Despite his tough talk tonight, Mitt Romney has taken many different positions on Iran in recent years. From saying he would consult his lawyers who would “tell you what you have to do” on Iran, to now saying that he would take such action, Romney simply doesn’t understand that you only get one chance to get things right on foreign policy.

Contrary to Romney’s attacks, President Obama has made it clear he will not allow a nuclear Iran, and put in place the most severe sanctions Iran has ever faced.

ROMNEY WOULD LET HIS LAWYERS TELL HIM WHAT TO DO ON IRAN

Romney Said He Would Talk To His Lawyers Before Deciding Whether To Use Military Force.  Asked whether congressional authorization would be necessary to launch a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, Romney declined to answer definitively, instead deferring to lawyers’ opinions.  “You sit down with your attorneys and tell you what you have to do, but obviously the president of the United States has to do what’s in the best interest of the United States,” Romney told moderator Chris Matthews. On whether President Bush needed authorization to invade Iraq, Romney again deferred to legal experts, saying, “You know, we’re going to let the lawyers sort out what he needed to do and what he didn’t need to do.” [CNBC/WSJ GOP Debate, 10/9/07]

Romney Suggested You Sit Down With Your Attorneys Before You Deal With Iran. “Romney was the first to answer a question about whether a president would need authorization from Congress to take military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities. ‘You sit down with your attorneys’ for advice, he said, but ‘the president of the United States has to do what’s in the best interest of the United States.” [USA Today, 10/10/07]

• Wall Street Journal Editorial: “Deferring To Lawyers To Tell A President When He Can And Cannot Use Force To Defend The Country Is Not A Proper Understanding Of The Executive Power Under The Constitution, And It Is Dangerous If It Is The First Instinct Of A Commander In Chief.” The Wall Street Journal editorial page wrote, “Egad. Call in the attorneys? Perhaps it is Mr. Romney’s experience in business that taught him to want lawyers at his elbow, given that no CEO can survive without them these days. Or perhaps it is our hyper-legalized politics, with Mr. Bush accused daily of "breaking the law" over mere policy disagreements. But deferring to lawyers to tell a President when he can and cannot use force to defend the country is not the proper understanding of executive power under the Constitution, and it is dangerous if it is the first instinct of a Commander in Chief. Mr. Romney should have said that a President’s first duty is to do whatever it takes to protect the United States, and that he’d have the Constitutional authority to use military force to do so -- as Presidents from Washington to Teddy Roosevelt to Reagan have done -- but that of course he would want to consult with Congress and win its support as time and circumstances allowed. Mr. Romney doesn’t need a lawyer; he needs to reread the Federalist Papers.” [Editorial, Wall Street Journal, 10/11/07]
• Admiral Robert J. Natter Criticized Romney Saying “Lawyers Should Not Debate While Our National Security Is On The Line.” Admiral Robert J. Natter said of Romney’s remark that he would consult attorney’s before using military action against Iran, "Going to war is the most serious decision a president can make. Lawyers should not debate while our national security is on the line. In these momentous decisions, we need leadership, not litigation.” [MSNBC, Firstread, 10/10/07]

PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS MADE IT CLEAR HE WILL NOT ALLOW A NUCLEAR IRAN

President Obama Has Repeatedly Affirmed That The United States Is Determined To Prevent Iran From Acquiring Nuclear Weapons. “Calling the latest round of sanctions the toughest and most comprehensive Iran has ever faced, President Obama said they sent ‘an unmistakable message’ about the international community's commitment to stop nuclear proliferation.”  [MSNBC, 6/9/10]

President Obama Said “There Should Be No Doubt—The United States And The International Community Are Determined To Prevent Iran From Acquiring Nuclear Weapons.” “We’re showing the Iranian government that its actions have consequences.  And if it persists, the pressure will continue to mount, and its isolation will continue to deepen.  There should be no doubt —- the United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.”  [Remarks by the President, 7/1/10]

President Obama Accelerated The Deployment Of Ships And Antimissile Systems To The Persian Gulf To Defend Against Possible Iranian Missile Strikes. “The Obama administration is accelerating the deployment of new defenses against possible Iranian missile attacks in the Persian Gulf, placing special ships off the Iranian coast and antimissile systems in at least four Arab countries, according to administration and military officials... The news that the United States is deploying antimissile defenses — including a rare public discussion of them by Gen. David H. Petraeus — appears to be part of a coordinated administration strategy to increase pressure on Iran.” [New York Times, 1/30/10]

Secretary Of Defense Panetta Reiterated That The United States Will Take “Whatever Steps Necessary” To Stop Iran From Developing An Nuclear Weapons.  “If [The Iranians] proceed and we get intelligence that they are proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon then we will take whatever steps necessary to stop it… There are no options off the table.” [CBS, 12/19/11]

General Dempsey Said He Is Responsible For Encouraging The Planning Of A Military Option And That “Those Activities Are Going On.” “But I will say that-- our-- my responsibility is to encourage the right degree of planning, to understand the risks associated with any kind of military option-- in some cases to position assets, to provide those options on-- in a timely fashion. And all those activities are going on.” [General Dempsey, 01/08/12]

Dennis Ross: Iran “Should Never Think There’s a Reluctance To Use The Force” To Stop Their Nuclear Program. “No one should doubt that President Barack Obama is prepared to use military force to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon if sanctions and diplomacy fail, the president’s former special assistant on Iran said. Obama has “made it very clear” that he regards a nuclear- armed Iran as so great a threat to international security that “the Iranians should never think that there’s a reluctance to use the force” to stop them, Dennis Ross, who served two years on Obama’s National Security Council and a year as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s special adviser on Iran, said in an interview yesterday.” [Bloomberg, 01/10/12]

PRESIDENT OBAMA STANDS BY ISRAEL IN THE FACE OF THE IRANIAN THREAT

Prime Minister Netanyahu Praised President Obama For His Efforts To Prevent Iranian Nuclearization And For Defending Israel's Right To Protect Itself Against Iranian Proxies. "President Obama has said that the United States is determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The president successfully led the Security Council at the UN to adopt sanctions against Iran." [Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s Address to Congress, 5/24/11]

The Obama Administration Has Reinstituted Sanctions Against Iran-Allied Syria And Strongly Condemned Syria’s Transfer Of Scud Missiles And Other Arms To Hezbollah, Iran’s Proxy In Lebanon. “In a strongly worded statement issued after the meeting, the State Department said it condemned the delivery of any arms to Hizbollah, including Scud missiles, ‘in the strongest terms’ .’The transfer of these arms can only have a destabilizing effect on the region, and would pose an immediate threat to both the security of Israel and the sovereignty of Lebanon,’ it added.” [New York Times, 5/19/11;The Telegraph, 4/20/10]

PRESIDENT OBAMA PASSED THE MOST SEVERE SANCTIONS IRAN HAS EVER FACED

With President Obama’s Leadership, The United States Gained The Support Of Russia, China And Other Nations To Pass United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929, Creating The Most Comprehensive And Biting International Sanctions Regime The Iranian Government Has Ever Faced. “That’s why the international community was compelled to impose these serious consequences.  These are the most comprehensive sanctions that the Iranian government has faced.  They will impose restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activities, its ballistic missile program, and, for the first time, its conventional military.  They will put a new framework in place to stop Iranian smuggling, and crack down on Iranian banks and financial transactions.  They target individuals, entities, and institutions -– including those associated with the Revolutionary Guard –- that have supported Iran’s nuclear program and prospered from illicit activities at the expense of the Iranian people. “ [President Obama, 06/09/10] [UN News Centre, 6/9/10]

• Citing Sanctions, Russia Banned All Exports Of Major Weapons Systems To Iran. “Russia interprets the latest round of United Nations sanctions against Iran as prohibiting all exports of major weapons systems to that country, President Dmitri A. Medvedev announced Wednesday, ending some Russian equivocation on whether an advanced air defense system would fall under theban.” [NYT, 09/22/10]

Close To $60 Billion In Energy-Related Projects In Iran Have Already Been Put On Hold Or Discontinued As Of The End Of 2010. “’According to reliable estimates, Iran may be losing as much as $50 billion to $60 billion overall in potential energy investments, along with the critical technology and know-how that comes with them,’ Burns said at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing. Iran is under sanctions designed to keep the country from developing nuclear weapons. Iran says it is enriching uranium for peaceful purposes. The United Nations Security Council in June adopted a resolution calling for trade and financial penalties. The U.S., European Union and nations including Japan and South Korea followed with their own sanctions.” [Bloomberg, 12/1/10]

• President Ahmadinejad Has Been Forced To Admit The Serious Impact Of Sanctions Placed On Government By The Obama Administration. “President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad acknowledged Tuesday that U.S.-designed financial sanctions are causing serious problems for Iran’s banking sector, as he appealed to lawmakers to keep his government together despite a massive embezzlement scandal. ‘Our banks cannot make international transactions anymore,’ the embattled president said in a speech before parliament to defend his minister of economic affairs and finance against impeachment charges related to the scandal.”  [Washington Post, 11/1/11]

Read More

In tonight’s debate, Mitt Romney said that the controversial Arizona immigration law should be a model for the nation. Along with his embrace of “self-deportation” and avowal to veto the DREAM Act, Romney would be the most extreme anti-immigration presidential nominee in recent history.

REALITY: IF ELECTED ROMNEY WOULD HAVE THE MOST EXTREME IMMIGRATION POSITION OF ANY REPUBLICAN NOMINEE IN RECENT HISTORY

Romney Is Furthest To The Right Of The Republican Field On Immigration. “But Perry’s first major stumble in the primary race occurred when Romney attacked him from the right on the question of immigration: A generic ‘ideology score’ can’t capture the fact that, for millions of voters (especially Hispanics) who see immigration as a make-or-break issue, it is Romney, not Perry, who is furthest to the right.” [Bloomberg, 11/14/11]

New York Times Editorial: Romney Has “Lurched Toward The Extremist Right” On Immigration. “Mitt Romney, who used to try to sound like a moderate on immigration, has dropped the pretense. On Wednesday, he proudly accepted the endorsement of the anti-immigrant activist Kris Kobach, architect of the nation’s most radical immigration crackdowns, including the unconstitutional show-your-papers laws in Arizona and Alabama. Mr. Romney has flipped and flopped all over on immigration, but in allying himself with Mr. Kobach he has lurched toward the extremist right. ‘Kris has been a true leader on securing our borders and stopping the flow of illegal immigration into this country,’ Mr. Romney said.”  [Editorial, New York Times, 1/11/12]

In His Endorsement Of Romney, Kansas Secretary Of State Kris Kobach Said “We Need A President Who Will Finally Put A Stop To A Problem That Has Plagued Our Country For A Generation,” Illegal Immigration And Claimed Undocumented Workers Are “Taking Jobs” From Citizens And “Public Benefits At Taxpayer Expense.” [Romney For President, 1/11/12]

• KS Secretary Of State Kris Kobach: “All Of The Other Candidates Stand To The Left Of Romney On Immigration.” “‘All of the other candidates stand to the left of Romney on immigration,’ Kobach said. ‘This is an issue that people with weak backbones sometimes have trouble taking a position on, and Mitt Romney has shown some real backbone on this issue.’” [The Hill, 1/13/12]

REALITY: ROMNEY VOWED TO VETO THE DREAM ACT

When Asked If He Would Veto The DREAM Act, Romney Said, “The Answer Is Yes.” “‘The question is if I were elected and Congress were to pass the Dream Act, would I veto it and the answer is yes,’ Romney said.” [Reuters, 12/31/11; Le Mars, IA Meet & Greet, 12/31/11]

Romney: “I Have Indicated I Would Veto The Dream Act If Provisions Included In That Act To Say That People Who Are Here Illegally, If They Go To School Here Long Enough, Get A Degree Here That They Can Become Permanent Residents.” [Fox News/Wall Street Journal SC Debate, 1/16/12]

REALITY: ROMNEY SUPPORTS THE CONTROVERSIAL ARIZONA LAW THAT ALLOWS RANDOM DOCUMENT CHECKS AND DETAINMENT

Romney: “I Support The Arizona Law.” “Immigration is an important topic for voters in the state that borders Mexico. Residents wanted to know if the candidates will support Arizona's controversial immigration law. ‘Well, I support the Arizona law by recognizing what Arizona has done -- underscored the failure of the federal government to do its job,’ Romney told the audience. ‘It has been the responsibility of the federal government to protect our borders. And the federal government has failed. If I'm lucky enough to be president of the United States, I won't fail,’ he said.” [CBN News, 9/15/11]

Arizona’s Immigration Law Requires Immigrations To Carry Their Alien Registration Documents At All Times And Requires Police To Question People If There’s Reason To Suspect They’re In The United States Illegally. “Arizona's law orders immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there's reason to suspect they're in the United States illegally.” [CNN, 4/23/10]

Arizona’s Immigration Law Would Make The Failure To Carry Immigration Documents A Crime And Give The Police Power To Detain Anyone Suspected Of Being In The Country Illegally. “The law, which proponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Opponents have called it an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status.” [New York Times, 4/23/10]

REALITY: ROMNEY CALLED FOR UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS TO RETURN HOME AND GO TO THE BACK OF THE LINE

Romney: Illegal Immigrants “Might Have A Transition Time To Allow Them To Set Their Affairs In Order And Then Go Back Home And Get In Line With Everyone Else. They Start At The Back Of The Line.”  “That’s the principle. And those that have come here illegally, they might have a transition time to allow them to set their affairs in order and then go back home and get in line with everybody else. And if they get in line and they apply to become a citizen or a green card they’ll be treated like everybody else. They start at the back of the line not at the front of the line. I just think we’re not going to go around the country rounding people up. That’s just too big of a task. There are what, eleven, twelve, fifteen million, who knows the total number. But what we are going to do is we’re going to give people a chance to transition- to be able to go home, to get in line, and then to ultimately if they would like to get a green card and enter this country legally. That in my view is the course that we’re going to have to take.” [Romney Town Hall, Cedar Rapids IA, 12/9/11]

Romney: “I Think We Have To Follow The Law And Insist Those Who Come Here Illegally, Ultimately Return Home, Apply, And Get In Line With Everyone Else.” [Fox News/Wall Street Journal SC Debate, 1/16/12]

REALITY: ROMNEY SAID UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS SHOULD LEAVE REGARDLESS OF THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO THE COMMUNITY AND LENGTH OF TIME IN THE COUNTRY

Romney Said It Was “Amnesty” And A “Magnet” To Allow Undocumented Immigrants Who Have Been In The United States For Years, Have Abided The Law, Put Down Roots, Belong To A Church, Etc, To Stay In The United States. GINGRICH:  “I do suggest if you go back to your district, and you find people who have been here 25 years and have two generations of family and have been paying taxes and are in a local church, as somebody who believes strongly in family, you’ll have a hard time explaining why that particular subset is being broken up and forced to leave, given the fact that they’ve been law-abiding citizens for 25 years.” …BLITZER: Let’s broaden it out. Governor Romney, where do you stand? Are you with the speaker, that some of those illegal immigrants — I think — he didn’t say all — some of them, if they have roots, they belong to a church, for example, should be allowed to stay in this country?” Romney: “Look, amnesty is a magnet.”  …BLITZER: “Just to precise, and I’ll give Speaker Gingrich a chance to respond. Are you saying that what he’s proposing, giving amnesty in effect, or allowing some of these illegal immigrants to stay, is a magnet that would entice others to come to this country illegally?” ROMNEY: There’s no question. But to say that we’re going to say to the people who have come here illegally that now you’re all going to get to stay or some large number are going to get to stay and become permanent residents of the United States, that will only encourage more people to do the same thing.” [CNN/Heritage/AEI Debate, 11/22/11]

• Romney Said Of Gingrich: “He's Indicated That For People Who Have Been Here A Certain Length Of Time We Should Let Them Stay In The Country With A Form Of Amnesty. I Think That Is A Mistake.” [American News Room, Fox, 12/7/11]

REALITY: ROMNEY SUPPORTED AN INHUMANE IMMIGRATION POLICY OF “SELF-DEPORTATION”

Romney Plan For Illegal Immigrants In The US: Cut Off Their Employment And “Enough Of Them Will Leave” For Their Native Countries. “Finally, after I asked the question for a seventh time, Fehrnstrom responded by emphasizing employer enforcement as a way to get illegal immigrants to leave through attrition. ‘Well, if you cut off their employment, if they can’t get work, if they can’t get benefits like in state tuition, they will leave,’ he said. I asked if that would take care of all of the illegal immigrants, and he said, ‘Enough of them would leave that it wouldn’t be as big of a problem as it is today.’ Just to be clear, I wanted to know about those that still could remain under such a scenario. ‘I just answered your question Phil, and you keep hectoring me about it,’ he snapped. ‘You turn off the magnets, no in state tuition, no benefits of any kind, no employment. You put in place an employment verification system with penalties for employers that hire illegals, that will shut off access to the job market, and they will self retreat. They will go to their native countries.’” [Washington Examiner, 11/22/11]

• New York Times Editorial: Romney’s Scheme For Fixing Immigration Is “Self-Deportation” – Mass Expulsion Through Making The Lives Of Immigrants “Unbearable.” “Mitt Romney has moved farthest to the fringe. His scheme for fixing immigration is mass expulsion: a fantasy of ridding the country of 11 million unauthorized immigrants by making their lives unbearable. The key to his harsh vision is ‘self-deportation,’ the deceptively bland-sounding policy that he introduced at a debate. It accepts that arresting and expelling so many millions would be impossible — like deporting the State of Ohio. But it replaces that delusion with another: That people can be made miserable enough to leave on their own.” [Editorial, New York Times, 2/20/12]
• Sen. John McCain, A Romney Endorser: “Self-Deportation” Is Not A Humane Way To Treat Undocumented Immigrants In The United States. RAMOS: “You’re talking about a humane way. Is self-deportation a humane way to treat 11 million undocumented immigrants?” McCAIN: “No. I think there are some people who want to leave this country and return to the country they came from, but obviously it requires a broader solution than that, and we all know that.” [Al Punto, Univision, 2/5/12]
• New York Times Editorial: “In States Where ‘Self-Deportation’ Is Official Policy, The Results Have Been Deplorable” And “Have Caused A Civil-Rights Emergency.” “In states where ‘self-deportation’ is official policy, the results have been deplorable. In Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County sweeps neighborhoods making mass arrests, and people are afraid to leave home. In Alabama, farm and construction workers have fled by the thousands; tornado victims are afraid to go to a shelter. These laws hijack the federal government’s responsibility for immigration and have caused a civil-rights emergency. But Mr. Romney’s response has been to condemn the Obama Justice Department for fighting them in court.” [Editorial, New York Times, 2/20/12]

Read More

In tonight’s debate, Mitt Romney continued his disingenuous attacks against President Obama over the federal contraception rule. Not only did Romney falsely claim that the policy forces “the Catholic church” to provide contraception coverage, but he also overlooked the fact that he oversaw and protected a virtually identical in policy in Massachusetts.

REALITY: ROMNEY DID NOT SEEK TO REPEAL OR AMEND THE STATE CONTRACEPTION REQUIREMENT WHICH WAS VIRTUALLY THE SAME AS THE FEDERAL REQUIREMENT HE HAS BEEN ATTACKING

As Governor, Romney Did Not Seek To Amend Or Repeal A 2002 Massachusetts Law That “Mirrored” President Obama’s Proposal To Require All Employers To Provide Health Insurance That Covered Birth Control. “Mitt Romney faulted President Barack Obama's original push to require church-affiliated employers to pay for birth control as an ‘assault on religion,’ but as Massachusetts governor, Romney was largely silent about a state law that required virtually the same contraceptive coverage. The Massachusetts law, which essentially mirrored Obama's proposal, was signed by Romney's predecessor in 2002, the year before he took office. Romney did not seek its repeal. …As governor, Romney made no similar effort to amend or repeal the state law, which required employers that purchase insurance plans in Massachusetts to pay for contraceptives.” [Associated Press, 2/11/12]

As Governor, Romney Did Not Raise Objections To A Contraception Services Mandate On Religious Or Moral Grounds But “Viewed The Contraception Requirement More In Economic Terms.” “Mitt Romney has said the Obama administration is intruding on religious freedom by moving to require religious–affiliated employers to cover contraception services in their health insurance plans. When confronted with a similar law as governor of Massachusetts, Mr. Romney didn't raise objections on religious or moral grounds, say people who worked in his administration or in health care interest groups there. Rather, he viewed the contraception requirement more in economic terms, as only one of many costly ‘mandates’ that some believed were driving up the price of insurance and suppressing competition, according to these people.” [Wall Street Journal, 2/13/12]

Federal Law

Massachusetts Law

All FDA-approved contraception, including emergency contraception, must be covered.

All FDA-approved contraception, including emergency contraception, must be covered.

Contraception must be covered without cost-sharing.

Contraception must be covered on the same terms as other outpatient services.

Religious exemption applies to any nonprofit

that promotes religion and primarily serves

and employs people of the same faith, such as

churches, other houses of worship, and some

parochial schools—so churches don’t have to

cover birth control for their direct employees.

Religious exemption applies to churches and other houses of worship, and to church-controlled organizations.

Other religious organizations will not be required to offer contraception, and women will have access to coverage directly through their insurer

Religious exemption does not apply to nonprofits like hospitals and universities that are organized separate from the church.

