect people directly. We are looking for a leader who is democratic in his leadership style and who is willing to tackle a whole host of complex social issues from Job creation, educational reform, poverty, crime, housing and etc. If their central focus is economics without the multiplicity of the social issues that are attached to it then this type of governance will not be beneficial to the overall American people. We have to separate a person’s speech from their actual practices. No leader can fulfill 100% of what they set out to do but they must have a core principle which guides them in serving the American people!! --Being a President is one of the highest form of serving humanity and the American people; it is not about gaining power and control but about servitude!!


Unfortunately, everything about Romney’s eager to become President appears to be about POWER!!  I have not seen a true servant’s heart in him. He was raised to serve out of duty not because it was a true part of his heart. Since doing his duty as a young Mormon man; henceforth, his life has been about building wealth at any means necessary, even at the cost of the middle class and poor.

Good timing on this post, John, because I've been thinking about another politcal analogy: H. Ross Perot.

Perot (in his heyday) was in an even LOWER bracket than Romney because all of his liquid investments were in municipal bonds which yield interest that's federally tax free, and being a Texas resident he paid no state income taxes on the bond interest either.  I recall that being a big deal during his campaigns. 

One difference from Romney is personality: even in his quirkiness Perot connected with people, and his supporters were just as passionate about voting for him as their current day Ron Paul brethren.  As for Romney's personality, I'll hijack a quote normally reserved for economists: he's had human beings described to him but he's never actually seen one. 

Another difference - as you said - is the economic climate.  1992 was different... although there are SOME similarites, like the high debt-to-GDP ratio of the time. 

Romney is not alone is pandering to the bobbleheads who attend the GOP debates and his campaign functions.  Anyone who believes that the President, ANY President, has the authority to single-handedly abolish legislation (universal healthcare, i.e.) is simply ignorant of constitutional requirements.

IMHO, Romney best personifies what all front-running GOP candidates clearly demonstrate:  He is incapable of knowing how to solve the growing problems facing rank-and-file Americans.  How can a supremely wealthy veneer-faced chameleon know what it is like to (1) face the loss of your income; (2) face the prospect of losing your home; (3) face the real possibility of contracting a disease or sustaining an injury without access to healthcare?  Romney is far removed from the every-day struggles of American life.

Corporations are people, Mitt?  Are you serious?

By the way, bobbleheads, like every Private Equity Firm (“PEF”), Bain’s intentions did not include re-habbing businesses and save them.  Bain did what all PEFs do:  target businesses of all kinds which can be loaded with debt whole their assets are factored off, thereby transferring cash—borrowed against those same assets—to Bain.

In private business, the goal is almost universal:  tweak a business model until it yields profits, and then replicate it to yield more and more profits.  IOW, GROW!!!  How does that square with the stated GOP goal for the government:  STARVE IT INTO A COMA.

Fortune 200 firms collectively have more than $3 Trillion CASH on their balance sheets.  And the GOP—led by Romney—wants to cut the tax rates?

Corporations are people, Mitt? Are you serious?

Unfortunately, according to our current U.S. Supreme Court, corporations ARE basically equivalent to individual people, at least in many respects.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT, but who caucuses with the Dems) is sponsoring a constitutional amendment which would repeal that decision (it would have to be passed by both houses of Congress, and ratified by 38 states before becoming a part of the constitution). The advantage of becoming an amendment to the constitution is that it could obviously not then be declared "unconstitutional." It is totally insane that corporations could not only have the protections of individual citizens, but be able to spend as much money as they see fit during a political campaign, as long as the PAC they fund is not "directly" associated with any candidate. Why would a representative democracy like America want corporations (and that includes foreign corporations at that) to be able to buy elections? Even the GOP is now complaining about this, since conservative interests are not the only ones who could have friendly PACs spending millions of $$$ on campaigns.


I voted "other" on the question of Romney's biggest problem in trying to be elected president. I think his biggest problem is not having the "trust" of GOP rank and file, even if he were to win the nominating contest. Romney, despite his protestations to the contrary, and his attempts to move to the right everywhere, is still considered too "moderate" by the GOP base.

His attempts to position himself to the right of Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, I believe, are seen as blatant pandering by the GOP base, and thus will be a big problem for him. On the other hand, Gingrich, Santorum, and Ron Paul all seem at least "genuine" to the base.


I think in the case of Gingrich and Santorum the extreme right still trust them because their records haven't been picked apart as much. If Newt were to get the nomination, the Democrats will take advantage of all the holes in his record. After all, it was just a few months ago that Gingrich accused Congressional Republicans of "right wing social engineering." 

The guy is almost as much of a chameleon as Romney.

Follow RFO:

TwitterCafe PressFacebook




RFO Gear

Subscribe to General RFO Newsletter

General news and announcements for We will never share or sell your email address.