Source: http://www.barackobama.com/news/entry/say-anything-mitt-on-contraceptive-coverage

REALITY: ROMNEY MAINTAINED THE CONTRACEPTION MANDATE AND EXPANDED COVERAGE TO MORE WOMEN WITH HIS HEALTH CARE LAW

2006: Romney Signed The Massachusetts Health Care Law Which Kept In Place The Contraceptive Coverage Mandate. “The closest Romney came to addressing the question of mandated health care coverage was during the debate over what would become Massachusetts' landmark 2006 health care law. Romney's version of the law would have lifted all mandated insurance benefit requirements for individuals and small businesses insured through what would become the state's health connector. It also would have lifted benefit requirements from subsidized insurance plans. The goal was mandate-free insurance. But the version of the bill approved by the Democrat-controlled Legislature rejected Romney's proposal and the mandates remained. Backers of the 2006 law signed by Romney say it actually expanded contraceptive coverage. ‘The uninsured individuals who got access to health insurance because of the health law ... all got access to contraceptive coverage because of that law,’ said John McDonough, former head of the advocacy group Health Care For All. While Romney was largely silent on the contraceptive coverage mandate, he fought a much more public battle over whether to require hospitals in Massachusetts to dispense emergency contraception to rape victims.” [Associated Press, 2/11/12]

REALITY: MASSACHUSETTS HEALTH EXPERTS SAID ROMNEY IS NOT BEING TRUTHFUL WHEN HE SAYS HE TRIED TO ELIMINATE THE CONTRACEPTION MANDATE

Harvard Professor John McDonough, Who Led Health Care For All During Massachusetts’ Health Care Reform Debate, Said The Contraception Requirement “Never Came Up.” “A consumer-advocacy group that tracked the progress of the health care law ushered in by Mr. Romney in 2005 and 2006 said the contraception question never arose. … ‘It never came up,’' said John McDonough, a professor at Harvard School of Public Health, who led Health Care for All when the state healthcare overhaul was under debate.” [Wall Street Journal, 2/13/12]

Health Care For All’s Amy Whitcomb Slemmer: “Contraception Was Not An Issue During The Debate Around Health Reform In Massachusetts.” “A consumer-advocacy group that tracked the progress of the health care law ushered in by Mr. Romney in 2005 and 2006 said the contraception question never arose. Amy Whitcomb Slemmer, executive director of the nonpartisan group, Health Care for All, said, ‘Contraception was not an issue during the debate around health reform in Massachusetts.’' [Wall Street Journal, 2/13/12]

 Former Massachusetts Secretary for Human Services Phil Johnston Said Romney Is “Not Being Truthful” When He Says He Opposes The Contraception Mandate. “Mitt Romney never expressed any concern about the mandate – never mentioned that it would infringe upon religious freedoms. During the four years that Governor Romney served, he was totally silent about that issue. Most notably, his signature issue as Governor, which all of us supported and which we now affectionately refer to as “Romneycare” left the contraception mandate in place. So when he says he opposes the contraception mandate and will repeal it, which apparently he’s been saying the past day or two since this issue has become very public, he’s really not being truthful. He had four years to repeal it or to speak out against it in our state and he didn’t do that. And even more tellingly, his own healthcare plan which he signed into law embraced contraception mandates.” [Former Massachusetts Secretary of Human Services Phil Johnston During DNC Press Call, 2/9/12; audio available here http://my.democrats.org/page/-/audio/calls/MAHealthCare130pmCall020912.mp3]

REALITY: THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S GUIDELINES PROTECT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM WHILE ENSURING WOMEN’S ACCESS TO VITAL HEALTH SERVICES

The Obama Administration’s Contraception Rule Exempts Churches And Houses Of Worship From Covering Contraception Based On Religious Objections. “Today, the Obama Administration will publish final rules in the Federal Register that: Exempts churches, other houses of worship, and similar organizations from covering contraception on the basis of their religious objections.” [The White House, 2/10/12]

Ø  Under The Obama Administration’s Guidelines, Women Who Work For Religiously-Affiliated Institutions That Object To Providing Coverage Will Be Able To Obtain Contraception Directly From Their Insurance Company. “This amends a rule announced in August and set to take effect this summer that will require employers to provide contraceptive coverage with no out-of-pocket costs as part of their health plans for workers. Churches have always been exempt from the mandate. ... Under the new arrangement - the details of which have yet to be finalized - women who work for such organizations would still be guaranteed contraceptive coverage. But they will obtain it directly from their insurance companies, which must provide the coverage without charging an additional premium.” [Washington Post, 2/11/12]

Read More

Mitt Romney will do or say anything to get elected, even conceal his long record of seeking earmarks. While Romney said tonight that he would put a ban on earmarks, he aggressively sought earmarks as governor of Massachusetts and even used a $1.3 billion federal bailout when he was president of the Salt Lake City Olympics. His rhetoric tonight cannot hide his long record of embracing pork-barrel spending.

ROMNEY ADMITS HE HAS ASKED FOR FEDERAL MONEY AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY AND BRAGGED ABOUT THE EARMARKS HE PLANNED TO BRING BACK TO MASSACHUSETTS

Romney: “I’d Be Embarrassed If I Didn’t Always Ask For Federal Money Whenever I Got The Chance.” Romney said, "I'd be embarrassed if I didn't always ask for federal money whenever I got the chance.” [Boston Globe, 7/18/06]

• 2002: Romney Touted The “Record Amount Of Money” He Got From The Federal Government For The Olympics And Said “That’s The Same Thing I’ll Do As Governor Of Massachusetts--Get More Money From The Federal Government.” In a gubernatorial debate with Shannon O’Brien and the minor party candidates, Romney said, “I need a little chance on the idea that the government bailing out the Olympics…We cut our costs by $200 million . The federal government actually provided a record amount of money to us for security and transportation –that was a separate area. That’s the same thing I’ll do as governor of Massachusetts—get more money from the federal government.” [2002 Massachusetts Governor’s Debate, WB56, 10/9/02]
• 1994: Romney Said He Would Bring More Federal Money For Projects Back To Massachusetts Than Ted Kennedy. “But, Romney said, after Kennedy’s 32 years in the Senate, Massachusetts needs a change in leadership. Romney accused the senator of not bringing much in the way of public works dollars to Massachusetts for all the dollars the state sends to Washington. ‘I would be working to make sure Massachusetts gets its fair share,’ Romney said. ‘That’s part of the job.’” [Boston Globe, 7/13/94]

ROMNEY CREATED A STATE OFFICE DEDICATED TO OBTAINING FEDERAL DOLLARS AND UNDER ROMNEY, MASSACHUSETTS JUMPED UP 9 SPOTS ON THE CITIZENS AGAINST GOVERNMENT WASTE’S “PORK LIST”

Romney Established A Federal Grants Office To Scour For Opportunities For Federal Funding And Bolster The State’s Presence In Washington, D.C.  “Not long ago, however, he took a much different view of federal spending. Far from decrying Washington's spendthrift ways, Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, sought to position his state to hoover up every federal dollar it could—and to use that money to help solve a state budget crisis. According to memos, emails, and other records now housed in the state archives, the Romney administration made the pursuit of federal funding a top priority, establishing a federal grants office to scour for opportunities and bolstering its presence in DC by retaining a powerful lobbying shop for help.” [Kroll, Mother Jones, 11/30/11]

• Romney Aide Cindy Gillespie, Who Oversaw Federal-State Relations: “The Washington Office Exists For One Reason: To Increase The Amount Of Federal Funding Coming Back To The State.”  “Among [Romney’] first hires was Cindy Gillespie, a former congressional staffer and Washington attorney, to be his chief of legislative and intergovernmental affairs. Romney met Gillespie in Salt Lake City when he was running the 2002 Winter Olympics--and she was winning copious federal dollars to support the games. She knows that she's got a tough job on her hands. ‘The Washington office exists for one reason: to increase the amount of federal funding coming back to the state,’ says Gillespie, who oversees federal-state relations from Boston and is considered one of Romney's closest aides. Unfortunately, she admits, ‘It's a very difficult environment because no one has any money, including the federal government.’” [Commonwealth Magazine, Spring 2003]

As Governor, Romney Boosted Massachusetts’s Ranking On Citizens Against Government Waste’s Annual “Pork List” From 48th In 2003 To 39th In 2004 And 2005. “Internal documents show the administration bemoaning its low ranking in an annual ‘pork list; detailing which states brought home the most federal bacon, and aggressively planning to boost that ranking. Which they did: Between 2003, when Romney took office, and 2006, Massachusetts climbed as high as nine spots in the pork rankings… Massachusetts jumped from 48th on Citizens Against Government Waste's 2003 pork list to 39th in 2004, with federal appropriations increasing from $107.8 million to $120.8 million. Massachusetts held onto 39th again in 2005, bringing in $150,372,000 from Washington. In 2006, the state dropped to 46th on the pork list, with its annual haul totaling $116,808,459.” [Kroll, Mother Jones, 11/30/11]

REALITY: THE OLYMPICS WERE BAILED OUT BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WHILE ROMNEY WAS HEAD

GAO: The Federal Government Provided Or Planned To Provide About $1.3 Billion For The 2002 Winter Olympic Games In Salt Lake City. “Specifically, the federal government provided about $75 million in funding and support for the 1984 Summer Olympic Games in Los Angeles and about $609 million for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta, and has provided or plans to provide about $1.3 billion for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City.” [GAO, 9/2000]

• The Salt Lake Olympic Games “Got More Federal Cash Than Any Previous U.S. Olympics.” [Wall Street Journal, 6/13/11]

McCain Called The Amount Of Federal Money Going To The Olympics “A National Disgrace” And Said There Should Be “A Federal Investigation” While Romney Defended The Federal Funds.  McCain: “But you’ve got well over $1 billion that’s just a rip-off of the taxpayers, and, you know, is really a national disgrace…Actually, there should be a federal investigation.” ROMNEY: But Senator McCain, I believe, raises a very good question.  What should the role of the federal government be with regards to the Olympics?  Should it provide the security? Should it provide the highways and bridges necessary to get people to venues? In my view, the answer is, unequivocally, yes.” [CBS Evening News (6:30 PM ET) – CBS, February 9, 2002]

• McCain Called The Money For The Sale Lake City Olympics A “Rip-Off” For Taxpayers Because It Paid For Land Swaps And Roads To Benefit Developers. According to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), “It’s one thing to rip off the taxpayers for a billion and a half, but then you also enrich developers for tens millions more through land swaps and building roads for them.” [NPR, “Weekend Edition,” 2/3/02]

Read More

Both Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney criticized the auto rescue in tonight’s debate, even though it has been credited with saving over 1.4 million auto industry jobs, creating more than 100,000 new jobs and making the American auto industry competitive again for the first time in decades. And despite being repeatedly proven wrong by auto industry leaders and economists , Romney continued to falsely claim that President Obama took his lead on the auto rescue—even though Romney argued in 2008 that we should “let Detroit go bankrupt” and refused to extend a bridge loan to keep GM & Chrysler afloat.   Had Mitt Romney had his way, GM & Chrysler’s doors would be closed today, and the American auto industry would likely no longer exist.

REALITY: ROMNEY SAID “LET DETROIT GO BANKRUPT” AND CALLED THE RESCUE A MISTAKE

ROMNEY OP-ED HEADLINE: “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” [Romney Op-Ed, New York Times, 11/19/08]

• Romney Said Of The Auto Bailout: “That’s Exactly What I Said. The Headline You Read Which Said ‘Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” Points Out That Those Companies Needed To Go Through Bankruptcy.” On the CBS Early Show Mitt Romney said, “‘Yeah, that's exactly what I said. The headline you read which said 'Let Detroit Go Bankrupt' points out that those companies needed to go through bankruptcy to shed those costs,’ Romney said. ‘And the federal government put in, I think, $17 billion into those companies before they finally recognized, 'Yeah, they need to go bankrupt, go through that process, so that they're able to get rid of excess costs.'" [CBS News, 6/3/11]

Romney: Government Funding To Rescue The Auto Industry “Were A Mistake.” In an interview with Mitt Romney, Piers Morgan asked, “But, the experts don’t necessarily say that it was just the bankruptcy or just the bailouts. It was the combined effect of the process, of both, that helped the recovery… The bailouts weren’t necessarily a failure. Were they?” Romney, “No the bailouts were a mistake.” [Piers Morgan, CNN, 6/7/11]

REALITY: SANTORUM OPPOSED THE AUTO RESCUE, PREFERRING BANKRUPTCY FOR DETROIT

Santorum: “We Should Not Have Had The Auto Bailout” Instead They Should Have “Gone Through A Structured Bankruptcy Without The Federal Government.” “SANTORUM: No, absolutely not. We should -- we should not have had a TARP. We should not have had the auto bailout. Governor Romney's right. They could have gone through a structured bankruptcy without the federal government. All the federal government did was basically tip to the cronies, tip to the unions, gave the unions the company. If they'd have gone through the orderly bankruptcy process, gone through a structured bankruptcy, they'd have come out in the same place, only we would have kept the integrity of the bankruptcy process without the government putting its fingers into it.” [Real Clear Politics, 6/14/11]

Santorum: I Opposed The Auto Bailout “On Principle” The Auto Industry Would Be Better Off If We Had Let It Go Through Bankruptcy To Strip It Of “Legacy Costs.” Santorum appeared on C-Span where he discussed the government intervention in the financial sector and auto industry, he said: “I called for a structured bankruptcy from the very beginning. Look, I opposed the Wall Street bailout, which of course was the funding source for the auto bailout. I was the only one up on that stage — between myself, Gingrich, and Romney — that did on principle oppose it, even though people were saying there could be a financial meltdown. The bottom line is, the greater meltdown over the long term for this country is having the government inject itself into the private sector in such a huge way. Allow the capitalist system to work, and that’s what I believe in. The same thing with GM and Chrysler, they could’ve gone through a structured bankruptcy and the only difference between those two companies coming out of bankruptcy and the bailout that Obama put in place was that the unions wouldn’t have a big ownership share of the company…You pretty much would’ve had the same company, maybe even a better company, because they would’ve been stripped of even more legacy costs that frankly makes it hard for them to be competitive.” [C-Span, Transcript via Think Progress, 1/20/12; 1/20/12]

REALITY: THE PRIVATE BANKRUPTCY ROMNEY ADVOCATED FOR WAS IMPOSSIBLE DURING THE FINANCIAL CRISIS

AutoNation CEO Mike Jackson: It Is “Pure Fantasy” To Suggest That Private Financing Was Available For Chrysler And GM.  LL: “What do you think of Mitt’s assertion that private financing ‘DIP’ was available in fall of ’08 into ’09?” MJ: “That is pure fantasy and you have to ask, what he was doing in ’08 and ’09 that he did not see this.” [CNBC, 2/16/12]

AutoNation Inc. CEO And Romney Supporter, Mike Jackson Called Romney’s Detroit News Op-Ed Defending His Opposition To The Auto Industry Rescue, “Truly Reckless, Detached From Reality, And Dishonest.” Bloomberg wrote of Romney’s 2/14/12 op-ed about the auto industry rescue: “The piece drew criticism from Mike Jackson, chief executive officer of AutoNation Inc. (AN), the largest auto-dealer group in the U.S., who called it ‘truly reckless, detached from reality, and dishonest,’ as well as ‘very bad politics, especially in Michigan.’ Jackson, who has been a Romney advocate, said in an e-mail to Bloomberg News the assertion that private financing should have been used to fund GM and Chrysler bankruptcies was ‘fantasy,’ adding, ‘Everyone knows we were in the midst of the greatest financial meltdown since the 1930s.’” [Bloomberg, 2/16/12]

Former GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz Saw Romney Opposition To Federal Government’s Auto Industry Rescue As “A Political Ploy To The Right” And That Romney Was “Playing The Same Song As Rush Limbaugh And Glenn Beck.” “Some Republicans have criticized Mr. Romney’s insistence that federal intervention was wrongheaded as an example of what they see as his willingness to say anything to win over skeptical conservatives. ‘He’s playing the same song as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck,’ said Bob Lutz, a former vice chairman for General Motors who said he was still so upset with Mr. Romney that he had cast his absentee ballot in Michigan for Rick Santorum. ‘I think all of us in the auto industry who knew what the situation was were profoundly disappointed and, I would say, angry,’ Mr. Lutz said. ‘We all saw it for what it was, which was a political ploy to the right.’” [New York Times, 2/19/12]

Detroit Free Press Fact Check: While Romney Argued Against Using Taxpayer Money In The Auto Rescue, “Private Financing Was All But Nonexistent In The Frozen Credit Markets Of Late 2008 And Early 2009.” “Romney consistently has argued against taxpayer money being used to prop up the firms outside of bankruptcy. He seems to suggest that there could have been some funding after the fact to keep them up and operating until private financing kicked in. But people who were part of the rescue argue that this wouldn't have worked. Private financing was all but nonexistent in the frozen credit markets of late 2008 and early 2009. And both the Republican administration of President George W. Bush and the Democratic administration of President Barack Obama found it necessary -- if distasteful -- to put up billions of dollars to keep the companies open while they sorted out what should be done longer term (i.e., the ‘managed’ bankruptcy Romney suggested), though that took time. To withhold money then, supporters of the rescue have said, would have forced the companies into liquidation. Romney said Thursday he wouldn't have allowed that to happen.” [Fact Check, Detroit Free Press, 2/17/12]

REALITY: THE RESCUE OF THE AUTO INDUSTRY SAVED JOBS AND PREVENTED LIQUIDATION  

President Obama Extended Emergency Loans To The Auto Industry, Saving Over An Estimated 1.4 Million Jobs. “[The] federal loans to the auto industry are estimated to have saved more than 1.4 million jobs…” [Detroit News, 11/18/10]

Moody’s Chief Economist Mark Zandi: Without Government Assistance, The Big Three Will Go Bankrupt And Be Liquidated, Resulting In Hundreds Of Thousands Of Layoffs. “Without any government help, the Big Three will quickly end up in bankruptcy and be effectively liquidated, resulting in hundreds of thousands of layoffs at just the wrong time. They would file for Chapter 11, a restructuring, but it would likely turn into a Chapter 7 liquidation. Their factories and other operations would be shut down and their assets sold to pay creditors.” [Hearing Of Senate Banking Committee, 12/4/08]

Center For Automotive Research: The Auto Rescue “Averted Certain Economic Catastrophe Had The Companies Been Allowed To Fail.” “These [government] loans and other financial assistance provided to General Motors and Chrysler by the U.S. and foreign governments averted certain economic catastrophe had the companies been allowed to fail.” [Center For Automotive Research, 12/17/2010]

REALITY: THE AUTO INDUSTRY HAS REGAINED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS – AND IS ON TRACK TO ADD THOUSANDS MORE

Since GM And Chrysler Exited Bankruptcy In June Of 2009, The Auto Industry Has Added Over 207,000 Jobs. [data.bls.gov, Accessed 2/6/12]

• In 2011, The American Auto Industry Added 101,600 Jobs, The Industry’s Strongest Year Of Job Growth Since 1994. [BLS.gov, Accessed 2/6/12]

Center For Automotive Research: US Auto Industry Will Add As Many As 167,000 New Jobs Over The Next Four Years. “Employment in the auto industry will return to prerecession levels by 2015, with carmakers and their suppliers adding about 167,000 jobs by then, according to estimates by an auto industry research firm.” [New York Times, 11/29/11]

REALITY: GM AND CHRYSLER HAVE MADE LANDMARK GAINS IN PROFITABILITY AND MARKET SHARE

For The First Time In Seven Years, The Detroit Three Are All Profitable. “For the first time in nearly seven years, Detroit's car companies are all making money.” [Associated Press, 5/2/11]

• For The First Time In 23 Years, All Three Detroit Automakers Have Gained Market Share. “This year, for the first time since 1988, all three Detroit automakers have gained market share in the U.S.” [Detroit Free Press, 12/12/11]

General Motors Has Regained The Title Of World’s Largest Automaker, Selling 9 Million Vehicles In 2011. “Less than two years after emerging from bankruptcy, General Motors Co. has regained the title of the world's largest automaker. GM's worldwide sales rose 7.6% to 9 million vehicles in 2011. The Detroit manufacturer last held the top spot in 2007 before it was surpassed by Toyota Motor Corp. the next year.” [Los Angeles Times, 1/20/12]

§  February 2012: GM Posted Its Largest Annual Profit In History, Earning $7.6 Billion. “General Motors reported the largest annual profit in its history on Thursday, even as losses in Europe dragged down fourth-quarter earnings. For all of 2011, G.M. earned $7.6 billion, nearly all of it from North America. That was 62 percent higher than the $4.7 billion it earned a year ago and more than G.M.’s previous record of $6.7 billion in 1997.” [The New York Times, 2/24/11]

February 2012: Chrysler Posted Its First Yearly Profit Since 1997. “Chrysler, propelled by higher sales of Jeeps and other revamped cars and trucks, reported its first annual net income since 1997, capping a pivotal turnaround year that many thought would never come.” [Associated Press, 2/1/12]

REALITY: THE AUTO BAILOUT REQUIRED FAIR AND SHARED SACRIFICE FROM BOTH MANAGEMENT AND LABOR

AP: “ROMNEY: President Barack Obama ‘Gave GM To UAW, He Gave Chrysler To Fiat.’ THE FACTS: That's Not What Happened In The Bailout.” “ROMNEY: President Barack Obama ‘gave GM to UAW, he gave Chrysler to Fiat.’ THE FACTS: That's not what happened in the bailout. A trust owned by the United Auto Workers received a 17.5 percent ownership stake in GM to help that trust pay for its retirees' health care…The trust now owns about 10 percent of General Motors. That's much smaller than the government's stake of about 30 percent, and it doesn't support the notion that the government ‘gave’ the company to the union. Moreover, the union did not get free rein in return for its share. It was barred from going on strike over wage issues during recent contract talks with GM and Chrysler, as a condition of the bailouts. Nor did Obama give Chrysler to Fiat.” [Associated Press, 11/10/11]

Chicago Tribune: President Obama’s Auto Rescue Plan Wrung “Extraordinary Concessions” From Chrysler, GM, And The UAW. “As with Chrysler LLC, which filed its own Chapter 11 case on April 30, the Obama task force has been able to wring extraordinary concessions from GM management, the United Auto Workers union and a large group of creditors to eliminate many of the costs that made it vulnerable to foreign competition.” [The Chicago Tribune, 6/2/09]

Detroit Free Press: The White House “Insisted On Big Concessions From The UAW,” Including Freezes On Wages And Benefits, Cuts To Retirement Benefits, And Restricting The UAW’s Ability To Strike. “Washington also insisted on big concessions from the UAW. They included changes in work rules that limit job classifications for skilled trades workers, a freeze on wages and benefits for entry level employees and cuts to retiree benefits…To ensure that the billions taxpayers invested would not be wasted, the government demanded that the UAW accept limits on its right to strike over pay and benefit increases in 2011 talks, sources said.” [The Detroit News, 10/24/09]

Read More

Tonight, neither Mitt Romney nor Newt Gingrich could explain to questioner Lynn Frazier, an unemployed Jacksonville resident, how they would make health care affordable for Americans like her.

Here’s the question and their answers from the debate:

LYNN FRAZIER: My name is Lynn Frazier and I live here in Jacksonville. And for the Republican presidential candidates, my question is, I'm currently unemployed and I found myself unemployed for the first time in ten years and unable to afford health care benefits. What type of hope can you promise me and others in my position?

[…]

MITT ROMNEY: Actually what both these gentlemen said is pretty much spot-on. And I'll add a couple of things. One, I want to underscore something both of them said, and that is right now in America, if you have insurance, you most likely got it through your employer. And the reason is, your employer gets a deduction for you when they buy the insurance for you. That means that if you change jobs, you got to get a new insurance economy, most likely. And if you become unemployed, you lose your insurance. That doesn't make sense. And if an individual wants to own their own insurance, not part of a big group and so as a result they get a very high rate. What we should do is allow individuals to own their own insurance and have the same tax treatment as companies get. You do that and people like this young woman would be able to own her insurance, the rates would be substantially lower for her buying it individually than if she had to buy it individually today. Secondly, getting people to work. This president has failed the American people. He got up there and gave a speech last night, it was like groundhog day all over again. He said the same things and the same results we’re seeing today. People are not working. And we know what it takes to put people back to work. He said some of those things last night: Lowering corporate taxes, lowering regulations, opening up all of the above in energy, cracking down on China. He just doesn't do any of those things and if I'm president, I will do those things and I'll get you back to work. Thank you.

NEWT GINGRICH: Look, she actually put her finger on two different problems. The largest challenge in this country is to get the economy growing so she can have a job so it is easy for her to have insurance. And the president did nothing about this the other night. In fact, his proposal on taxes would make the economy worse. We need to have a program which would start with, frankly repealing Obamacare, repealing Dodd-Frank, repealing Sarbanes-Oxley. We need to give her a chance at a job. Second, we need real health reform, not the Obama style. We need health reform that allows her to buy in, and Dr. Paul is right. She ought to get the same tax break whether she buys personally or whether she buys through a company. She should also be able to buy into an association so she's buying with lots of other people so it is not single insurance, which is the most expensive kind. You combine those two: Reforming the insurance system and getting the economy growing again so people are back at work. You cure an awful lot of America’s problems with those two steps and you put her back in a position where she's in charge of her life, she’s not dependent on Barack Obama to take care of her.

Read More

Mitt  Romney will say anything to get elected- even mislead Americans about an election he voted in 20 years ago. After offering several contradictory reasons for why he voted for Paul Tsongas in the 1992 Massachusetts presidential primary- first saying he couldn’t remember who he voted for, then holding up his vote for Tsongas as proof that he wasn’t a “partisan politician,” and later saying that he was simply trying to elect the weakest general election candidate- Romney went even further tonight, saying that he had “never voted for a Democrat when there was a Republican on the ballot.” The only problem? President George H.W. Bush faced a challenge from Pat Buchanan in the Republican presidential primary that year and both were on the Massachusetts ballot. 

TONIGHT: Romney Defended His Vote In The 1992 Democratic Primary Saying He “Never Voted For A Democrat When There Was A Republican On The Ballot.” In a response to Gingrich attacking him for voting for Tsongas in 1992, Mitt Romney said: Just a short clarification. I never voted for a Democrat when there was a Republican on the ballot. And in my state of Massachusetts, you could register as an independent and go vote in which either primary happens to be very interesting and any chance I got to vote against Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy I took. So, I am -- I have always voted for a Republican any time there was a Republican on the ballot. With regards to the Speaker’s involvement in the Reagan years, he can speak for himself, the Reagan diaries and other histories written at that time can lay that out as well. I think -- I think what he said speaks for itself and I'm proud of the things I was able to accomplish.” [Republican Primary Debate, 1/26/12]

1992: THERE WAS A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY ROMNEY COULD HAVE VOTED IN

1992: President H.W. Bush Faced Pat Buchanan In The Presidential Republican Primary In Massachusetts. “The Bush campaign had been well-represented in Massachusetts over the past few days by Vice President Dan Quayle, who stumped through the state Monday; by Gov. Weld, who greeted commuters on behalf of the president at South Station yesterday morning; and by members of Bush's family who live here. Although Quayle said Monday that Weld had told him ‘not to worry,’ Buchanan had put some effort into Massachusetts and Rhode Island. The Buchanan campaign ran the same advertisements here that proved so effective in New Hampshire, mocking Bush for breaking his ‘no new taxes’ pledge. At the Boston Park Plaza Hotel, Lt. Gov. Paul Cellucci declared the race for the Republican nomination essentially over. ‘Hasta la vista, Pat!’ Cellucci told the cheering crowd. ;The Republicans of Massachusetts have once again come through for the president,’ Cellucci said, recalling the 1988 Massachusetts primary in which Bush won a squeaker in the predawn hours.” [Boston Globe, 3/11/92]

1993: FIRST, ROMNEY DIDN’T RECALL WHO HE VOTED FOR IN THE 1992 PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY

1993: Romney Admitted He Only Registered As A Republican In October 1993, And Also Voted In The 1992 Democratic Presidential Primary But Claimed He “Couldn’t Recall” Which Candidate He Voted For In The Democratic Presidential Race. “Two of the top three contenders for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate - W. Mitt Romney and Janet Jeghelian - registered as Republicans only a few months ago after learning they had to be party members to be nominated…Romney, a businessman from Belmont and son of 1968 Republican presidential contender and former Michigan governor George Romney, voted in the 1992 Massachusetts Democratic presidential primary according to town records - though he voted in GOP state primaries in 1984, ‘86 and ‘90. Registered as an independent until he switched to Republican in October, Romney said, ‘I also voted for the candidate against Joe Kennedy’ in a Democratic congressional primary once. But he couldn’t recall whom he favored in the ‘92 Democratic presidential race.” [Boston Herald, 12/15/93]

1994: THEN, ROMNEY SAID HE VOTED FOR TSONGAS BECAUSE HE WAS FROM MASSACHUSETTS AND LIKED HIS IDEAS 

1994: Romney Said He Voted For Paul Tsongas Because He Was From Massachusetts And Favored His Ideas To Those Of Bill Clinton. “Romney confirmed he voted for former US Sen. Paul Tsongas in the state’s 1992 Democratic presidential primary, saying he did so both because Tsongas was from Massachusetts and because he favored his ideas over those of Bill Clinton.” [Boston Globe, 2/3/94]

·         Gingrich: Romney “Voted For Paul Tsongas, The Most Liberal Candidate In The ‘93 Campaign.” [Associated Press, 1/5/12]

1994: LATER, ROMNEY TOUTED HIS TSONGAS VOTE AS PROOF HE WASN’T A “PARTISAN POLITICIAN”

1994: Romney Touted His Vote For Democrat Paul Tsongas In The 1992 Presidential Primary Saying “I’m Not A Partisan Politician.” “An Independent until last December, he publicizes his brief stint as a Democrat to support ex-senator Paul Tsongas in the 1992 presidential primary. ‘I’m not a partisan politician,’ he said. ‘My hope is that after this election, it will be the moderates of both parties who will control the Senate, not the Jesse Helmses.’” [Washington Post, 10/7/94]

·         Boston Herald: Romney’s Statement That He Voted For Tsongas In The 1992 Primary Was Made “With No Apologies And With A Certain Degree Of Pride.” “And - if such truths can ever be acknowledged in politics - the truth is that Tsongas has far more in common with Kennedy's Republican challenger Mitt Romney. (Romney has already acknowledged crossing over to the Democratic presidential primary in 1992 to cast a vote for Tsongas. It is a statement he makes with no apologies and with a certain degree of pride.)” [Boston Herald, 10/25/94]

2007: ROMNEY SAID HIS VOTE FOR TSONGAS WAS A TACTICAL MANEUVER AIMING TO GIVE INCUMBENT PRESIDENT BUSH THE “WEAKEST OPPONENT”

2007: Romney Said He Supported Tsongas As A Tactical Maneuver Aimed At Finding The “Weakest Opponent” For Incumbent President George H.W. Bush. “ABC News’ Jonathan Greenberger Reports: Republican presidential candididate Mitt Romney offered a new explanation today for why he supported a Democrat in 1992. That year, Romney, then a registered independent, voted for former Sen. Paul Tsongas in the 1992 Democratic presidential primary.  He told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, in an interview that will air Sunday on ‘This Week,’ that his vote was meant as a tactical maneuver aimed at finding the weakest opponent for incumbent President George H.W. Bush. ‘In Massachusetts, if you register as an independent, you can vote in either the Republican or Democratic primary,’ said Romney, who until he made an unsuccessful run for Senate in 1994 had spent his adult life as a registered independent. ‘When there was no real contest in the Republican primary, I’d vote in the Democrat primary, vote for the person who I thought would be the weakest opponent for the Republican.’” [ABC News, 2/16/07]

2007: ROMNEY HAS BEEN CRITICIZED IN THE PAST FOR GIVING MULTIPLE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR HIS TSONGAS VOTE

Romney “Has Been Criticized For Voting In The Primary [For Paul Tsongas], And For Giving Multiple Justifications For His Vote.” “Romney also defended his decision to vote for Democrat Paul Tsongas in the 1992 Massachusetts Democratic presidential primary. ‘We have an open primary where we can vote for people other than Bill Clinton and I voted against Bill Clinton,’ he said. Romney has been criticized for voting in the primary, and for giving multiple justifications for his vote. Romney scoffed at the notion that he was giving rivaling justifications for his vote. ‘I pulled a Democratic primary ballot, and voted for Paul Tsongas as opposed to Bill Clinton. There was no Republican contest of significance at that time, as I recall,’ he said.” [Associated Press, 2/19/07]

·         Providence Journal Editorial: Romney’s Changing Explanation On Why He Voted For Tsongas In 1992 “Reeks Of Situational Political Pandering.” “Mitt Romney sank to a new low in comments about the late Democratic Sen. Paul Tsongas, who, after having been treated for cancer diagnosed in 1983, ran bravely for president in 1992. As Mr. Romney tells it, as a registered independent at the time, he took a Democratic ballot in the Massachusetts presidential primary, and cast his vote for Mr. Tsongas. In 1994 (as quoted in the press) Mr. Romney explained he had voted for Tsongas because he was from Massachusetts and because, in Mr. Romney's opinion, he represented the best of a Democratic field that included Bill Clinton. Paul Tsongas continued to live a useful post-political life until his cancer returned. He died in 1997, and is remembered as one of the most thoughtful politicians Massachusetts has produced in recent decades. Very few Republican partisans would begrudge Mr. Romney's vote for him in 1992. But in a recent appearance on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Mr. Romney had a different explanation: He liked to vote in Democratic primaries, he said, to vote for the weakest candidate to run against the Republican in the general election. In 1992, he judged Paul Tsongas to be the weakest potential challenger to President George H.W. Bush's re-election. It hardly matters what Mr. Romney's true motive was. The first explanation had a touch of nobility, the second reeks of situational political pandering.” [Editorial, Providence Journal, 2/24/07]

Read More

Mitt Romney will say anything to get elected, even distort the President’s strong record on Israel. While President Obama has dramatically increased America’s support for Israel’s security, Mitt Romney said that he would start all foreign aid at zero and has even invested in companies that do business with Iran through his charitable trust.

REALITY: ROMNEY SAID ON FOREIGN AID HE WOULD “START EVERYTHING AT ZERO”

Romney: “I Agree With Governor Perry [On Foreign Aid]. Start Everything At Zero.” “The leading Republican candidates said Saturday night that they'd begin their foreign aid budget as zero, and declined to commit to continuing the United States' massive funding for Israel -- not to mention Egypt and other countries. ‘Every country would start at zero,’ said Perry, who introduced the crowd-pleasing proposal in response to an unrelated question, and fielded a follow-up from Twitter. ‘Obviously, Israel is a special ally, and my bet is that we would be funding them.’ ‘I agree with Governor Perry. Start everything at zero,’ Romney chimed in, in response to a question about Pakistan.” [Politico, 11/12/11]

 ·         Romney’s Insistence That He Would Exempt Israel From His Zero Aid Proposal “Didn’t Do Much To Assuage Pro-Israel Concerns” As Pro-Israel Figures “Emphasized They Prefer To See Israel Wrapped Into An Overall Foreign Policy Package And Not Tweaked Apart.” “Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, and Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, signed on immediately. … Romney, who has made clear that he disagrees with Perry on much else, in this case said he welcomed the idea, saying ‘You start everything at zero.’ … In fact, immediately following the debate, Romney’s spokesmen said he would exempt Israel from the policy -- but that didn’t do much to assuage pro-Israel concerns. Pro-Israel figures for years have emphasized that they prefer to see Israel wrapped into an overall foreign policy package and not tweaked apart, as some Republicans have proposed.” [Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 11/15/11]

ROMNEY’S TYLER CHARITABLE TRUST HAD INVESTMENTS IN COMPANIES THAT DO BUSINESS IN IRAN DESPITE 2007 PLEDGE TO DIVEST

Romney’s Pledge To Sell Off Interests That Conflict With His GOP Stances Did Not Extend To Some Investments In A Family Charity. “Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's personal wealth — up to $250 million — survived the nation's economic crisis, according to figures released Friday. But his pledge to sell off interests that conflict with his GOP stances did not extend to some investments in a family charity”. [Associated Press, 8/12/11]

Romney’s Charity, In 2007 And 2008, Purchased And Sold Investment Shares In “More Than A Dozen Other Foreign And Domestic Companies That Have Conducted Dealings With Iran, China Or Stem Cell Research.” According to the Associated Press, “In 2007 and 2008, the charity also purchased and sold hundreds of other investment shares - worth thousands of dollars - in more than a dozen other foreign and domestic companies that have conducted dealings with Iran, China or stem cell research.  The companies included China-based businesses Hang Lung, Telefonica and China Mobile Limited; medical research companies such as Merck, Roche Holdings and Fisher Scientific; and companies that dealt with Iran, among them Schlumberger, Gazprom and Total.” [Associated Press, 8/12/11]

Romney IRS Records Showed Family Charity “Continued To Buy And Sell” In Companies “That Dealt With Iranian Business, Complied With Chinese Censorship Or Aided In Stem Cell Research.” “But IRS records show that between 2007 and 2009, Romney's family charity, the Tyler Charitable Trust, continued to buy and sell other investments in companies that dealt with Iranian businesses, complied with Chinese censorship or aided in stem cell research.”  [Associated Press, 8/12/11]

·         In August 2007, Romney Promised to Divest from Iran And Companies Involved In Embryonic Stem Cell Research And Make Sure His Investments Conform To His Political Positions.  “Romney also reaffirmed his desire that the blind trust overseeing his family fortune divest of interests involved with embryonic stem cell research or business deals with Iran. ‘My trustee has indicated publicly that he will make an effort to make sure that my investments to the extent possible and practical, will conform with my political positions,’ Romney told reporters during his half-hour visit to the sprawling Greenbrier County fairgrounds. A listing of investments in the trust published this week included companies that work with embryonic stem cells, and foreign energy firms with ties to Iran.” [The Times West Virginian, 8/16/07]

REALITY: ROMNEY’S FUNDRAISER LOBBIED FOR ARAB BANK ACCUSED OF AIDING PALESTINIAN TERRORISTS

Romney Fundraiser, Patrick Cave Lobbied For Bank Accused Of Aiding Terrorists. “Mitt Romney is coming to D.C. for a $500-per-person fundraiser later this week — and one of the event’s hosts lobbied on behalf of the Arab Bank, which has been accused of aiding terrorists. Patrick Cave, founder of The Cypress Group, lobbied for several years on behalf of the Arab Bank while the bank was defending itself in a suit alleging it had helped facilitate the transfer of Saudi funds to Palestinian suicide bombers’ families.” [Smith, Politico, 11/28/11] 

Arab Bank Paid A $24 Million Fine In A Settlement In The U.S. Treasury Department Over An Investigation Into The Banks Alleged Financing Of Terrorists.   “In 2004, relatives of Americans killed in suicide bomb attacks in Israel filed suit against Arab Bank, and the U.S. Treasury Department launched an investigation into the alleged financing of terrorists. Arab Bank and the Treasury Department settled, and the bank paid a $24 million fine.” [Smith, Politico, 11/28/11]

Cave Confirmed The Nature Of His Firm’s Lobbying Work For Arab Bank Was Primarily In Dealing With The Congressional Fallout Of The Lawsuits And Encouraged Bank To Settle With Treasury. “Cave confirmed the nature of his firm's lobbying work for Arab Bank to POLITICO, saying it was primarily in dealing with the congressional fallout of the lawsuits:  ‘We encouraged [Arab Bank] to settle with the Treasury Department and cooperate with the Treasury Department and we were successful in communicating to the Congress any concerns they may have about the business.’” [Smith, Politico, 11/28/11]

Lawsuits Against Arab Bank By The Families Of Victims Of Terrorists Attacks By Suicide Bombers Alleged To Have Received Transfers From The Bank Remain Ongoing.  JTA wrote of Romney donor, Patrick Cave’s association with Arab Bank: “The bank has faced lawsuits from families of victims of terrorist attacks. Among other things, the suits alleged that the bank facilitated the transfer of Saudi money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. According to this Jerusalem Post story from September of this year, the lawsuits are still very much alive.” [JTA, 12/1/11]

REALITY: JEWISH LEADERS PRAISED PRESIDENT OBAMA’S COMMITMENT TO ISRAEL

Prime Minister Netanyahu Called President Obama’s Support For Israel At The United Nations “A Badge Of Honor.” “Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Wednesday thanked US President Barack Obama for opposing the Palestinian bid for recognition of a state at the United Nations, saying the US president was wearing "a badge of honor" by insisting that negotiations are the only way to peace.” [JPost, 09/21/11] 

When Asked About The Obama Administration, Defense Minister Barak Said He “Can Hardly Remember A Period Of Better Support.” “I can hardly remember a better period of support, American support and backing and cooperation and similar strategic understanding of events around us than what we have right now.”   [Fox News, 08/03/11]

REALITY: PRESIDENT OBAMA TWICE ADDRESSED ROCKET ATTACKS ON ISRAEL BEFORE THE UNITED NATIONS

2009: President Obama Said That Israeli Children Are The Victims Of The Ongoing Conflict, Including From Rocket Attacks, In His Address To The UN General Assembly.  “We must remember that the greatest price of this conflict is not paid by us.  It's not paid by politicians.  It's paid by the Israeli girl in Sderot who closes her eyes in fear that a rocket will take her life in the middle of the night.  It's paid for by the Palestinian boy in Gaza who has no clean water and no country to call his own.  These are all God's children.  And after all the politics and all the posturing, this is about the right of every human being to live with dignity and security.“ [President Obama, 09/23/09]

2011: President Obama Condemned Rocket Attacks On Israel In His Address To The UN General Assembly. “Let us be honest with ourselves: Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars against it. Israel’s citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their buses. Israel’s children come of age knowing that throughout the region, other children are taught to hate them. Israel, a small country of less than eight million people, look out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it off of the map. The Jewish people carry the burden of centuries of exile and persecution, and fresh memories of knowing that six million people were killed simply because of who they are. Those are facts. They cannot be denied.” [President Obama, 09/21/11]

REALITY: PRESIDENT OBAMA BELIEVES ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIANS MUST DECIDE FINAL BORDERS THROUGH DIRECT NEGOTIATIONS

President Obama Said That The Borders Must Be Negotiated Between Israel And The Palestinians. “The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps ---- so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states…By definition, it means that the parties themselves -– Israelis and Palestinians -– will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967.” [President Obama, 5/22/11]

Read More

Mitt Romney will say anything to get elected- even distort his record as governor of Massachusetts. Despite his claim tonight that he cut taxes in Massachusetts, Romney raised taxes on individuals and businesses, created and increased fees on everything from driver’s licenses to firearms, and oversaw an increase in the state’s tax burden.

ROMNEY RAISED TAXES ON INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESS

Romney Raised Fees As Governor; Romney Increased Fees By $400 Million And Raised Corporate Tax Revenue By $300 Million. “Mitt Romney has the fever, the George Herbert Walker Bush no-new-tax fever. Read his lips. No new taxes. But what about new fees?  On the presidential campaign trail, Romney brags about a $3 billion budget shortfall he said he closed as governor, without any tax increases. He doesn’t mention the more than $400 million in fees he raised instead. He also raised more than $300 million by closing so-called corporate loopholes, a revenue-raising measure the business community calls a tax increase.” [Boston Globe, 10/11/07]

·         Factcheck.org: Romney’s Fee And Tax Increases Were “Between $740 And $750 Million Per Year.” “As we’ve noted before when the subject of Romney’s fee vs. tax increases has come up, the Massachusetts Department of Administration and Finance says that fee increases during Romney’s tenure added up to $260 million per year, with another $174 million raised from closing some corporate tax "loopholes." The independent Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation puts the revenue total of fee hikes and tax loophole-closings at between $740 and $750 million a year.” [Factcheck.org, 1/31/08] 

·         Tax Foundation: Under Romney, Massachusetts’ Per-Capita Tax Burden Increased From 9.3% to 9.9% Or Increased $1,175.71. From a column by Deroy Murdock: “The Tax Foundation also calculated that, under Romney, Massachusetts' per-capita tax burden increased from 9.3 to 9.9 percent. In real dollars, the Romney-era per capita tax burden grew $1,175.71.” [Murdock Column, New Hampshire Union Leader, 1/6/12]

ROMNEY TARGETED THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY FOR REVENUE TO FILL BUDGET GAPS

Headline: “Seeking Taxes, Romney Went After Business” [New York Times, 10/2/11]

New York Times: By The End Of Romney’s Term Loophole Closures Required Companies To Pay About $370 Million A Year In Additional Taxes, A Nearly 20 Percent Increase From The Period Before He Took Office. “By the end of, Mr. Romney's term, the loophole measures required companies to pay about $370 million a year in additional taxes, a nearly 20 percent increase from the period before he took office, according to an analysis of government data by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a nonprofit research group that receives financing from corporations. The impact of closing the loopholes, which produced a relatively small fraction of state revenues, is an open question. ‘It cost us jobs,’ said David G. Tuerck, an economist at Suffolk University in Boston, though others say that is difficult to measure and subject to debate. During Mr. Romney's tenure, Massachusetts ranked near the bottom - 47th out of 50 states - in new job creation.” [New York Times, 10/2/11]

·         President Of The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation: “It’s Straightforward... He Raised Corporate Taxes.”  “‘It’s straightforward,’ said Michael J. Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a Boston-based research group, without hesitation. ‘He raised corporate taxes.’” [Bergen County Record, 12/7/07]

·         Romney’s Third Round Of Business Tax Hikes Were Cut In Half After Democrats Balked “Amid Protests From Some Of The State’s Leading Business Groups.” “But Romney’s claim that he balanced the state budget ‘without raising taxes’ needs plenty of caveats. Romney and his revenue chief, Alan LeBovidge, presided over a steady series of what they referred to as measures to close "tax loopholes" for companies. To many of the companies that had to pay more taxes, those loophole closings sure felt like tax increases. The Democrats who run the state Legislature went along with the first two rounds. But they started to balk when Round 3 arrived in 2005 amid protests from some of the state’s leading business groups, forcing the Romney administration to cut the proposed tax changes in half that year.” [Patriot Ledger, 1/26/08]

ROMNEY INCREASED THE DEBT BY 2.6 BILLION, 16.4%

January 2003 - October 2006

Year

Amount of Long-Term Debt

% Change

Baseline

2003

      16,063,162,000

Chart is "As of Jan 1, 2003"

After Year 1

2004

      16,757,589,000

4.3%

Chart is "As of Jan 1, 2004"

After Year 2

2005

      17,411,588,000

3.9%

Chart is "As of Jan 1, 2005"

After Year 3

2006

      18,439,694,000

5.9%

Chart is "As of Jan 1, 2006"

After Year 4

2007

      18,697,240,000

1.4%

Chart is "As of October, 2006"

Change from Baseline

        2,634,078,000

16.4%

[2003 Figure: Massachusetts Bond Official Statements, Pg. 44, 2/28/03]     [2004 Figure: Massachusetts Bond Official Statements, Pg. 32-22, 3/4/04] [2005 Figure: Massachusetts Bond Official Statements, Pg. 75, 3/8/05] [2006 Figure: Massachusetts Bond Official Statements, Pg. 39, 2/28/06] [2007 Figure: Massachusetts Bond Official Statements, Pg. 44, 11/10/06]

SPENDING UNDER ROMNEY INCREASED BY 6.5% ANNUALLY, AND PROPOSED EVEN HIGHER SPENDING INCREASES

State Spending Under Romney Increased By 6.5% Annually.  “So under Mr. Romney, state spending went from $22.3 billion to $28.1 billion, an annual increase of 6.5 percent. Adjusted for inflation, spending went from $20.7 billion to $21.6 billion, or a 1.1 percent increase.” [New York Times, 12/31/07]

·         Factcheck.org: It’s “Correct” That Romney Proposed 8% Higher Spending Per Person In Massachusetts. It “would have been correct to say, ‘Governor Romney proposed 8 percent higher spending per person in Massachusetts.’” [Factcheck.org, 10/12/07]

·         Romney Proposed Increased Spending By 10% In 2006. “Romney leaves out something else the Club for Growth noted: that much of his own fiscal discipline took place during the first half of his term as governor, when the state was facing budget deficits. In 2006, with state coffers once again flush, Romney proposed a 10 percent increase in spending.” [Factcheck.org, 10/12/07]

Read More

Tonight, “Which Mitt” Romney denied he and his campaign were running an attack ad against Newt Gingrich. But CNN’s Wolf Blitzer called him on it just moments later, and pointed out that at the end of the ad, it’s Mitt Romney’s voice that says, “I’m Mitt Romney, and I approve this ad.” This isn’t the first time that Romney’s lied about his ads. In a previous debate, Romney said he hadn’t seen super PAC ads attacking Gingrich… just seconds before admitting that he’d seen them, and then he proceeded to repeat the ad’s claims. And four years ago, Romney denied the content of one of his ads attacking John McCain… which fact-checkers said was wrong. “Which Mitt” will say anything to get elected.

ROMNEY LIED ABOUT WHETHER HE HAS SEEN HIS SUPER PAC ADS

Romney Said He Hadn’t Seen Restore Our Future’s Ads Before Admitting That He Saw One. Romney: “They wouldn't be putting money into a PAC that supports me if they weren't people who support me. And with regards to their ads, I haven't seen them. And, as you know, under the law, I can't direct their ads. Speaker, hold on a second. I, I can't direct their ads. If there's anything in them that's wrong, I hope they take it out. I hope everything that's wrong is taken out. But let me tell you this, the ad I saw said that, that you'd been forced out of the speakership, that was correct.” [Meet The Press Debate, NBC News, 1/8/12]

• Romney: “With Regards To Their Ads, I Haven't Seen Them.” [Meet The Press Debate, NBC News, 1/8/12]

• Romney Goes On To Describe The Restore Our Future “Ad I Saw”: “But let me tell you this, the ad I saw said that, that you'd been forced out of the speakership, that was correct… It said that, that you'd sat down with Nancy Pelosi and, and argued for, for a climate change bill. That was correct. It said that you called the, the--Ron Paul's, Ron Paul, Paul Ryan's plan to, to provide, to Medicare reform, a, a, a right wing social engineering plan. It said that, that as part of an investigation, an ethics investigation, that you had to reimburse some $300,000. Those things were all true. If there was something related to abortion that it said that was wrong, I hope they pulled it out. Anything wrong, I'm opposed to.” [Meet The Press Debate, NBC News, 1/8/12]

Romney Said Restore Our Future’s Anti-Santorum Ad “Is Accurate” But “I Haven’t Seen The Ad.” Romney: “No, they -- well, of course. And Rick Santorum says, Look, it's not fair that the super-PAC, I guess -- and I haven't seen it, but says that he wants to give voting rights to felons. Well, he wants to give to it people who were former felons. I think they still call people who were in jail convicted of a felony -- they still call them felons. … So it is -- apparently, it is accurate. I mean, I -- I haven't seen the ad, but it sounds like it is accurate.” [Post-Debate Spin Room With Sean Hannity, Fox News, 1/16/12]

Romney Went On To Describe In Detail An Ad Against Gingrich After Saying: “I Have Not Seen All The Ads, I Don’t Even Know What’s Up In The Super PACs.” Romney: “And my principle is I think that any ad should be telling the truth. And in the case of Speaking Gingrich's ad I think by far the most compelling part of the ad, as I understand it, I have not seen all the ads, I don't even know what's up from the ad folks in the Super Pacs but what I understand is that they have a picture of the Speaker with Nancy Pelosi, that was true. Promoting cap and trade and legislation on climate change, that's accurate. They have him saying that the plan put forward by Paul Ryan is right wing social engineering, he actually did that as well. They point out he was investigated for ethics violations and had to pay three hundred thousand dollars as part of that investigation that's also true. So, there's a lot of truth that's been put out there.”  [Romney Presser, Florence SC, 1/17/12]

FOUR YEARS AGO ROMNEY DENIED ANOTHER IMMIGRATION AD AGAINST JOHN MCCAIN, AND FACT CHECKERS CALLED HIM ON IT

Factcheck.org: Romney “Was Wrong When He Denied That His Attack Ads Described McCain's Immigration Bill As ‘Amnesty’ For Illegal Aliens.” “Romney was wrong when he denied that his attack ads described McCain's immigration bill as ‘amnesty’ for illegal aliens: McCain: [T]he fact is it's it [sic] not amnesty. And for you to describe it as you do in the attack ads, my friend, you can spend your whole fortune on these attack ads, but it still won't be true. Romney: No, no, no, no. I get a chance to respond to this. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I don't describe your plan as amnesty in my ad. I don't call it amnesty. What I say is – and you just described what most people would say is a form of amnesty. In fact Romney has been running an ad since Dec. 28 that says ‘McCain pushed to let every illegal immigrant stay here permanently’ while Romney ‘opposes amnesty for illegals,’ adding: ‘Mitt Romney, John McCain, there is a difference.’ That's pretty clearly accusing McCain of supporting ‘amnesty.’ Otherwise there would be no ‘difference’ on that issue.” [Factcheck.org, 1/6/08]

Read More

While Mitt Romney described his wealth as “an asset to help America,” his tax returns tell a very different story. Romney has invested millions of dollars in funds in foreign tax havens like Switzerland, Grand Cayman, and Bermuda – tax havens that can provide investors business and tax advantages that cost American taxpayers about $100 billion a year . And he made hundreds of millions of dollars at as a corporate buyout specialist at Bain Capital, where he and his partners took companies to bankruptcy, laid off American workers, and outsourced their jobs to other countries.

ROMNEY ONLY RELEASED ONE FULL YEAR OF TAX RETURNS DESPITE GIVING 23 YEARS TO MCCAIN’S VETTING TEAM 

“So Let’s Be Clear: Romney Hasn’t Released His ‘Taxes.’ He Has Released A Single Tax Return From A Year In Which He Was Already Running For President For A Second Time.” [Washington Post, 1/24/12]

Romney Turned Over 23 Years To The McCain Vetting Team And Only One Full Year To The American People. “In 2008, when John McCain was vetting Mitt Romney for vice president, Romney turned over 23 years of tax returns. McCain went on to pick Sarah Palin. This year, the American people are vetting Romney for president, and Romney has turned over one full year of his taxes. So let’s be clear: Romney hasn’t released his ‘taxes.’ He has released a single tax return from a year in which he was already running for president for a second time.” [Washington Post, 1/24/12]

ROMNEY HAD MILLIONS IN INVESTMENTS IN OFFSHORE TAX HAVENS AND DIDN’T DISCLOSE 11 OF THEM ON HIS FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

“Although It Is Not Apparent On His Financial Disclosure Form, Mitt Romney Has Millions Of Dollars Of His Personal Wealth In Investment Funds Set Up In The Cayman Islands, A Notorious Caribbean Tax Haven.” [ABC News, 1/18/12]

·         Romney Has As Much As $8 Million In At Least 12 Funds Listed On A Cayman Islands Registry In Addition To One Investment Worth Between $5 Million And $25 Million That Was Domiciled In The Caymans. “But tax experts tell ABC News there are other reasons Romney may not want the public viewing his returns. As one of the wealthiest candidates to run for president in recent times, Romney has used a variety of techniques to help minimize the taxes on his estimated $250 million fortune. In addition to paying the lower tax rate on his investment income, Romney has as much as $8 million invested in at least 12 funds listed on a Cayman Islands registry. Another investment, which Romney reports as being worth between $5 million and $25 million, shows up on securities records as having been domiciled in the Caymans.” [ABC News, 1/18/12]

Romney Campaign: The Funds In Which Romney Invested Were Set Up In The Cayman Islands To Help Attract Money From Foreign Investors. “Romney campaign officials and those at Bain Capital tell ABC News that the purpose of setting up those accounts in the Cayman Islands is to help attract money from foreign investors, and that the accounts provide no tax advantage to American investors like Romney.” [ABC News, 1/18/12]

·         Citizens For Tax Justice Rebecca J. Wilkins: Offshore Investment Vehicles Attract Investors “Because It Helps Them Avoid Paying Taxes On That Income.” “‘It helps U.S. investors avoid U.S. tax,’ said Wilkins, ‘it helps foreign investors avoid taxes in their home country, so it's not illegal or improper to set those funds up in a foreign jurisdiction, but it makes it more attractive to investors because it helps them avoid paying taxes on that income.’” [ABC News, 1/18/12]

At Least 23 Funds And Partnerships Listed In The Romneys’ 2010 Tax Returns – Including 11 Based In Low-Tax Foreign Countries Like Bermuda, Cayman Islands And Luxembourg – Did Not Show Up Or Were Not Listed In The Same Fashion On Romney’s Most Recent Personal Financial Disclosure. “Some investments listed in Mitt and Ann Romney’s 2010 tax returns – including a now-closed Swiss bank account and funds located in overseas tax havens – were not explicitly disclosed in the personal financial statement the GOP presidential hopeful filed last August as part of his White House bid. A review by the Los Angeles Times/Tribune Washington Bureau found that at least 23 funds and partnerships listed in the couple’s 2010 tax returns did not show up or were not listed in the same fashion on Romney’s most recent financial disclosure, including 11 based in low-tax foreign countries such as Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg.” [Los Angeles Times, 1/26/12]

ROMNEY’S SWISS BANK ACCOUNT WAS NOT DISCLOSED ON HIS FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE AFTER IT WAS CLOSED IN 2010 BECAUSE HIS FINANCIAL ADVISER THOUGHT IT WOULD BE  POLITICALLY EMBARRASING

Romney Closed A Swiss Bank Account “After An Investment Advisor Decided It Could Be Politically Embarrassing.” “Romney advisers stressed that the holdings in the Caymans - along with those in a Swiss bank account that was closed in 2010 after an investment adviser decided it could be politically embarrassing to Romney - were reported on tax returns and were not vehicles to avoid taxes.” [Reuters, 1/24/12]

·         Romney’s “Swiss Bank Account Closed Just As Romney Launched His White House Run.” “Among the new details contained in the documents are Romney's continuing profits from the private equity firm he founded but no longer runs, a Swiss bank account closed just as Romney launched his White House run and new listings of investment funds that were set up in offshore locations from the Caribbean to Ireland and Luxembourg.” [Associated Press, 1/24/12]

Romney Trustee Bradford Malt: The Swiss Bank Account In The Ann Romney Blind Trust Held Approximately $3 Million. Malt: “The Swiss bank account was in the Ann Romney Blind Trust. It held approximately $3 million it was just an investment of the trust, a bank account of the trust which I have mentioned I have subsequently closed.” [Romney Campaign Conference Call on the Romney Tax Returns, 1/24/12]

EXPERTS SAY FAILING TO DISCLOSE INFORMATION ON FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES COULD HAVE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES

Election Law Expert: There Could Be Legal Consequences For Romney If He Deliberately Left His Swiss Bank Account Information Off His Personal Financial Disclosure. “Romney’s failure to include the information about the Swiss bank account could have legal consequences, but only under one condition: if he deliberately left such information off the form, an election law expert tells TPM. Lying to the FEC is crime, but proving that Romney decided to purposefully omit the information (if he did) would be a pretty high burden to meet.” [Talking Points Memo, 1/26/12]

Washington, D.C. Ethics Lawyer: Failure Of A Presidential Candidate To Properly Disclose Assets On A Federal Financial Disclosure Form “Would Lead A Candidate To Face The Obvious Question: 'Why Didn't You Disclose It?’” “The missing funds puzzled ethics experts in Washington, who said the disclosure laws require federal candidates to reveal significant holdings individually, including those located overseas and in bank and private equity accounts. ‘I wonder what theory they could possibly have for declaring an asset to the United States Internal Revenue Service and not putting it on federal financial disclosure forms,’ said Stanley Brand, a Washington, D.C. ethics lawyer who has represented federal candidates from both political parties. ‘Failure to do so would lead a candidate to face the obvious question: 'Why didn't you disclose it?’’” [Los Angeles Times, 1/26/12]

Ethics And Disclosure Expert Kenneth Gross Said “He Did Not Understand Why Romney And The People Who Helped Him Prepare His Disclosures Did Not Reconcile Them With His Tax Returns, Or, If The Tax Return Was Completed After The Financial Disclosure, Why The Latter Document Was Not Amended Earlier.” “Kenneth Gross, an ethics and disclosure expert at the Skadden, Arps law firm, said he had handled complex financial disclosure issues for wealthy people and therefore had sympathy for the assertions from Romney's camp that entities might have been listed under different names in different documents and that third parties may not have provided timely information. He said he did not understand why Romney and the people who helped him prepare his disclosures did not reconcile them with his tax returns, or, if the tax return was completed after the financial disclosure, why the latter document was not amended earlier.” [Reuters, 1/26/12]

UNDER ROMNEY, BAIN CAPITAL MAXIMIZED PROFITS BY FIRING WORKERS AND CUTTING BENEFITS AND PENSIONS

Under Romney, Bain Capital “Also Maximized Returns By Firing Workers, Seeking Government Subsidies, And Flipping Companies Quickly For Large Profits.” “But a closer examination of the prospectus paints a different picture of Bain's operation. Under Romney's leadership, Bain became one of the nation's top leveraged-buyout firms, helping lead a trend in which companies were acquired using debt often pledged against their own assets or earnings. Bain expanded many of the companies it acquired. But like other leveraged-buyout firms, Romney and his team also maximized returns by firing workers, seeking government subsidies, and flipping companies quickly for large profits. Sometimes Bain investors gained even when companies slid into bankruptcy.” [Los Angeles Times, 12/3/11]

Under Romney And Bain Capital, Dade International Workers Saw Pension Plans Replaced And Salaries Cut. “Cost-cutting became a mantra inside the company. After his employer, DuPont, was bought by Dade, William T. Mowrey, a field engineer, said his generous pension plan was replaced by a 401(k); his salary was cut by $1 an hour, costing him $2,000 a year in income. When he filed for overtime, he said, his new bosses refused to pay it. ‘They were just trying to milk as much out of us as they could,’ he said.” [New York Times, 11/13/11]

• Under Romney And Bain Capital, Good Paying Jobs – Some Paying More Than $80,000 A Year—Were Cut At Dade. “Many workers, like Mr. Shoemaker, the Dade employee in Westwood, and his wife, a temporary employee at the same plant, did not leave on their own terms. When they lost their jobs in 1997, they had to abandon plans to buy their first home together. ‘It created a lot of stress,’ said Mr. Shoemaker, 59, who had earned more than $80,000 a year.” [New York Times, 11/13/11]

Bain Capital Cut Jobs And Benefits At GS Industries While Bain And Other Investors Received Management Fees And A $65 Million Dividend. “That was true in the case of GS Industries, the 10th-biggest Bain investment in the Romney years. Bain formed GSI in the early 1990s by spending $24 million to acquire and merge steel companies with plants in Missouri, South Carolina and other states. Company managers cut jobs and benefits almost immediately. Meanwhile, Bain and other investors received management fees from GSI and a $65-million dividend in the first years after the acquisition, according to interviews with company employees.” [Los Angeles Times, 12/3/11]

·         While Bain Capital Partners Made A 100% Gain On Their Initial Investment In GS Industries, 700 Workers Were Fired And Lost Health Insurance, Severance And A Chunk Of Their Pension Benefits. “More than 700 workers were fired, losing not only their jobs but health insurance, severance and a chunk of their pension benefits. GSI retirees also lost their health insurance and other benefits. Bain partners received about $50 million on their initial investment, a 100% gain.” [Los Angeles Times, 12/3/11]

ROMNEY’S BAIN CAPITAL PROFITED BY ADDING DEBT AND DRIVING COMPANIES INTO BANKRUPTCY

“Bain Investors Typically Profited,” Even When They Added “Significant” Debt To Their Acquisitions And Increased The Likelihood Of Bankruptcy And Job Cuts. “Leveraged buyouts allow investors to purchase businesses with the acquisition funded sometimes by significant amounts of debt. To critics, these leveraged deals can make acquired companies more vulnerable to economic downturns, leading to a greater likelihood of bankruptcy and job cuts. At the same time, the deals sometimes introduce discipline to firms and even whole industries that need it. Either way, Bain investors typically profited.” [Los Angeles Times, 12/3/11]

·         April 1999: Bain Capital “Pushed Dade To Borrow Hundreds Of Millions Of Dollars” To Pay Bain Capital $242 Million For A Portion Of Its Shares.  “Bain settled on a common tactic in private equity: it pushed Dade to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars in April 1999 to buy half of Bain’s shares in the company — and half of those of its investment partners. Bain pocketed the $242 million. Goldman received $121 million. Top Dade executives got $55 million, records show. The total payout to shareholders reached $420 million — nearly as much as the purchase price for Dade. The money was hard to resist, acknowledged Mr. Brightfelt, the former Dade president. ‘We were all glad to get some cash out,’ he said, ‘and we thought we deserved it.’” [New York Times, 11/13/11]

·         Under Romney’s And Bain Capital’s Direction, Dade “Quadrupled” Its Debt Which “Propelled The Business Toward Bankruptcy,” While 1,700 Workers Were Cut In The United States. “By the time the Harvard M.B.A.’s from Bain were finished, sales at the medical company, Dade International, had more than doubled. The business acquired two of its rivals. And Mr. Romney’s firm collected $242 million, a return eight times its investment. But an examination of the Dade deal shows the unintended human costs and messy financial consequences behind the brand of capitalism that Mr. Romney practiced for 15 years. At Bain Capital’s direction, Dade quadrupled the money it owed creditors and vendors. It took steps that propelled the business toward bankruptcy. And in waves of layoffs, it cut loose 1,700 workers in the United States, including Brian and Christine Shoemaker, who lost their jobs at a plant in Westwood, Mass. Staggered, Mr. Shoemaker wondered, ‘How can the bean counters just come in here and say, Hey, it’s over?’” [New York Times, 11/13/11]

Read More

Mitt Romney continues to show that he will say anything to get elected. Tonight, he claimed that he would not be “rounding people up and deporting them.” But just one week ago, he stated emphatically in a debate that people who come to the United States without documentation should “go back home and get in line with everyone else.”  He has said he would veto the DREAM Act and called it a handout, and he made clear in a previous debate that no matter how long you have been in the United States, even if you are a grandparent who has been here for decades and served your community, you would be deported. Despite his efforts tonight, he cannot hide his record.  He would be the most out of the mainstream nominee in recent history on the issue of immigration.

REALITY: IF ELECTED ROMNEY WOULD HAVE THE MOST EXTREME IMMIGRATION POSITION OF ANY REPUBLICAN NOMINEE IN RECENT HISTORY

Romney Is Furthest To The Right Of The Republican Field On Immigration. “But Perry’s first major stumble in the primary race occurred when Romney attacked him from the right on the question of immigration: A generic ‘ideology score’ can’t capture the fact that, for millions of voters (especially Hispanics) who see immigration as a make-or-break issue, it is Romney, not Perry, who is furthest to the right.” [Bloomberg, 11/14/11]

New York Times Editorial: Romney Has “Lurched Toward The Extremist Right” On Immigration. “Mitt Romney, who used to try to sound like a moderate on immigration, has dropped the pretense. On Wednesday, he proudly accepted the endorsement of the anti-immigrant activist Kris Kobach, architect of the nation’s most radical immigration crackdowns, including the unconstitutional show-your-papers laws in Arizona and Alabama. Mr. Romney has flipped and flopped all over on immigration, but in allying himself with Mr. Kobach he has lurched toward the extremist right. ‘Kris has been a true leader on securing our borders and stopping the flow of illegal immigration into this country,’ Mr. Romney said.”  [Editorial, New York Times, 1/11/12]

In His Endorsement Of Romney, Kansas Secretary Of State Kris Kobach Said “We Need A President Who Will Finally Put A Stop To A Problem That Has Plagued Our Country For A Generation,” Illegal Immigration And Claimed Undocumented Workers Are “Taking Jobs” From Citizens And “Public Benefits At Taxpayer Expense.” Kobach: “We need a president who will finally put a stop to a problem that has plagued our country for a generation: millions of illegal aliens coming into the country and taking jobs from United States citizens and legal aliens, while consuming hundreds of billions of dollars in public benefits at taxpayer expense.” [Romney For President, 1/11/12] 

• KS Secretary Of State Kris Kobach: Romney Is The Only Republican Presidential Candidate Who Has “Taken A Strong Across-The-Board Position On Immigration.” “‘Mitt Romney stands apart from the others. He’s the only one who’s taken a strong across-the-board position on immigration,’ Kobach told The Hill in an interview.” [The Hill, 1/13/12]·  
• KS Secretary Of State Kris Kobach: “All Of The Other Candidates Stand To The Left Of Romney On Immigration.” “‘All of the other candidates stand to the left of Romney on immigration,’ Kobach said. ‘This is an issue that people with weak backbones sometimes have trouble taking a position on, and Mitt Romney has shown some real backbone on this issue.’” [The Hill, 1/13/12]

REALITY: ROMNEY VOWED TO VETO THE DREAM ACT

When Asked If He Would Veto The DREAM Act, Romney Said, “The Answer Is Yes.” “‘The question is if I were elected and Congress were to pass the Dream Act, would I veto it and the answer is yes,’ Romney said.” [Reuters, 12/31/11; Le Mars, IA Meet & Greet, 12/31/11] 

Romney: “I Have Indicated I Would Veto The Dream Act If Provisions Included In That Act To Say That People Who Are Here Illegally, If They Go To School Here Long Enough, Get A Degree Here That They Can Become Permanent Residents.” [Fox News/Wall Street Journal SC Debate, 1/16/12]

REALITY: ROMNEY CALLED FOR UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS TO RETURN HOME AND GO TO THE BACK OF THE LINE

Romney: Illegal Immigrants “Might Have A Transition Time To Allow Them To Set Their Affairs In Order And Then Go Back Home And Get In Line With Everyone Else. They Start At The Back Of The Line.”  “That’s the principle. And those that have come here illegally, they might have a transition time to allow them to set their affairs in order and then go back home and get in line with everybody else. And if they get in line and they apply to become a citizen or a green card they’ll be treated like everybody else. They start at the back of the line not at the front of the line. I just think we’re not going to go around the country rounding people up. That’s just too big of a task. There are what, eleven, twelve, fifteen million, who knows the total number. But what we are going to do is we’re going to give people a chance to transition- to be able to go home, to get in line, and then to ultimately if they would like to get a green card and enter this country legally. That in my view is the course that we’re going to have to take.” [Romney Town Hall, Cedar Rapids IA, 12/9/11]

Romney: “I Think We Have To Follow The Law And Insist Those Who Come Here Illegally, Ultimately Return Home, Apply, And Get In Line With Everyone Else.” [Fox News/Wall Street Journal SC Debate, 1/16/12]

REALITY: ROMNEY SAID UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS SHOULD LEAVE REGARDLESS OF THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO THE COMMUNITY AND LENGTH OF TIME IN THE COUNTRY

Romney Said It Was “Amnesty” And A “Magnet” To Allow Undocumented Immigrants Who Have Been In The United States For Years, Have Abided The Law, Put Down Roots, Belong To A Church, Etc, To Stay In The United States. GINGRICH:  “I do suggest if you go back to your district, and you find people who have been here 25 years and have two generations of family and have been paying taxes and are in a local church, as somebody who believes strongly in family, you’ll have a hard time explaining why that particular subset is being broken up and forced to leave, given the fact that they’ve been law-abiding citizens for 25 years.” …BLITZER: Let’s broaden it out. Governor Romney, where do you stand? Are you with the speaker, that some of those illegal immigrants — I think — he didn’t say all — some of them, if they have roots, they belong to a church, for example, should be allowed to stay in this country?” Romney: “Look, amnesty is a magnet.”  …BLITZER: “Just to precise, and I’ll give Speaker Gingrich a chance to respond. Are you saying that what he’s proposing, giving amnesty in effect, or allowing some of these illegal immigrants to stay, is a magnet that would entice others to come to this country illegally?” ROMNEY: There’s no question. But to say that we’re going to say to the people who have come here illegally that now you’re all going to get to stay or some large number are going to get to stay and become permanent residents of the United States, that will only encourage more people to do the same thing.” [CNN/Heritage/AEI Debate, 11/22/11]

·         Romney Said Of Gingrich: “He's indicated That For People Who Have Been Here A Certain Length Of Time We Should Let Them Stay In The Country With A Form Of Amnesty. I Think That Is A Mistake.” [American News Room, Fox, 12/7/11]

·         Romney: “We Just Make A Mistake As A Republican Party Trying To Describe Which People Who Have Come Here Illegally Should Be Given Amnesty To Be Able To Jump Ahead Of The Line Of The People Who Have Been Waiting In Line.” “I know that there is going to be great interest in finding out how far we can apply amnesty. And I think that we just make a mistake as a Republican Party trying to describe which people who have come here illegally should be given amnesty to be able to jump ahead of the line of the people   who have been waiting in line. My view is that those people who have waited in line patiently to come to this country legally should be ahead of the line. And those who have come here illegally should not be given a special deal or a special accelerated right to become a permanent resident or citizen.” [Romney Press Q&A At Nationwide Insurance Meet & Greet, 11/23/11]

GINGRICH SUPPORTS CHANGING THE 14TH AMENDMENT TO END BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

Gingrich Said He Would Support Legislation To Change The 14th Amendment So That Children Born To Parents On Tourism Visas Would Not Be Granted Citizenship. “Gingrich also said U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from Seneca, will introduce a measure, possibly as a constitutional amendment, to address ‘birth tourism,’ referring to people who come to the U.S. on a tourist visa to have children, who then can be considered Americans. ‘That’s clearly not what the 14th Amendment (to the U.S. Constitution) implied, and I think it’s inaccurate to interpret that way,’ Gingrich said, referring to the provision that persons born or naturalized in the United States are U.S. citizens.” [Greenville News, 12/8/11]

Gingrich Appointed Task Force That Recommended Babies Born To Undocumented Immigrants Should Not Receive Citizenship. “A task force appointed by House Speaker Newt Gingrich has  come up with some of the most stringent proposals yet to curb illegal  immigration. A 200-page report delivered last week says babies born to illegal  immigrants in the United States should no longer become American citizens  automatically, as the Constitution guarantees. The American babies qualify for welfare even if their parents do not.” [St. Petersburg Times, 7/2/95]

REALITY: GINGRICH SUPPORTS CONTROVERSIAL ANTI-IMMIGRANT STATE LAWS

Gingrich Supports South Carolina's Controversial Immigration Law That Could Lead To Racial Profiling. "Seeking to preserve his GOP frontrunner status amid charges from some Republicans that he’s too soft on immigration, Newt Gingrich expressed support on Monday for South Carolina’s controversial law aiming to stop illegal immigration in the Palmetto State.The South Carolina law – which has prompted a Justice Department lawsuit joined by 16 nations -- would require law officers who make traffic stops to call federal immigration officials if they suspect someone is in the country illegally. Opponents say the measure would encourage racial profiling. 'South Carolinians … have actually passed a law that I think is a pretty reasonable law – that basically says if you pull somebody over for legitimate reasons, you can ask them whether or not they’re a citizen,' Gingrich said in a town hall at the College of Charleston. 'This is the opposite of sanctuary states. Think of it as enforcement society rather than a sanctuary society."" [National Journal, 11/29/11]

Read More

Romney will do or say anything to get elected. While criticizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for their role in the housing crisis and slamming Newt Gingrich for his work for them, Romney’s investments and past actions are odds with this harsh rhetoric. For years, Romney has held investments in both Fannie and Freddie and profited off of the very actions he is now condemning. He even served as a “distinguished panelist” at a Fannie Mae forum.

Coming from a candidate who has offered no tangible housing plan except for letting the housing market “hit bottom” and who has expressed more sympathy for big banks than homeowners facing foreclosure, telling Florida homeowners this week that banks are feeling what they are feeling, this hypocrisy shows that Mitt Romney cannot be trusted to stand up for Florida homeowners.

ROMNEY HAS REPEATEDLY SHOWN CONCERN FOR BANKS…

Romney To Florida Residents Concerned About Housing: “Now The Banks Aren’t Bad People, They’re Just Overwhelmed Right Now.” [Romney Event, Lehigh Acres FL, 1/24/12]

Romney Told Florida Residents Concerned About Losing Their Homes: “Banks Are Scared To Death Of Course… So They’re Feeling The Same Thing That You’re Feeling.” Romney told Florida residents: “Well the banks are scared to death, of course, because they think that they’re going to go out of business. They’re afraid that if they write all these loans off that they’re going to go broke. So they’re feeling the same thing that you’re feeling, so they just want to pretend like all this is going to get paid so they don’t have to write it off and potentially go out of business themselves.” [Romney Roundtable, Tampa FL, 1/23/12]

…WHILE CALLING FOR FORECLOSURES TO “HIT THE BOTTOM” MORE QUICKLY

Romney: “Don’t Try To Stop The Foreclosure Process. Let It Run Its Course And Hit The Bottom.” Romney: “As to what to do for the housing industry specifically and are their things that you can do to encourage housing. One is, don’t try to stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom. Allow investors to buy homes, put renters in them, fix the homes up and let it turn around and come back up. The Obama administration has slow walked the foreclosure process [inaudible] that has long existed and as a result we still have a foreclosure overhang.” [Las Vegas Review-Journal, 10/17/11]

·         “Mitt Romney Came To The State With The Highest Foreclosure Rate In The Nation And Said He Wants To Allow Home Foreclosures To ‘Hit The Bottom’ To Help The Housing Industry Recover.” [Christian Science Monitor, 10/20/11]

ROMNEY BLAMED FANNIE AND FREDDIE FOR THE FINANCIAL CRISIS…

Romney Blamed The Housing Crisis On Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac. Romney: “And the reason we have the housing crises we have is that the federal government played too heavy a role in our markets. The federal government came in with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd told banks they had to give loans to people who couldn't afford to pay them back.” [CNBC Debate, 11/9/11]

Romney: “What Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Were Doing Was Simply Unsustainable And Dangerous To The Economy.” [Romney Roundtable, Salem NH, 6/27/11 (Video)]

…BUT ROMNEY WAS A “DISTINGUISHED PANELIST” AT A FANNIE MAE SPONSORED CONFERENCE

Headline: “Romney Was 'Distinguished Panelist' At Fannie Mae Conference” [CNN, 1/25/12]

2004: Romney Was A “Distinguished Panelist” At A Housing Conference Sponsored By The Fannie Mae Foundation. “But Romney was not always so hostile to Fannie Mae. In fact, he agreed to be a ‘distinguished panelist’ at a housing conference sponsored by the Fannie Mae Foundation in 2004. That was before the mortgage slump began, and Fannie and Freddie did not begin dabbling aggressively in risky home loans until 2005 and 2006. But Romney's appearance came right as the subprime lending boom was taking off.” [CNN, 1/25/12]

·         According To A Fannie Mae Foundation Brochure, Romney Talked About The Need To Expand Access To Affordable Housing At The 2004 Fannie Mae Conference. “According to a brochure released by the Fannie Mae Foundation recapping the event, Romney, then the governor of Massachusetts, spoke alongside former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell and offered ‘a gubernatorial perspective’ on homeownership. Romney, the brochure summarized, outlined his economic development goals in Massachusetts and talked about the need to expand access to affordable housing.” [CNN, 1/25/12]

...AND ROMNEY’S TOP ADVISORS LOBBIED FOR FREDDIE MAC

One Of Romney’s Top Economic Policy Advisers, Vin Weber “Spent Years Lobbying” For And Had Close Ties With Freddie Mac. “One of Romney’s top economic policy advisers, Vin Weber (whom Politico described as a ‘former Minnesota congressman and certified member of the D.C. power elite), spent years lobbying for the group. According to the AP, in 2006 alone, Webber’s lobbying firm (Clark and Weinstock) was paid $360,297 by Freddie. And according to the AP, Weber made no bones about his close ties to the failed mortgage giant: ‘I personally met with the CEO several times and with Hollis and his team regularly,’ Weber said in the e-mail. ‘Clark and Weinstock worked effectively and intensely for Freddie Mac under Dick Syron [Freddie Mac's then-chairman and chief executive] and [Senior Vice President] Hollis McLoughlin.’” [Daily Caller, 1/25/12] 

Romney Surrogate And Adviser Susan Molinari Was One Of The Former GOP Lawmakers Paid Quite Handsomely By Freddie Mac To Help Stop “Any Meaningful Regulation In The Years Before The Housing Mortgage Giant Crashed.” “Mitt Romney’s campaign is attacking Newt Gingrich as an ‘influence peddler.’ But it turns out that some of Romney’s closest advisers (or the firms they lobbied for) were paid hundreds of thousands — maybe millions — of dollars on behalf of failed mortgage giant Freddie Mac. The Romney campaign did not respond to requests for comment. According to the AP, former Rep. Susan Molinari — a top Romney surrogate and adviser (watch her attacking Gingrich in this video) — was one of the former GOP lawmakers paid quite handsomely to help stop ‘any meaningful regulation in the years before the housing mortgage giant crashed …’” [Daily Caller, 1/25/12]

·         Former Congresswoman Susan Molinari Was Paid $300,000 TO Lobby For Freddie Mac. “Internal Freddie Mac budget records show $11.7 million was paid to 52 outside lobbyists and consultants in 2006. Power brokers such as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich were recruited with six-figure contracts. Freddie Mac paid the following amounts to the firms of former Republican lawmakers or ex-GOP staffers in 2006:… Rep. Susan Molinari of New York, at Washington Group, $300,062.” [Associated Press, 12/8/08]

…AND ROMNEY OWNED UP TO $500,000 IN A MUTUAL FUND THAT INVESTS IN FANNIE AND FREDDIE

Romney’s Reported Owning Between $250,000 And $500,000 In A Mutual Fund That Invests In Debt Notes Of Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac – Unlike Like Many Of Romney’s Holdings It Was Not Though A Blind Trust. The Boston Globe wrote of Romney’s personal investments: “On his financial disclosure statement filed last month, Romney reported owning between $250,001 and $500,000 in a mutual fund that invests in debt notes of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, among other government entities. Over the previous year, he had reported earning between $15,001 and $50,000 in interest from those investments. And unlike most of Romney’s financial holdings, which are held in a blind trust that is overseen by a trustee and not known to Romney, this particular investment was among those that would have been known to Romney.” [Boston Globe, 9/19/11]

Read More

Mitt Romney continues to prove that he will say anything to get elected. Despite his claims of not being “anti-immigrant” in today’s Univision forum, Mitt Romney has adopted the most extreme immigration policies in the Republican field, said he would veto the DREAM Act (supported by his own Republican advisors), said all undocumented immigrants should self-deport and even embraced the endorsements of controversial figures like Kris Kobach, who was the architect of the most extreme, anti-immigrant state immigration laws.  Romney has shown time and again that he does not understand the plight that many Hispanic families go through – whether it’s his out-of-touch comments on immigration or his “let it hit the bottom” plan for the housing market.

ROMNEY HAS THE MOST EXTREME IMMIGRATION POLICIES IN THE REPUBLICAN FIELD

Romney Is Furthest To The Right Of The Republican Field On Immigration. “But Perry’s first major stumble in the primary race occurred when Romney attacked him from the right on the question of immigration: A generic ‘ideology score’ can’t capture the fact that, for millions of voters (especially Hispanics) who see immigration as a make-or-break issue, it is Romney, not Perry, who is furthest to the right.” [Bloomberg, 11/14/11]

·        Romney Takes A Hard Line On Immigration His Supporters Worry He Will Damage Himself With The Fastest-Growing Population Of Voters: Hispanics. “With Romney’s recent move to wield the immigration issue as a club against Rick Perry — painting him as ‘soft’ on a topic that resonates with the Republican primary electorate — the former Massachusetts governor is taking advantage of a rare opportunity to outflank Perry on the right among conservatives. After the Texas governor wounded himself with his remarks in the last debate, Romney seized on the issue of illegal immigration, trying to paint Perry as an open-border softy who is giving out freebies to people who enter the country illegally. But the tactic is not without risk, and some strategists — and even some Romney supporters — are beginning to worry that he could damage himself as a general election candidate with the fastest-growing population of voters who are up for grabs: Hispanics.” [Politico, 10/4/11]

Washington Post: “Republicans Are Increasingly Worried” That Mitt Romney’s “Heated Rhetoric On Illegal Immigration” May Undermine The Party’s Efforts To “Win A Competitive Slice Of The Fast-Growing Hispanic Vote.” “Republicans are increasingly worried that their party’s efforts to win a competitive slice of the fast-growing Hispanic vote in important presidential battleground states are being undermined by Mitt Romney’s heated rhetoric on illegal immigration. Several leading GOP strategists say Romney’s sharp-tongued attacks have gained wide attention in Hispanic media and are eroding the party’s already fragile standing in that community.” [Washington Post, 12/19/11]

ROMNEY SAID HE WOULD VETO THE DREAM ACT AND HAS CALLED IT A “HANDOUT” 

When Asked If He Would Veto The DREAM Act, Romney Said, “The Answer Is Yes.” “‘The question is if I were elected and Congress were to pass the Dream Act, would I veto it and the answer is yes,’ Romney said.” [Reuters, 12/31/11; Le Mars, IA Meet & Greet, 12/31/11]

When Asked About His Opposition To The DREAM Act, Romney Said That If “Hispanic-American” Voters Want “A President Who Is Going To Talk To Them About A Handout Or More Benefits For Free, They Got That Guy.” Romney: “You know, the Hispanic-American voters I speak with are overwhelmingly concerned with opportunity. They want good jobs in America and rising incomes. If they want a president who is going to talk to them about a handout or more benefits for free, they got that guy.” [Starting Point, CNN, 1/4/12]

Romney Suggested The DREAM Act Was “Favoritism” And “A Special Route” For Undocumented Immigrants To Become Permanent Residents Or Citizens. Romney: “Now with regards to immigration policy, I absolutely believe that those who come here illegally should not be given favoritism or a special route to becoming permanent residents or citizens that's not given to those people who have stayed in line legally. I just think we have to follow the law, I think that's the right course. … I have indicated I would veto the DREAM Act if provisions included in that act to say that people who are here illegally, if they go to school here long enough, get a degree here that they can become permanent residents. I think that's a mistake. I think we have to follow the law and insist those who come here illegally, ultimately return home, apply, and get in line with everyone else.” [Fox News/Wall Street Journal SC Debate, 1/16/12]

ROMNEY COURTED AND TOUTS THE ENDORSEMENT OF KANSAS SEC. OF STATE KRIS KOBACH, ONE OF THE AUTHORS OF THE ARIZONA AND ALABAMA ANTI - IMMIGRATION LAWS

Romney Announced The Endorsement Of Kansas Secretary Of State Kris Kobach. [Romney For President, 1/11/12]

Kris Kobach Helped Draft Immigration Laws In Arizona And Alabama. “Kobach, a Republican, pushed legislators last year to impose requirement, but some legislators were wary of the idea. Kobach is a former University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor who's become nationally known for helping state and local officials draft measures designed to crack down on illegal immigration, and he helped draft tough laws in Alabama and Arizona. He contends a proof-of-citizenship requirement will prevent illegal immigrants from registering to vote, but he sees the rule as part of a broader attempt to combat election fraud.” [Associated Press, 1/11/12]

Romney On Kansas Secretary Of State Kris Kobach: “I’m So Proud To Earn Kris’s Support. … Kris Has Been A True Leader On Securing Our Borders And Stopping The Flow Of Illegal Immigration Into This Country.” Romney: “I’m so proud to earn Kris’s support. … Kris has been a true leader on securing our borders and stopping the flow of illegal immigration into this country. We need more conservative leaders like Kris willing to stand up for the rule of law. With Kris on the team, I look forward to working with him to take forceful steps to curtail illegal immigration and to support states like South Carolina and Arizona that are stepping forward to address this problem.” [Romney For President, 1/11/12]

·        Kansas Secretary Of State Kris Kobach, A Romney Supporter, Helped Draft SB 1070, Arizona’s Controversial Anti-Immigration Law. “Kobach is one of the chief supporters of state-led immigration crackdowns, and helped draft SB 1070, the first of a wave of such laws in Arizona. Since then, Georgia, South Carolina, Indiana and Alabama have passed similar laws to SB 1070.” [Huffington Post, 1/11/12]

Romney Endorser Kansas Secretary Of State Kris Kobach Said He Supported “Attrition Through Enforcement” Which Seeks To Drive Out Undocumented Immigrants By Making It “More Difficult” For Them To Live And Work In An Area. “In a telephone interview Monday from South Carolina, Mr. Kobach said he is guided by the ‘attrition through enforcement’ principle, which seeks to drive out illegal immigrants by making it ‘more difficult’ for them to live and work in an area.” [Wall Street Journal, 1/16/12]

ROMNEY SUPPORTED DEPORTING EVERY UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANT

When Asked If Someone Who Has Been A Law-Abiding Citizen For 25 Years Should Be Allowed To Stay, Romney Said, "I'm Not Going To Start Drawing Lines Here About Who Gets To Stay And Who Gets To Go." [CNN/Heritage/AEI Debate, 11/22/11]

Romney: 12 Million Undocumented Immigrants Should Not Be Allowed to Stay Permanently. At the ABC GOP Debate on January 5, 2008, Romney said: “I disagree fundamentally that the 12 million people who come here illegally, should be allowed to stay here permanently. I think that is a form of amnesty and that it’s not appropriate.”  [NH ABC Debate, 1/5/08]

Romney Supported “Self-Deportation” For Undocumented Immigrants. SMITH: “You say you don`t want to go and round up people and deport them, but you also say that they would have to go back to their home countries and then apply for citizenship. So, if you don`t deport them, how do you send them home?” ROMNEY: “Well, the answer is self-deportation, which is people decide they can do better by going home because they can`t find work here because they don`t have legal documentation to allow them to work here. And so we`re not going to round people up. The way that we have in this society is to say, look, people who have come here legally would, under my plan, be given a transition period and the opportunity during that transition period to work here, but when that transition period was over, they would no longer have the documentation to allow them to work in this country. At that point, they can decide whether to remain or whether to return home and to apply for legal residency in the United States, get in line with everybody else. And I know people think but that`s not fair to those that have come here illegally.” [NBC Florida Debate, 1/23/12]

AS GOVERNOR, ROMNEY RANKED 47TH OUT OF 50 IN JOB CREATION, WHILE WAGES AND INCOME IN MASSACHUSETTS FELL

In Romney’s Four Years As Governor Massachusetts Ranked 47th Out Of 50 In Jobs Growth.  “The Republican contender was the governor of Massachusetts from January 2003 to January 2007. And during that time, according to the U.S. Labor Department, the state ranked 47th in the entire country in jobs growth. Fourth from last.  The only ones that did worse? Ohio, Michigan and Louisiana. In other words, two rustbelt states and another that lost its biggest city to a hurricane. The Massachusetts jobs growth over that period, a pitiful 0.9%, badly lagged other high-skill, high-wage, knowledge economy states like New York (2.7%), California (4.7%) and North Carolina (7.6%). The national average: More than 5%.” [Marketwatch, 2/23/10]

Massachusetts Wages and Income Fell By 2% During Romney Years.  “Between 2002 and 2006, the median real (inflation adjusted) weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers in Massachusetts is estimated to have fallen by $10 or nearly 2 percent. The real income of the average (median) family in Massachusetts in 2005 was 1 percent below its value at the time of the 2000 Census while median household income was 3 percent below its 2000 value. Median household income fell even more sharply in the nation. Family incomes in both the United States and Massachusetts have become more unevenly distributed since 2000.” [Boston Globe, 7/28/07]

Between 2003 And 2005 The Median Hourly Wage For Massachusetts Workers Fell 5%--The Largest Decline In The Country During That Period. “Perhaps even worse, wages in Massachusetts, after adjusting for inflation, have dropped across the labor force over the last few years. In particular, the median hourly wage that is, the wage earned by the typical Massachusetts worker fell close to 5 percent between 2003 and 2005, the largest decline in the country during that period and the largest two-year decline in Massachusetts in at least twenty-five years.” [Massachusetts Budget And Policy Center, 9/3/06]

Under Romney, The Median Household Income In Massachusetts Decreased $1,963 In Real Terms.  In 2002, the median household income in Massachusetts was $55,266.  Adjusted for inflation, this amount was $61,932.33 in 2006 buying power.  In 2006, the median household income in Massachusetts was $59,963, a decrease from the inflation adjusted median household income from 2002 of $1,963.33 [Census.gov American Community Survey, 2002 Median Household Income And 2006 Median Household Income; BLS Inflation Calculator, 2002-2006]

ON HOUSING, ROMNEY SAID WE SHOULD LET THE FORECLOSURE PROCESS “RUN ITS COURSE” AND SAID BANKS ARE “FEELING THE SAME THING” AS STRUGGLING HOMEOWNERS

Romney: “Don’t Try To Stop The Foreclosure Process. Let It Run Its Course And Hit The Bottom.” Romney: “As to what to do for the housing industry specifically and are their things that you can do to encourage housing. One is, don’t try to stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom. Allow investors to buy homes, put renters in them, fix the homes up and let it turn around and come back up. The Obama administration has slow walked the foreclosure process [inaudible] that has long existed and as a result we still have a foreclosure overhang.” [Las Vegas Review-Journal, 10/17/11]

Romney To Florida Residents Concerned About Housing: “Now The Banks Aren’t Bad People, They’re Just Overwhelmed Right Now.” [Romney Event, Lehigh Acres FL, 1/24/12]

Romney Told Florida Residents Concerned About Losing Their Homes: “Banks Are Scared To Death Of Course… So They’re Feeling The Same Thing That You’re Feeling.” Romney told Florida residents: “Well the banks are scared to death, of course, because they think that they’re going to go out of business. They’re afraid that if they write all these loans off that they’re going to go broke. So they’re feeling the same thing that you’re feeling, so they just want to pretend like all this is going to get paid so they don’t have to write it off and potentially go out of business themselves.” [Romney Roundtable, Tampa FL, 1/23/12]

Read More

On immigration, “Say Anything” Mitt Romney tried to reinvent his position on the DREAM Act, now claiming he'd support it if it was based on military service. But just two weeks ago, Romney said he would veto the DREAM Act, which he once described as a "handout." Tonight he said he agreed with Newt Gingrich, but previously he said Gingrich’s position was “amnesty,” which he vehemently opposed. With plans like this, it’s clear Romney is continuing his race to the right and becoming one of the most extreme presidential candidates in recent American history on immigration. 

9/21/11: ROMNEY SAID HE OPPOSED THE DREAM ACT FOR STUDENTS

Romney Said He Would “Absolutely Not” Sign The Dream Act For Undocumented Students. Newsmax: “As president, would you ever sign the Dream Act, or some variation thereof?” Romney: “If by that you mean giving individuals who come here illegally tuition breaks to our institutions of higher learning, absolutely not. People in this country should recognize that citizens of this country are the ones to get breaks to go to college, not those who come into the country illegally.” [Interview, Newsmax, 9/21/11]

9/21/11: ROMNEY ATTACKED THE PRESIDENT’S SUPPORT FOR OFFERING A PATH TO CITIZENSHIP TO UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS IN THE MILITARY IN A CAMPAIGN AD

Romney Used Clips Of The President’s El Paso Speech - Offering Those Who Serve In The Military Or Pursue Higher Education An Expedited Path To Citizenship - In An Attack Ad. “The ad claims that Perry and O’Malley ‘agree’ because both have signed into law bills that offer illegal immigrants in-state tuition for higher education. But the Obama clips, which come from a speech he gave on immigration reform in El Paso, Texas, in May, don’t address in-state tuition. Those remarks are in reference to the federal DREAM Act, which wouldn’t provide in-state tuition to children of illegal immigrants; rather, it would offer those who serve in the military or pursue higher education an expedited path to citizenship. Obama may agree with Perry on in-state tuition, as the ad states, but the proof for that claim–Obama’s statements in El Paso–don’t back it up.” [San Antonio Chronicle, 9/27/11; Video]

11/22/11: ROMNEY SAID GINGRICH’S POSITION, ALLOWING A PATH TO CITIZENSHIP FOR MEMBERS OF THE MILITARY WAS “AMNESTY,” WHICH HE SAID WASN’T “THE RIGHT COURSE”

Romney Disagreed With Gingrich Saying It Was “Amnesty” And A “Magnet” To Allow Undocumented Immigrants Who Have Been In The United States For Years, Have Abided The Law, Put Down Roots, Belong To A Church, Served In The Military, Etc, To Stay In The United States.  Gingrich: “Well, I mean, two things, first of all, in the DREAM Act, the one part that I like is the one which allows people who came here with their parents to join the U.S. military, which they could have done if they were back home, and if they serve on it with the U.S. military to acquire citizenship, which is something any foreigner can do.  And I don't see any reason to punish somebody who came here at three years of age, but who wants to serve the United States of America. I specifically did not say we'd make the 11 million people legal. I do suggest if you go back to your district, and you find people who have been here 25 years and have two generations of family and have been paying taxes and are in a local church, as somebody who believes strongly in family, you'll have a hard time explaining why that particular subset is being broken up and forced to leave, given the fact that they've been law-abiding citizens for 25 years…” Blitzer: “Governor Romney, where do you stand? Are you with the speaker, that some of those illegal immigrants -- I think -- he didn't say all -- some of them, if they have roots, they belong to a church, for example, should be allowed to stay in this country?” Romney: “Look, amnesty is a magnet. What when we have had in the past, programs that have said that if people who come here illegally are going to get to stay illegally for the rest of their life, that's going to only encourage more people to come here illegally. The right course for our immigration system is to say we welcome people who want to come here legally… And we have to finally have immigration laws that protect our border, secure the border, turn off the magnets, and make sure we have people come to this country legally to build our economy.” [CNN/Heritage/AEI Debate, 11/22/11]

12/31/11: ROMNEY SAID HE WOULD VETO THE DREAM ACT

When Asked If He Would Veto The DREAM Act, Romney Said, “The Answer Is Yes.” “‘The question is if I were elected and Congress were to pass the Dream Act, would I veto it and the answer is yes,’ Romney said.” [Reuters, 12/31/11; Le Mars, IA Meet & Greet, 12/31/11]

12/31/11: ROMNEY SAID HE SUPPORTED GIVING UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANT MEMBERS OF THE MILITARY A PATH TO PERMANENT RESIDENCY

Romney Supported Giving Undocumented Immigrants Who Are Members Of The Military A Path To Becoming Permanent Residents. “Romney, who has said before that he opposed the Dream Act, said tonight that he does not oppose at least one of the provisions in the Dream Act that would allow servicemen and woman to gain permanent residency. ‘I am delighted with the idea that people who come to this country and wish to serve in the military can be given a path to become permanent residents in this country,’ he explained. ‘Those who serve in our military and fulfill those requirements I respect and acknowledge that path.’” [ABC News, 12/31/11]

12/31/11: ROMNEY SAID HE OPPOSED THE DREAM ACT FOR UNDOCUMENTED STUDENTS

Romney Opposed Dream Act Provisions That Provide A Pathway To Residency Through Education. “An aide said Romney opposes other portions of the Dream Act that provide a pathway to residency through education.” [Boston Globe, 12/31/11]

1/4/12: ROMNEY REFERRED TO THE DREAM ACT AS “A HANDOUT” TO WHICH HE WAS OPPOSED

When Asked About His Opposition To The DREAM Act, Romney Said That If “Hispanic-American” Voters Want “A President Who Is Going To Talk To Them About A Handout Or More Benefits For Free, They Got That Guy.” Romney: “You know, the Hispanic-American voters I speak with are overwhelmingly concerned with opportunity. They want good jobs in America and rising incomes. If they want a president who is going to talk to them about a handout or more benefits for free, they got that guy.” [Starting Point, CNN, 1/4/12]

1/16/12: ROMNEY SAID THAT HE OPPOSED “A SPECIAL ROUTE” TO CITIZENSHIP FOR UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS AND THAT HE OPPOSE PROVISIONS OF THE DREAM ACT TARGETED AT STUDENTS

Romney Suggested The DREAM Act Was “Favoritism” And “A Special Route” For Undocumented Immigrants To Become Permanent Residents Or Citizens. Romney: “Now with regards to immigration policy, I absolutely believe that those who come here illegally should not be given favoritism or a special route to becoming permanent residents or citizens that's not given to those people who have stayed in line legally. I just think we have to follow the law, I think that's the right course. … I have indicated I would veto the DREAM Act if provisions included in that act to say that people who are here illegally, if they go to school here long enough, get a degree here that they can become permanent residents. I think that's a mistake. I think we have to follow the law and insist those who come here illegally, ultimately return home, apply, and get in line with everyone else.” [Fox News/Wall Street Journal SC Debate, 1/16/12]

Read More

President Obama has been clear his administration will take whatever steps are necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The President has imposed the toughest sanctions Iran has ever faced, which are having a major impact on the Iranian economy, and has stood with our ally Israel in isolating the Iranian regime around the world.

PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS MADE IT CLEAR HE WILL NOT ALLOW A NUCLEAR IRAN

President Obama has repeatedly affirmed that the United States is determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.  [MSNBC, 6/9/10]

Secretary Of Defense Panetta Reiterated That The United States Will Take “Whatever Steps Necessary” To Stop Iran From Developing An Nuclear Weapons. [CBS, 12/19/11]

President Obama Accelerated The Deployment Of Ships And Antimissile Systems To The Persian Gulf To Defend Against Possible Iranian Missile Strikes. [New York Times, 1/30/10]

PRESIDENT OBAMA PASSED THE MOST SEVERE SANCTIONS IRAN HAS EVER FACED

With President Obama’s Leadership, The United States Gained The Support Of Russia, China And Other Nations To Pass United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929, Creating The Most Comprehensive And Biting International Sanctions Regime The Iranian Government Has Ever Faced. [UN News Centre, 6/9/10]

• Citing Sanctions, Russia Banned All Exports Of Major Weapons Systems To Iran. [New York Times, 09/22/10]

In June 2010, President Obama Worked With Congress To Pass The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, And Divestment Act, Which Strengthens Existing US Sanctions And Makes It Harder For The Iranian Government To Buy Refined Petroleum And Other Goods It Needs To Modernize Its Oil And Gas Sector. [Associated Press, 6/24/10]

• Close to $60 billion in energy-related projects in Iran have already been put on hold or discontinued as of the end of 2010. [Bloomberg, 12/1/10]
• President Ahmadinejad Has Been Forced To Admit The Serious Impact Of Sanctions Placed On Government By The Obama Administration.  [Washington Post, 11/1/11]
• The Iranian Economy Now Faces Its Bleakest Prospects In Two Decades With An Almost Unanimous Forecast Of Low Growth, High Inflation, And Continued Double-Digit Unemployment. [Carnegie Endowment For International Peace, 03/18/10]
• The Iranian Rial Has Lost About 35% Of Its Value Since September 2011. [Washington Post, 01/02/11]

In November 2011, The Obama Administration Took Additional Steps To Increase Pressure On The Iranian Regime To Comply With Its International Nuclear Obligations.

• President Obama Issued An Executive Order Expanding Already Robust Sanctions To Target Entities That Help Develop Oil And Petrochemical. [Executive Order, 11/21/11]
• The Treasury Department Identified Iran As A “Primary Money Laundering Concern, “To Highlight The Risks Of Doing Business With Iran. [The White House, 11/21/11]
• The State And Treasury Departments Prohibited U.S. Persons from Engaging In Business With A Eleven Individuals And Entities For Their Role In Assisting Iran’s Nuclear Program. [State Department, 11/21/11]

In December 2011, President Obama Signed Into Law New Sanctions Targeting Iran’s Central Bank and Its Oil Revenues. [The White House, 01/23/12]

• In January 2012, The European Union Decided To Impose A Phased Ban On Oil Purchases From Iran. [01/23/12]

In January 2012, The Obama Administration Designated Bank Tejarat, Iran’s Third-Largest Bank, As Subject To New Sanctions. [Treasury, 01/23/12]

PRESIDENT OBAMA LED THE EFFORT TO ISOLATE IRAN

President Obama Has Made The Choice Clear, Iran Can Either Fulfill Its International Obligations And Reap The Benefits Of Economic and Political Integration Or It Can Choose Isolation. [The White House, 11/21/11]

PRESIDENT OBAMA STRONGLY CONDEMNED THE  IRANIAN REGIME’S ATTACKS ON ITS CITIZENS

President Obama Forcefully Spoke Out In Support Of The Iran People’s Efforts To Make Their Voices Heard And “Strongly Condemned” The “Unjust Actions” Of The Iranian Government.  [NYT, 06/23/09]

PRESIDENT OBAMA STOOD BY ISRAEL IN THE FACE OF THE IRANIAN THREAT

Prime Minister Netanyahu Praised President Obama For His Efforts To Prevent Iranian Nuclearization And For Defending Israel's Right To Protect Itself Against Iranian Proxies. "President Obama has said that the United States is determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The president successfully led the Security Council at the UN to adopt sanctions against Iran." [Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s Address to Congress, 5/24/11]

The Obama Administration Has Reinstituted Sanctions Against Iran-Allied Syria And Strongly Condemned Syria’s Transfer Of Scud Missiles And Other Arms To Hezbollah, Iran’s Proxy In Lebanon. [New York Times, 5/19/11] [The Telegraph, 4/20/10]

Read More

Romney will say anything to win. Let’s not forget that it's Romney who said it's time to let the foreclosure process that has devastated so many families “run its course and hit the bottom.” That’s appalling, but not unexpected from a former financial executive who wants to let Wall Street – the same guys whose recklessness brought the housing market and our economy to the brink – write its own rules, even if it means hanging the middle-class out to dry. And Newt Gingrich agrees - he wants to repeal Wall Street reform and wait for the economy to rebound. For middle-class Americans, the Republicans' vision of the American Dream is more like a nightmare.

ROMNEY CALLED FOR HOUSING TO “HIT THE BOTTOM”

ROMNEY: “DON’T TRY TO STOP THE FORECLOSURE PROCESS. LET IT RUN ITS COURSE AND HIT THE BOTTOM”

Romney: “Don’t Try To Stop The Foreclosure Process. Let It Run Its Course And Hit The Bottom.” Romney: “As to what to do for the housing industry specifically and are their things that you can do to encourage housing. One is, don’t try to stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom. Allow investors to buy homes, put renters in them, fix the homes up and let it turn around and come back up. The Obama administration has slow walked the foreclosure process [inaudible] that has long existed and as a result we still have a foreclosure overhang.” [Las Vegas Review-Journal, 10/17/11]

ROMNEY SAID BANKS ARE FEELING “THE SAME THING” HOMEOWNERS ARE FEELING

Romney: Banks Are “Feeling The Same Thing That You’re Feeling.” ROMNEY: “Well the banks are scared to death, of course, because they think that they’re going to go out of business. They’re afraid that if they write all these loans off that they’re going to go broke. So they’re feeling the same thing that you’re feeling, so they just want to pretend like all this is going to get paid so they don’t have to write it off and potentially go out of business themselves.” [Romney Housing Roundtable, 1/23/12]

FORECLOSURES IN MASSACHUSETTS SKYROCKETED UNDER HIS WATCH

Foreclosures In Massachusetts While Romney Was Governor Went From 4,200 In 2003 To 19,500 In 2006. “Nevada Democrats quickly pounced on Romney, casting his appearance as an April Fools joke and pointing to foreclosure rates that rose in Massachusetts during his four years as governor. There were about 4,200 foreclosures in the Bay State in 2003, Romney’s first year in office, compared with 19,500 in 2006, his last year in office.” [Boston Globe, 4/1/11]

• Foreclosures In Massachusetts In 2006 Totaled 19,487. [Business Wire Press Release, ForeclosuresMass, 2/6/07]
• Foreclosures In Massachusetts In 2005 Totaled 11,493. [Business Wire Press Release, ForeclosuresMass, 1/30/06]
• Foreclosures In Massachusetts In 2004 Totaled 8,689. [Business Wire Press Release, ForeclosuresMass, 1/30/06]
• Foreclosures in Massachusetts In 2003 Totaled 4,167. [Boston Globe, 1/20/04]

ROMNEY BLAMED MAIN STREET FOR FINANCIAL CRISIS…

Romney: Main Street Deserves Blame For Financial Crisis For Taking On Mortgages They Couldn't Afford. “The short term crisis that we face was the result of many people and many failures. It is popular to say it was only Wall Street.  Well, Wall Street is certainly and to a large degree to blame for what happened.  But so is Main Street. So are the mortgage bankers that gave mortgages to people who had no capacity to actually pay them.  So are the individuals who signed up for loans that were far in excess of what they ever could re-pay – the speculators, if you will.” [Book TV, CSPAN2, 3/5/10]

GINGRICH AGREED THAT FORECLOSURES SHOULD CONTINUE AND WOULD REPEAL WALL STREET REFORM AND WAIT

GINGRICH SAID HE AGREED WITH ROMNEY THAT THE FORECLOSURE PROCESS SHOULD PLAY OUT WITHOUT GOVERNMENT AID

Gingrich Said He Agreed With Romney That We Should Let The Foreclosure Process Play Out For The Housing Market To Recover. Maria Bartiromo asked Gingrich, “Most economists agree that there can be no economic recovery without a recovery in housing. American families have lost some $7 trillion in home value in the last five years. Right now, four million people are behind on their mortgage or in foreclosure, 25 percent of homeowners owe more to the banks than their house is actually worth. Governor Romney has said that the government should let the foreclosure process play out so that the housing market can recover and the free markets can work. Speaker Gingrich, is Governor Romney right?” Gingrich responded, “We, he's certainly right in the sense that you want to get through to the real value of the houses as fast as you can, because they're not going to rise in value as long as you stay trapped, as Japan has done now for 20 years.” [CNBC Michigan Debate, 11/9/11]

• Gingrich “Concurred With Frontrunner Mitt Romney's Assessment That Foreclosures And Distressed Mortgages Should Run Their Course.” “Republican presidential candidates all pretty much concurred with frontrunner Mitt Romney's assessment that foreclosures and distressed mortgages should run their course. The housing market that continues to trouble places like Phoenix came up during a CNBC GOP presidential debate from Michigan on Wednesday. The candidates were asked how they felt about Romney's previous comments that he wouldn't continue government mortgage modification and assistance programs. The other GOP candidates, including Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich, concurred with Romney that the housing market needs to work itself out. The candidates, including Cain, said the economy needs to be lifted for housing to recover.” [Phoenix Business Journal, 11/9/11]

GINGRICH’S HOUSING PLAN: REPEAL WALL STREET REFORM AND WAIT FOR THE ECONOMY TO REBOUND

Gingrich’s Plan For The Housing Market: Repeal Wall Street Reform And Make Short Sales Easier. Gingrich explained in a debate, “I think there are two specific steps you have got to understand in terms of housing. To pick up on something Congresswoman Bachmann said, if the Republican House next week would repeal Dodd/Frank, and allow us to put pressure on the Senate to repeal Dodd/Frank, you would see the housing market start to improve overnight. Dodd/Frank kills small banks, it kills small business. The federal regulators are anti- housing loan, and it has maximized the pain level. You could also change some of the rules so it would be easier to do a short sale where the house is worth less than mortgage than it is to do a foreclosure. Today, the banks are actually profiting more by foreclosing than encouraging short sales.” [CNBC Michigan Debate, 11/9/11]

Gingrich’s Plan To Save The Housing Market: “The Economy Has To Come Back.” Gingrich explained in a debate, “… in the long run, you want the housing market to come back? The economy has to come back. When you are at four percent unemployment, you suddenly have a dramatic increase in demand for housing. When you're at nine percent- plus unemployment, it's hard to get the housing market to come back.” [CNBC Michigan Debate, 11/9/11]

Read More

Romney will say anything to get elected and tonight claimed that he’s ready to help the middle class. But in reality, he believes he should pay a lower tax rate than middle-class families, something his economic plan makes very clear. Romney might like to say he’s going to help Americans, but his proposals slash taxes on corporations and the wealthiest Americans and do nearly nothing for the middle class.

ROMNEY’S TAX PLAN WOULD CUT TAXES FOR THE WEALTHY AND RAISE TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS

Romney’s Tax Plan Constitutes A Major Tax Cut For Wealthy Americans And Proposes Effective Tax Increases For People Making Less Than $40,000 Compared To Current Tax Rates. “The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center crunched the numbers — part of a series of analyses the group has done of the GOP candidates’ tax proposals — and found that the plan constitutes a major tax cut for wealthy Americans. But compared to today’s rates, Romney proposes effective tax increases for people making less than $40,000.” [Talking Points Memo, 1/15/12]

ROMNEY WOULD LET TAX PROGRAMS HELPING THE MIDDLE CLASS EXPIRE…

Romney’s Plan Would Allow Tax Provision In The 2009 Recovery Act To Expire, Including The “American Opportunity Tax Credit For Higher Education, The Expanded Refundability Of The Child Credit, And The Expansion Of The EITC.”“Tax  provisions in the 2009 stimulus act and subsequently extended through 2012 would expire. These include the American Opportunity tax credit for higher education, the expanded refundability of the child credit,  and the expansion of the earned income tax credit (EITC).” [Tax Policy Center, Romney Plan Analysis, 1/5/12]

…RESULTING IN A TAX PLAN WOULD RAISE TAXES ON LOWER-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS

Romney’s Tax Plan, Compared To Current Policy, Would Increase Taxes For Those Making Under $40,000. Romney’s tax plan would increase taxes for those making less than $10,000 by $112. For those making $10,000 to $20,000, their taxes would raise $191. For those between $20,000 to $30,000 their taxes would increase $126. And for those making between $30,000 and $40,000, their taxes would increase by $14. Each income level’s income levels after-tax would decrease 1.9, 1.2, 0.5, and 0.0 percent respectively. [Tax Policy Center, Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan By Cash Income Level (Baseline: Current Policy), 1/5/12]

Romney’s Tax Plan, Compared To Current Policy, Would Increase Taxes On Married Tax Units Filing Jointly For Those Making Less Than $50,000. Romney’s tax plan would increases taxes on married units filing jointly for those making less than $50,000. A family filing jointly and making between $50,000 to $40,000 would see a $125 tax increase. A married unit making from $40,000 to $30,000 would see a tax increase of $236. [Tax Policy Center, Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan Married Tax Units Filing Jointly (Baseline: Current Policy), 1/5/12]

Romney’s Tax Plan, Compared To Current Policy, Would Raise Taxes For Tax Units With Children Making Less Than $75,000. Under Romney’s tax plan, tax units with children making less than $75,000 but more than $50,000 would see an average tax change of $60. For Tax units with children making between $50 and $40,000, they would see an average tax increase of $292. For families between thirty and forty thousand, the tax increase would be $352. [Tax Policy Center, Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan Married Tax Units Filing Jointly (Baseline: Current Policy), 1/5/12]

BUT ROMNEY’S TAX PLAN WOULD GIVE HUGE TAX CUTS TO THE WEALTHY

Romney’s Tax Plan, Compared To Current Policy, Would Cut Taxes An Average Of $82,188 For Those In The Top 1 Percent, And By $464,005 For The Top 0.1 Percent – Cuts Of 14.2% and 16.8%. Households with incomes in the top 1 Percent would see a tax cut of 14.2% or an average of $82,188. Households with incomes in the top 0.1 Percent would have a tax cut of 16.8%, or an average cut of $464,005. Their after-tax income would increase 6.1 and 8.3 respectively. [Tax Policy Center, Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan By Cash Income Percentile (Baseline: Current Policy), 1/5/12]

Romney’s Tax Plan, Compared To Current Policy, Would Cut Taxes By 15.1 Percent For Millionaires, Or An Average Cut Of $145,568. Under Romney’s plan, those making over $1,000,000 would see an average tax cut of $145,568. Their income after-tax would rise by 6.9 percent, and their average federal tax rate would decrease by 15.1%. [Tax Policy Center, Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan By Cash Income Level (Baseline: Current Policy), 1/5/12]

ROMNEY ALREADY ADMITTED HE WASN’T INTERESTED IN HELPING MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES

Romney: “Actually, I'm Not Looking To Put Money In People's Pockets. That's The Other Party. I Am Interested In Lowering The Tax Burden That Gets Taken Out Of Your Pockets. I Don't Want You To Have To Pay More And More To Government.” [Romney At Nationwide Insurance Meet & Greet, 11/23/11]

Romney Admitted His Capital Gains Tax Cut For The Middle Class Was “Not A Huge Tax Cut.”  Wallace: “But the argument is middle class people can't afford, they don't have enough money to have a lot of capital gains and dividends.” Romney: “Look, I recognize it's not a huge tax cut. It is a tax reduction and it allows middle-income folks to participate in making a brighter future for themselves and for saving. And you're going to find in this country that if there's no tax on savings, middle-income people are going to take advantage of that to save for college, to save for retirement, to save for things that they want. And saying, look, let's provide that same break to the high income people, that costs a lot of money, and is really not a tax cut that's needed there.” [Fox News Sunday, 12/18/11]

ROMNEY OPPOSED  CUTTING $10 FROM THE BUDGET FOR EVERY $1 OF REVENUE RAISERS TO REDUCE THE DEFICIT

Romney Raised His Hand When Fox New Asked Whether He Would Reject A Budget Deal That $10 Spending Cuts For Every $1 In Tax Increases. “A month ago, Mitt Romney, like every other GOP presidential hopeful, raised his hand when Fox News asked whether he would reject a budget deal that was $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases.” [Washington Post, 9/7/11]

ROMNEY OPPOSED THE BUFFETT RULE, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE MONEY MANAGERS TO PAY THE SAME RATES AS WAGE-EARNERS

Romney Said The Buffett Tax Was The President Scapegoating.  Joe: “Should Warren Buffett’s tax rate be lower than his secretary?” Romney, “I doubt Warren Buffett’s tax rate is lower than his secretary.” Mika: “Finish this thought.” Romney: “But I can tell you this, that I don't want to go around and see if we can find someone to scapegoat and what I’m afraid of with the president's new campaign is it's all about not -- are you better off than you were four years ago, but instead, is there someone we can blame, someone we can attack?” [Morning Joe, MSNBC, 9/28/11]

• The Romney Rule: Where Millionaires Pay A Lower Tax Rate Than Maids.  “Begala calls it the ‘Romney Rule,’ under which millionaires ‘pay a lower tax rate than maids.’ Like Warren Buffett, the chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., Romney receives most of his income from investments, typically taxed at a lower rate than wages. Obama has little to lose by alienating Wall Street. While the president enjoyed strong support from the financial industry in his last election bid, much of that money has switched sides to the Republicans, mostly Romney. At least 100 of Obama’s Wall Street donors from 2008 are now with Romney.” [BusinessWeek, Bloomberg, 10/10/11]

Romney Disagreed With Buffett, Suggested Buffett Write A Check If He Really Wanted To Pay More. “And several times today, he was asked about the New York Times opinion piece by billionaire Warren Buffett calling for increased taxes on the wealthy as a way to cut the deficit. ‘I disagree with Warren. And I do want to keep the Bush tax cuts in place,’ Romney said. ‘If he’d like to pay more, I’d like him to write a big check. A few billion from Warren would help out, so send it in Warren, and get your friends to do the same, that’d be terrific…I say that kind of tongue in cheek.’” [Boston Globe, 8/16/11]

ROMNEY REFUSED TO SUPPORT CLOSING THE TAX LOOPHOLE ON CARRIED INTEREST, INSISTING IT SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE TAXED IT AS CAPITAL GAINS INSTEAD OF INCOME

Romney Said He Would Continue To Treat Private Equity Income As Capital Gains. CNBC’s finance and investment guru Jim Cramer hosted Mitt Romney on “Mad Money” in October of 2007, and asked the former Bain Capital CEO whether or not he thought that he deserved “privileged treatment” on his taxes as a private equity fund manager.  Cramer said, “you were basically a fund manager like I was, I always felt that I—even though I was making millions of dollars, I should pay my fair share.  I don’t like what some of these hedge funds want to get away with now, paying less than their fair share. Do you think that on that so-called carry that you had on your bonus, that you should pay taxes, pay taxes like all the rest of the hard-working Americans, or do you think you deserve privileged treatment because you’re helping some pension fund?” Romney responded with: “It’s a capital gains and I’d continue to treat it that way.” [Transcript of “Mad Money w/ Jim Cramer,” 10/29/2007; CNBC, accessed 1/9/08]

Romney Opposed Closing The Carried Interest Loophole: “I’m Not Going To Be In Favor Of A Proposal To Change Something Which Is A Capital Gain And Turn It Into Ordinary Income.” “Romney made clear he opposes efforts to boost taxes for managers of private-equity firms, who often pay a lower rate than middle-income Americans. ‘I’m trying to bring taxes down,’ he said. ‘I’m not going to be in favor of a proposal to change something which is a capital gain and turn it into ordinary income,’ he said.” [Salt Lake Tribune, 8/29/07]

Read More

Tonight, “Say Anything” Mitt Romney attacked Newt Gingrich for profiting from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  But Romney didn’t mention just how much he’s enriched himself  from investments in those very same institutions. 

ROMNEY ENRICHED HIMSELF FROM INVESTMENTS MADE IN FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC, WHILE BLAMING THEM FOR THE HOUSING CRISIS

Romney Profited From Investments Made In Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac While Criticizing The Entities For Inducing The Home-Mortgage Crisis. “Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has long been critical of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, blaming the government-backed housing lenders for inducing the home-mortgage crisis and saying they have become too unwieldy. ‘I look at Fannie and Freddie and just think that obviously they’ve grown massively beyond the scope that had been envisioned for them originally,’ he said two weeks ago at a forum in South Carolina. ‘The failures of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd are just so legion that we have to rethink about how we’re going to support a growing housing industry.’ Yet Romney has profited from investments that were made in both government entities, according to his personal finance disclosure forms and documents compiled by American Bridge, one of several Democratic groups in Washington formed to back the election campaigns of Obama and other Democrats.” [Boston Globe, 9/19/11]

ROMNEY OWNED UP TO $500,000 IN A MUTUAL FUND THAT INVESTS IN FANNIE AND FREDDIE

Romney’s Reported Owning Between $250,000 And $500,000 In A Mutual Fund That Invests In Debt Notes Of Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac – Unlike Like Many Of Romney’s Holdings It Was Not Though A Blind Trust. The Boston Globe wrote of Romney’s personal investments: “On his financial disclosure statement filed last month, Romney reported owning between $250,001 and $500,000 in a mutual fund that invests in debt notes of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, among other government entities. Over the previous year, he had reported earning between $15,001 and $50,000 in interest from those investments. And unlike most of Romney’s financial holdings, which are held in a blind trust that is overseen by a trustee and not known to Romney, this particular investment was among those that would have been known to Romney.” [Boston Globe, 9/19/11]

• Romney Invested In The Mutual Fund Called The Government Obligation Fund In Which Nearly Half Of The Portfolio Was In Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac And Federal Home Loan Bank Notes. “Romney made the investment in a mutual fund called the Government Obligation Fund, managed by Federated Investors Inc. The fund invests in a wide variety of sources, including government agencies and US Treasury notes. But out of a $28.5 billion portfolio, nearly half of the fund was in Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Federal Home Loan Bank notes, according to an SEC filing made in April.” [Boston Globe, 9/19/11]

Romney’s Investment In The Government Obligation Fund Were Made In The Latter Half Of 2007 According To A Romney Aide. The Boston Globe wrote of Romney’s personal investments: “The investment was also not on Romney’s 2007 financial disclosure form. A Romney aide said the investments were made in the latter half of 2007, after he had filed the earlier disclosure form. That was around the time that the scale of the housing crisis was coming into focus. The campaign declined to comment on the record. The Romney aide said the investment was made by Romney’s charitable trust. Romney made the investment in a mutual fund called the Government Obligation Fund, managed by Federated Investors Inc. The fund invests in a wide variety of sources, including government agencies and US Treasury notes. But out of a $28.5 billion portfolio, nearly half of the fund was in Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Federal Home Loan Bank notes, according to an SEC filing made in April.” [Boston Globe, 9/19/11]

2011: ROMNEY REPORTED BOND HOLDINGS IN FANNIE AND FREDDIE WORTH UP TO $500,000 IN HIS PERSONAL FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

Romney Reported Holding A Freddie Mac Security, “FHLMC 4.625% 10/25/12 AO,” Worth Between $100,001 And $250,000, With Interest Income $5,001 And $15,000 Through The W. Mitt Romney IRA. [Romney, Personal Financial Disclosure, Page Number 7, 8/12/11]

Romney Reported Holding A Fannie Mae Security, “FNMA 3.25% 04/09/2013 AO,” Worth Between $100,001 And $250,000, With Interest Income $5,001 And $15,000 Through The W. Mitt Romney IRA. [Romney, Personal Financial Disclosure, Page Number 7, 8/12/11]

ROMNEY ALSO REPORTED UP TO $1 MILLION IN INCOME FROM THE SALE OF FREDDIE MAC STOCK AND UP TO $500,000 IN FREDDIE MAC BOND HOLDINGS IN 2007

• Romney Reported Receiving Between $100,001 And $1,000,000 In Dividends And Capital Gains Income From The Sale Of Freddie Mac Common Stock Through The W. Mitt Romney Blind Trust. [Romney, Personal Financial Disclosure, Page Number 5, 8/12/07]
• Romney Reported Holding A Freddie Mac Security, “FHLMC 3.5 09/15/2007 MS,” Worth Between $250,001 And $500,000, With Interest Income $15,001 And $50,000 Through The W. Mitt Romney Blind Trust. [Romney, Personal Financial Disclosure, Page Number 3, 8/12/07]

ROMNEY BLAMED FANNIE AND FREDDIE FOR THE FINANCIAL CRISIS

Romney Blamed The Housing Crisis On Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac. Romney: “And the reason we have the housing crises we have is that the federal government played too heavy a role in our markets. The federal government came in with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd told banks they had to give loans to people who couldn't afford to pay them back.” [CNBC Debate, 11/9/11]

Romney: “What Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Were Doing Was Simply Unsustainable And Dangerous To The Economy.” [Romney Roundtable, Salem NH, 6/27/11 (Video)]

Read More

Tonight, “Say Anything” Mitt Romney claimed he’s ready to support veterans and help middle-class Americans. Yet Romney would privatize veterans’ benefits and privatize Medicare by giving seniors vouchers.  His support for the Republican budget plans means deep cuts in programs Americans count on, but he’s committed to arbitrarily increasing military spending.  No matter how you look at it, Romney’s claims just don’t add up.

ROMNEY EMBRACED THE CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICAN’S CUT, CAP AND BALANCE PLAN WHICH WOULD NECESSITATE DEEP CUTS

Romney Said He Would Cut Spending, Cap Spending At 20 Percent GDP And Support A Balanced Budget Amendment.  “As president, I pledge to reduce spending to 20% of GDP by the end of my first term. I will cap it at that level.  And further, I will put us on a path to a balanced budget and a constitutional amendment that requires the government to spend only what it earns.” [Romney Spending Address, 11/4/11]

House Republicans’ Slogan: “Cut, Cap And Balance.”  “House Republicans are voting this week on their own dream: a constitutional amendment to enshrine their budget views and eliminate the need for compromise with Democrats, forever. The slogan for this campaign is ‘cut, cap and balance.’ The bill Republicans are promoting this week would condition any increase in the debt limit on immediate spending cuts, caps on future outlays and congressional passage of a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution.” [Bloomberg, 7/19/11]

The Balanced Budget Amendment Without Any Tax Increases “Would Necessitate Deep Cuts In Social Security, Medicare, And Medicaid.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/16/11]

BUT HE WOULD DRAMATICALLY INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING…

Romney Said He Would Tie Military Spending To A Minimum Of 4% Of GDP And Cut Total Government Spending To 20% Of GDP. John McBride, Union Leader:  “You argue that military spending should be at a minimum 4 percent of GDP.” Romney:  “Yes” McBride: “And that Obama is taking it in another direction. You argue that we need at a minimum 100,000 more army and marine troops alone as wells as sprucing up our nuclear submarine fleet, etc etc” Romney: “Yeah, yep.” McBride: “My question is, in this economic time, how the heck are you going to pay for this?”  Romney: “Well as you know the federal government assumes right now, or spends right now about twenty-five percent of the GDP. Under more normal circumstances, if we’re about to bring back federal spending to a balanced level why it will consume about twenty percent of the GDP. So to say the national defense is going to take four points of that twenty or roughly twenty percent of twenty is in my opinion an appropriate investment for a nation that sees the world with a number of very threatening forces in it… I look and say it should remain at least twenty percent of our federal budget, of our federal spending which is roughly four percent of our GDP.” [Union Leader Editorial Board Interview With Mitt Romney, Aired 10/3/11]

ROMNEY’S BUDGET PLANS DON’T ADD UP

Romney’s Plan Would Decimate Medicare And Social Security, And Could Devastate Programs Like Pell Grants And The FBI. “Taking half a trillion dollars out of $3.6 trillion works out to a 14 percent reduction. (To be precise, it would be 14.1 percent.) Applied equally to all non-defense spending, that would mean approximately $130 billion less for Social Security and about $90 billion less for Medicare, just in 2016 alone. To give you a sense of context, the Medicare cuts in the Affordable Care Act amount to around $50 billion a year in 2016. And those cuts, unlike Romney's, are largely offset by expanded spending on Medicaid and subsidies for private health insurance, thereby cushioning the blow on the health care system. Of course, Romney could decide to exempt Medicare and Social Security. But then the cuts for other programs would have to be much higher: 25 percent, on average. And when I say “other programs,” I mean every other non-defense thing the government does: Education, transportation, environmental protection, safety net programs, law enforcement…you get the idea. Can we afford to spend a quarter less on highways? How about the Centers for Disease Control and the FBI? Or Head Start, food stamps, and Pell Grants?” [Cohn, The New Republic, 1/15/12]

Romney’s Budget Math Does Not Add Up As “His Anticipated Savings May Not Materialize” And Because Romney Wants To Cut Taxes And Spend More On Defense. “Some of his anticipated savings may not materialize, according to budget experts. And he wants to cut taxes and spend more on defense even as he pledges to bring spending down to 20 percent of the U.S. economy.” [Bloomberg Businessweek, 11/14/11]

Former Reagan Budget Director David Stockman Suggested Romney “Takes A Remedial Math Course” As Romney “Can’t Get To 20 Percent Of GDP On Spending” Without Cutting The Defense Budget And “Sharply Reducing Social Security Payments” To More Affluent Retirees.“‘Romney may be our only hope, so let's hope he takes a remedial math course before January 2013,' says former Reagan administration budget director David Stockman. 'You can't get to 20 percent of GDP on spending without taking a fire ax to the Pentagon budget and sharply reducing Social Security payments to the more affluent current retirees.'" [Bloomberg Businessweek, 11/14/11]

Dean Baker: To Keep His Pledge Of Capping Spending At 20% Of GDP, Romney Would Have To Take “An Ax” To Social Security And Medicare. “Romney has offered proposals for major changes in entitlement programs, including Social Security and Medicare, without specifying any reduction in individual benefits. He says there would be no difference in either program for current retirees or ‘those near retirement.’ Without offering details, Romney says he would ‘slowly raise the retirement age’ and cut benefits below current projections for higher-income recipients. He proposes supplanting the current fee-for-service Medicare program with a government subsidy that would allow individuals to buy private health insurance providing at ‘least the same level of benefits,’ or to continue in the current program… Those changes wouldn’t be enough if Romney wants to keep spending within 20 percent of gross domestic product, says economist Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. ‘You’re really talking about taking an ax to these programs,’ he says.” [Bloomberg Businessweek, 11/14/11]

ROMNEY WOULD PRIVATIZE VETERANS BENEFITS

Romney Suggested Privatizing Veteran’s Benefits And Giving Veterans Vouchers For Health Care. “Mitt Romney suggested on Friday that he was open to partially privatizing the health care veterans receive from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs by creating a voucher system that would allow private sector competition. ‘If you’re the government, they know there’s nowhere else you guys can go, you’re stuck,’ Romney told a group of veterans at Mutt’s BBQ restaurant in South Carolina. ‘Sometimes you wonder if there would be some way to introduce private sector competition, somebody else who could come in and say each solder has x thousand dollars attributed to them and then they can choose where they want to go in the government system or the private system with the money that follows them. Like what happens with schools in Florida where people have a voucher that goes with him,’ Romney said.” [ABC News, 11/11/11; Romney Veterans Roundtable In Maudlin, SC, 11/11/11]

Romney’s Suggestion Of Using A Voucher System For Veterans’ Health Care “Echoed” Portions Of His Medicare Plan. “He also briefly floated the idea of using a voucher system to help veterans get reliable and quality health care, an option that echoed portions of a Medicare plan he recently rolled out at the Americans for Prosperity Foundation’s annual summit.” [New York Times,11/11/11]

ROMNEY’S PLAN WOULD PRIVATIZE MEDICARE, WITH VOUCHERS FOR SENIORS

Romney’s Plan Touted Medicare Vouchers. “Tomorrow's Medicare should give beneficiaries a generous defined contribution and allow them to choose between private plans and traditional Medicare. And lower-income future retirees should receive the most assistance. I believe that competition will improve Medicare and the coverage that seniors receive.” [Romney Op-Ed, USA Today, 11/3/11]

Romney’s Medicare Plan Would “Partially Privatize Medicare For Future Recipients, Offering Premium Support Payments – I.E. Vouchers.” “As for Romney, his plan to cut government spending dramatically and overhaul federal entitlements was largely overlooked during last week's episode of ‘As Cain's World Turns.’ The former Massachusetts governor would preserve Medicare for current retirees and those nearing the age of enrollment into the program. But Romney would partially privatize Medicare for future recipients, offering premium support payments -- i.e., vouchers -- to buy into the program or they could take their chances in the private insurance market. Speaking of Romney's offer to use that payment to stay in Medicare, how is that not a ‘public option’?” [CNN, 11/9/11]

Romney Unveiled A Plan To “Fundamentally Re-Shape Medicare” That Would Introduce Vouchers Or “Premium Supports”. “Mitt Romney on Friday unveiled a plan to fundamentally re-shape Medicare, tackling one of the 2012 presidential contest's most delicate issues before a skeptical crowd of tea party activists. To cut costs, the Republican presidential hopeful and former Massachusetts governor would introduce vouchers, or ‘premium supports,’ to future recipients of the popular health insurance program for the elderly.” [Associated Press, 11/4/11]

Read More

Mitt Romney just can’t help it – he’ll say anything, about any topic, to any audience, to get elected.  After reading a poll that said it would be hard to be elected as a pro-life candidate in MA, Romney ran for office claiming to be pro-choice.

ROMNEY: IT WAS HARD TO BE PRO-LIFE IN MASSACHUSETTS

Romney: “I Was Also A Governor In A State Where Being Pro-Life Was Not Easy.  I Battled Hard.”  Romney said, “Senator, I admire the fact you've been a stalwart defender of pro-life in a state where that's not easy. I was also a governor in a state where being pro-life was not easy. I battled hard.” [CNN Debate, 1/19/12]

ROMNEY RAN AS A PRO-CHOICE CANIDATE IN MASSACHUSETTS AFTER POLLING SHOWED HIM THAT HE COULDN’T WIN AS A PRO-LIFE CANDIDATE 

1993: Romney Decided To Run As A Pro-Choice Candidate After His Pollster Showed Him Data That A Pro-Life Candidate Couldn’t Win Statewide In Massachusetts. “Scott had worked for Time Inc., and in the fall of 1993, he says, Romney asked him for advice on how to handle various issues the media might pursue in a Senate campaign. Scott gave his advice in a couple of phone conversations and a memo. In the course of the conversations, Scott says, Romney outlined his views on the abortion problem. According to Scott, Romney revealed that polling from Richard Wirthlin, Ronald Reagan's former pollster whom Romney had hired for the '94 campaign, showed it would be impossible for a pro-life candidate to win statewide office in Massachusetts. In light of that, Romney decided to run as a pro-choice candidate, pledging to support Roe v. Wade, while remaining personally pro-life.” [Washington Examiner, 12/29/11]

Read More

Tonight Mitt Romney said “My view is get the federal government out of Medicaid, get it out of health care.”  What Romney failed to mention, however, is the health care plan he put in place in Massachusetts required federal funding to the tune of 50% of the cost.

HALF OF ROMNEY’S MASSACHUSETTS HEALTH CARE PLAN WAS PAID FOR BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Romney Admitted That Half His Massachusetts Plan Was Funded By The Federal Government To Provide Subsidies To Help People Buy Insurance. “O’REILLY: You know me. I’m a simple man. Okay? You say you solved the problem in the state, but depending on 50 percent of your funding from the Feds. ROMNEY: As we did from the beginning. O’REILLY: Okay, but I’m just telling you, I don’t know if you solved the problem or the people in Idaho solved it. ROMNEY: No, but what we did is we took the money the Feds used to send us-- O’REILLY: Yes. ROMNEY: --to give to the hospitals that were giving out free care. The hospitals were doing that before. And we said, look, can we take that money that you give to us that we give to the hospitals and instead of giving it to hospitals-- O’REILLY: You’ve spread it around. ROMNEY: We’re going to use it to help people buy insurance. O’REILLY: Okay. One more and-- ROMNEY: It was not a new burden on the federal government. It was a redirection of what they’ve been doing before.” [O’Reilly, Fox News, 4/12/10]

Salon: In Romney’s Massachusetts Health Care Plan, “State Funding Is Matched By A Roughly Equivalent Amount From Washington.”  “But Wallace was right about the ‘millions of dollars from the federal government.’ State funding is matched by a roughly equivalent amount from Washington, as Romney conceded.” [Timothy Noah, Slate, 3/10/10]

National Review: Romney’s Health Care Plan Relied On Over $300 Million In Federal Subsidies. “Romney has taken to making three arguments in his defense. First, he criticizes Obamacare for its $669 billion in tax increases, claiming that the Massachusetts plan did not increase taxes. That is technically true — if you consider only the legislation as Romney signed it. However, it is also true that the legislation relied heavily on federal subsidies — more than $300 million — and was still underfunded.” [National Review, 12/1/10]

Romney’s Health Care Plan Relied Heavily On Federal Stimulus And Medicaid Funds. Brian Moody’s profile on Romney’s health care plan published in the Boston Globe read: “Another source of concern is that the state, during the economic downswing, relied heavily on federal stimulus funds — $582 million over three years — to meet the expense of the health overhaul. But that revenue source, designed to offset some of the expense of the unemployed moving onto Medicaid, expires June 30, meaning the state will have to come up with almost $200 million from another revenue source next year. Without the bonus federal Medicaid funds, the price tag for the state’s share will rise from about 1.2 percent to about 1.8 percent of the total state budget.”  [Brian Mooney, Boston Globe, 6/26/11]

Read More

Tonight, “Say Anything” Mitt Romney tried to do the math on his jobs creation numbers by simply starting with one number, subtracting another and offering no actual proof for either. Now, in just over a month, his job creation number has changed from over a hundred thousand jobs, to thousands, and now 120,000 jobs, without a single number substantiated.  And the reason he can't back up these numbers?  Simply put, "Say Anything" Mitt Romney's goal wasn't job creation: it was creating profit for himself and his partners at any costs by bankrupting companies, outsourcing jobs and laying off workers.

ROMNEY’S SO-CALLED JOB CREATION RECORD AT BAIN CONTINUES TO EVOLVE…

AFTER THE LAST DEBATE, ROMNEY TOLD SEAN HANNITY HE CREATED 110,000 JOBS

Romney On His Bain Capital Jobs Record: “Of All The Companies That I Was Involved With That Actually Jobs Were Lost, … It Ends Up To Less Than 10,000. So Do The Math, 120,000 Less 10,000, And It's Over 100,000.” Romney: “Sports Authority, Staples, Bright Horizon Children Centers and Steel Dynamics, have had today about 120,000 jobs. And we were there at the beginning. We helped found them. Of all the companies that I was involved with that actually jobs were lost, they've been reported on by all sorts of people who've investigated this, and it ends up to less than 10,000. So do the math, 120,000 less 10,000, and it's over 100,000.” [Post-Debate Spin Room With Sean Hannity, Fox News, 1/16/12]

BUT DURING THE FOX/SOUTH CAROLINA DEBATE ROMNEY SAID “120,000 JOBS”

Romney On His Bain Capital Jobs Record: “Four Of The Companies That We Invested In, They Weren't Businesses I Ran But We Invested In, Ended Up Today Having Some 120,000 Jobs.”Romney: “And four of the companies that we invested in, they weren't businesses I ran, but we invested in, ended up today having some 120,000 jobs. … You look at places like Staples, Bright Horizons, that steel company I talked about, the Sports Authority. They alone added 120,000 jobs as of today.” [Fox News/Wall Street Journal Debate, 1/16/12]

IN A RECENT AD, ROMNEY CLAIMS TO HAVE CREATED “THOUSANDS OF JOBS”

Romney’s Ad Claims He’s Created “Thousands Of Jobs.” “Long Years Of Experience Creating Thousands Of Jobs.” [Romney, Bright Future, 1/13/12]

THEN ROMNEY CLAIMED HE HELPED CREATE “OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND JOBS”

Romney Said That At Bain He Helped Create “Actually, Over A Hundred Thousands Of Jobs.”“Romney also questioned whether Gingrich understands how the economy works when asked about the former speaker’s suggestion earlier today that Romney give money back to businesses he’s profited from that have then gone bankrupt. ‘Doesn’t he understand how the economy works? In the real economy, some businesses succeed and some fail,” said Romney. “That’s how that works and you try and encourage the more successful and fortunately for many people, tens of thousands of jobs, actually over a hundred thousands of jobs were created by the investments that we were able to help make. ‘” [ABC News, 12/12/11; Romney Press Availability At Madison Lumber Mill, 12/12/11]

AFTER PREVIOUSLY CLAIMING HE CREATED “TENS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS NET-NET”

Romney Said That He Created “Tens Of Thousands Of Jobs, Net-Net.” “Romney has focused on his Bain victories, including providing funding to help launch or grow Staples, Domino’s Pizza, and other household names. ‘When I was at Bain Capital, we invested in about 100 different companies. Not all of them worked,’’ he said earlier this month in a debate. ‘But I’m very proud of the fact that I learned about how you can be successful with an enterprise, why we lose jobs, how we gain jobs and overall, in those 100 businesses we invested in, tens of thousands of jobs, net-net, were created.’’ [Boston Globe, 8/21/11]

2002: ROMNEY CLAIMED HE CREATED “TENS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS”

2002: Romney Claimed That At Bain He Created Tens Of Thousands Of Jobs. “’I don't put profits ahead of people, I put people first,’ Romney said. ‘Shannon puts politics ahead of people.’ He added that his investment firm ‘started 200 companies and created tens of thousands of jobs. There's no question that some are more successful than others. But I'm basically in the investor's hall of fame.’" [Lowell Sun, 10/25/02]

1994: ROMNEY CLAIMED HE “HELPED CREATE” OVER 10,000 JOBS

Romney Said He “Helped Create” Over 10,000 Jobs At Bain.“’That's why I'm always very careful to use the words 'help create,' ‘ Romney acknowledged. ‘Bain Capital, or Mitt Romney, 'helped create' over 10,000 jobs. I don't take credit for the jobs at Staples. I helped create the jobs at Staples.’" [Boston Globe, 8/8/94]

ROMNEY CANNOT SUBSTANTIATE HIS JOB CREATION CLAIMS

REALITY: IN 1994, ROMNEY ACKNOWLEDGED HE COULDN’T BACK UP HIS BAIN JOB CREATION CLAIMS

1994: Romney Acknowledged That There Was No Way To Determine Whether Jobs Had Been Lost Or Gained Economy-Wide Because Of His Ventures. “In a telephone interview late yesterday, Romney dismissed the characterization of Staples and his other investments as streamlining, saying that what he has done is ‘build and grow businesses,’ not shrink them. He asserted that there is no way to calculate whether jobs have been lost or gained economy-wide as a result of his ventures, and noted his 10,000-job figure simply measures what happened to employment at companies in which Bain invested. In a separate interview, Thomas Stemberg, Staples chairman and chief executive, acknowledged that there probably has been some job loss in the paper products business because of superstore companies, but said that the nation is still better off for their advent. Bain contributed 15 percent of the startup money for the Framingham-based company and, until the campaign, Romney sat on its board of directors.” [Boston Globe, 10/6/94]

Boston Globe: “It's Impossible To Say Precisely If More Jobs Were Created Than Cut By Bain Since The Firm Does Not Track Employment In Its Investments.” [Boston Globe, 1/27/08]

REALITY: ROMNEY HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS NUMBERS

Washington Post Fact Checker: Romney Campaign Has Not Provided Any Proof That Bain Created “Thousands Of Jobs” During Romney’s Tenure. “Neither Bain nor the Romney campaign has provided proof that the company created thousands of jobs during Romney’s tenure. His campaign simply mentioned a few start-ups such as Staples and Sports Authority that now employ tens of thousands of people on the whole. But that doesn’t account for possible job losses with other companies. For instance, we know from past news reports that Bain businesses, including Ampad, Dade International and LIVE Entertainment, laid off a combined 2,351 workers under Romney’s leadership. Romney’s record at Bain proves that he can produce enormous returns for investors, but that doesn’t necessarily prove he can create jobs.” [Fact Checker, Washington Post, 12/12/11]

Factcheck.org: Neither The Romney Campaign Nor Restore Our Future Super PAC, A Pro-Romney Group, Have Backed Up Claims That Romney Created “Thousands Of Jobs” While At Bain. From a fact check of Restore Our Future Super PAC’s first TV ad and Romney claims: “A pro-Romney TV spot running heavily in Iowa touts an unproven claim that the candidate ‘helped create thousands of jobs’ as CEO of an investment firm. When we asked the super PAC sponsoring the ad for proof of its claim, a spokeswoman said: ‘We aren’t supplying that information.’ And so far, neither is the Romney campaign. … Since Romney himself has claimed ‘in those 100 businesses we invested in, tens of thousands of jobs, net-net, were created,’ we also reached out to the Romney campaign for backup. But we did not get a response.” [Factcheck.org, 12/9/11]

REALITY: ROMNEY’S JOB CLAIMS ARE “UNPROVEN” “MISLEADING” AND DISHONEST

Factcheck.Org: “Mitt Romney Has Taken To Saying That He Created More Than 100,000 Net Jobs Through His Work In The Private Sector, And More Jobs As Governor Than President Obama Has Created Since Taking Office. But The First Claim Is Unproven, And The Second Is Misleading.” [FactCheck.org, 1/5/12]

New York Times’ Paul Krugman: “The Point Is That Mr. Romney’s Claims About Being A Job Creator Would Be Nonsense Even If He Were Being Honest About The Numbers, Which He Isn’t.”[Krugman, New York Times, 1/5/12]

Read More

Mitt Romney will say anything to get elected, but the Commander-In-Chief only gets one chance to get it right. Romney’s been all over the map on the key foreign policy issues of our day. He said it wasn’t worth “moving heaven and earth” to catch Osama bin Laden, criticized President Obama for making it clear he would take out al Qaeda targets in Pakistan, and flip flopped on setting timetables for withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan.     ROMNEY FLIP-FLOPPED ON KILLING OSAMA BIN LADEN FLIP: 2007: Romney: “It’s Not Worth Moving Heaven And Earth And Spending Billions Of Dollars Just Trying To Catch One Person.” Romney said he doubts whether the capture of Osama bin Laden would substantially impact American security. Romney said, "It’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person." He argued that the country would be safer by only "a small percentage" and would see "a very insignificant increase in safety." Rather that targeting bin Laden, he said he supports a broader strategy to defeat the global Islamic jihad movement. [Associated Press, 4/27/07]   FLIP: Romney On Taking Action Against Terrorists In Pakistan: “I Do Not Concur In The Words Of Barack Obama To Enter An Ally Of Ours.”  Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticized Democrat Barack Obama on Friday for vowing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan if necessary as the Obama camp issued a strident defense of his plan. What had been an internecine foreign policy battle between rival Democrats Obama, an Illinois senator, and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, spilled into the Republican arena in the heavily contested state of Iowa. ‘I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally of ours... I don’t think those kinds of comments help in this effort to draw more friends to our effort,’ Romney told reporters on the campaign trail. Obama on Wednesday said if elected president in November 2008 he would be willing to launch military strikes against al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan with or without the approval of the Pakistani government of President Pervez Musharraf. ‘If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will,’ Obama said.”  [Reuters, 8/4/07]

FLOP: 2011: Romney Said That “Any President” Would Have Given The Order To Take Out Osama Bin Laden.” Romney: “With regards to Osama bin Laden, we're delighted that he gave the order to take out Osama bin Laden, any president would have done that. But this one did and that's a good thing.” [Fox News Sunday, 12/18/11]   ROMNEY CRITICIZED OBAMA FOR WANTING TO TAKE OUT TERRORISTS IN PAKISTAN   Romney Said He Didn’t Agree With Obama on Taking Unilateral Action Against Al Qaeda Targets in Pakistan.  Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticized Democrat Barack Obama on Friday for vowing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan if necessary as the Obama camp issued a strident defense of his plan. What had been an internecine foreign policy battle between rival Democrats Obama, an Illinois senator, and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, spilled into the Republican arena in the heavily contested state of Iowa. ‘I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally of ours... I don’t think those kinds of comments help in this effort to draw more friends to our effort,’ Romney told reporters on the campaign trail. Obama on Wednesday said if elected president in November 2008 he would be willing to launch military strikes against al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan with or without the approval of the Pakistani government of President Pervez Musharraf. ‘If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will,’ Obama said.”  [Reuters, 8/4/07]

• Romney: US Troops “Shouldn’t Be Sent All Over The World” And Obama’s Comments Were “Ill-Timed” And “Ill-Considered.” “Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who is one of the Republican front-runners, said U.S. troops ‘shouldn’t be sent all over the world.’ He called Obama’s comments ‘ill-timed’ and ‘ill-considered.’ ‘There is a war being waged by terrorists of different types and nature across the world,’ Romney said. ‘We want, as a civilized world, to participate with other nations in this civilized effort to help those nations reject the extreme with them.’” [Reuters, 8/4/07]

Romney Criticized Obama For Comments About Attacking Terrorists In Pakistan.  Romney said Obama’s comments were “ill-conceived” and would hurt American efforts to create a global effort to root out radical Islamic terrorists.  Romney said, “We want as a civilized world to participate with other nations in this civilized effort to help those nations reject the extreme within them. That doesn’t mean that our troops are going to go all over the world,” before saying about Obama’s comments, “I think his comments were ill-timed and ill-considered.” [Associated Press, 8/5/07]   ROMNEY FOREIGN POLICY ADVISORS RECOMMENDED NEGOTIATING WITH THE TALIBAN

Romney Foreign Policy Advisor Mitchell Reiss Said Romney Opposed A Withdrawal Date In Afghanistan Because It “Undercut Any Hopes Of Trying To Bring The Taliban To The Negotiating Table.” “Reiss also said Romney had been trying to articulate a three-part critique of the Obama Administration's role in Afghanistan. ‘The administration has made some grave errors," he said. "The first was that it allowed [Afghan president] HamidKarzai to rig an election. The second was that when the president announced the surge, which the governor supported, he coupled it with a withdrawal date, which undercut any hopes of trying to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table ... They could just wait us out.’” [Politico, 6/14/11] James Shinn Discussed Peace Talks With Representatives Of The Taliban Via Skype. “JAMES SHINN: I`m not so sure peace accord has such dismal prospects. I think it`s certainly going to be very difficult. But it`s certainly going to, it`s preferable to a retreat Soviet style. So the question is what can you get from such negotiation and how after you brought the military force to bear on it can we hammer out the deal? We talked about -- last year, we met with two dozen serving Taliban. CHARLIE ROSE: They came to the table and said they believe that the Taliban were prepared to negotiate. JAMES SHINN: Yes, we heard that firsthand. But the other part of the message from the Taliban, we Skyped into a lot of them because it was too dangerous for them to come to Peshawar. So that mean they were not under the ISI.” [International Wire, 06/23/11]   2011: Shinn On A Negotiated Settlement With The Taliban: “A Negotiated Settlement Is Feasible And Worth Pursuing.” “Both the Afghanistan and U.S. governments are in favor of a negotiated peace that would give the Taliban some role in a future government. Such an approach also has been endorsed by NATO and most of Afghanistan's neighbors. ‘We believe there is enough of a confluence of interest on the part of the major parties to the war in Afghanistan to make a negotiated settlement feasible and worth pursuing,’ said James Shinn, study co-author and a lecturer at Princeton University. ’There are many obstacles, and the process will probably require years of talking during which fighting will continue and even intensify,’ he said. ‘Negotiation does not represent an easy or early way out of Afghanistan for the United States and its NATO allies, but it is the only way in which this war is likely to end.’ Dobbins served as the lead negotiator for the United States at the Bonn Accords that established Afghanistan's current government in 2001. Shinn is a former assistant secretary of defense for Asia and was one of the authors of the Bush administration's Afghan Strategy Review.” [States News Service, 08/17/11]   Shinn: A Peace Accord Is “Preferable To A Retreat Soviet Style.” “JAMES SHINN, FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: I`m not so sure that a peace accord has such dismal prospects. I think it`s certainly going to be very different, but it`s certainly preferable to a retreat Soviet style. So the question is what can you get from such negotiation and how after you brought the military force to bear on it can you hammer out a deal?” [International Wire, 06/23/11]

• Shinn: A Negotiated Settlement Might Be “Distasteful,” But Better Than Defeat “This war is either going to end in a negotiated solution that involves the Taliban and the government in some way, as distasteful as that may be, or it`s going to end in a retreat. So presumably the president and most foreign policy people agree that a negotiated solution that will achieve at least our minimal goals is preferable to a defeat.” [International Wire, 06/23/11]

REALITY: ROMNEY HAD NO STRATEGY FOR AFGHANISTAN AND DODGED QUESTIONS ON IT   Byron York: Romney Seemed “Off Balance” When Asked What Strategy He Would Employ In Afghanistan Saying “I’m Not In That Position.” “Then there’s Afghanistan. ‘I’m a little surprised that, having made Afghanistan the center of his anti-terrorist strategy, he says he doesn’t have a strategy at this stage for what to do in Afghanistan,’ Romney says of the president. ‘I would have expected him to have accomplished that by this point.’ As Romney sees it, Obama has a choice. He can go along with Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s expected request for more troops, or he can betray his own campaign promise of a firm U.S. stand in Afghanistan. ‘I think his only choice, and the correct choice, is the former,’ Romney says. But it might not be that simple. When I ask Romney, ‘What would you have done?’ he seems slightly off-balance. ‘I’m not in that position,’ Romney says. He pauses a moment. ‘When you say, what would I have done, I, I – ‘ ‘Do you think we needed a new strategy in Afghanistan?’ I ask. ‘I’m going to Afghanistan and Iraq in a couple of months,’ Romney says. ‘I’ll get an assessment of what’s happening there and what the prospects are. But I certainly would support our troops with the additional troops which are being called for by General McChrystal, and provide the equipment and the manpower and the budgetary support which our troops deserve.’” [Byron York, Washington Examiner, 9/27/09]

• Headline: Romney Critical Of Obama’s Afghan Policy—But Hesitant Himself [Byron York, Washington Examiner, 9/27/09]

ROMNEY FLIP-FLOPPED ON SETTING TIMETABLES FOR AFGHANISTAN WITHDRAWAL   FLIP: Romney Criticized President Obama’s Announcement Of A Troop Withdrawal Timeline In Afghanistan Saying “The Taliban May Not Have Watches, But They Do Have Calendars.” “Romney praised the decision to send additional troops to Afghanistan, but criticized President Obama’s announcement of when troops will withdraw. ‘The Taliban may not have watches, but they do have calendars,’ Romney said.” [Boston Globe, 6/3/11]   FLOP: Romney Concurred With The Afghanistan Timeline Laid Out By The Obama Administration. Romney: “The timeline is that by the end of 2014, we will be completely be out of Afghanistan. There may be a small group of troops that stay for training or coordination purposes but that our fighting forces will be out by the end of 2014. I think that's the right timeline and we'll see in the interim if we can move more quickly than that or not and we'll listen to the progress on the ground but I continue to concur with the decision of the former and current administration that our goal has to be out by the end of 2014 if not before.” [Conway, NH Town Hall, 12/22/11]

FLOP: Romney: “The Generals Actually Concur With The Idea That We Should Bring Down The Surge Troops And Ultimately By 2014, Take Our Footprint - Our Large Combat Footprint Out Of Afghanistan, That’s Something With Which I Concur.” On Morning Joe, Mitt Romney said: “The generals actually concur with the idea that we should bring down the surge troops, and ultimately by 2014, take our footprint -- our large combat footprint out of Afghanistan, that's something with which I concur.” [Morning Joe, MSNBC, 9/28/11]

Read More

On immigration, “Say Anything” Mitt Romney has the most extreme position in the Republican field. Tonight, he again confirmed that position and said he would veto the DREAM Act -  which he once described as a "handout" - "if provisions in that act to say that people who are here illegally, if they go to school here long enough, get a degree here that they can become permanent residents. I think that's a mistake.” With plans like this, it’s clear that Romney is continuing his race to the right and taking his place as one of the most extreme presidential candidates in recent American history on immigration.   REALITY: IF ELECTED ROMNEY WOULD HAVE THE MOST EXTREME IMMIGRATION POSITION OF ANY REPUBLICAN NOMINEE IN RECENT HISTORY

Romney Is Furthest To The Right Of The Republican Field On Immigration. “But Perry’s first major stumble in the primary race occurred when Romney attacked him from the right on the question of immigration: A generic ‘ideology score’ can’t capture the fact that, for millions of voters (especially Hispanics) who see immigration as a make-or-break issue, it is Romney, not Perry, who is furthest to the right.” [Bloomberg, 11/14/11]

New York Times Editorial: Romney Has “Lurched Toward The Extremist Right” On Immigration. “Mitt Romney, who used to try to sound like a moderate on immigration, has dropped the pretense. On Wednesday, he proudly accepted the endorsement of the anti-immigrant activist Kris Kobach, architect of the nation’s most radical immigration crackdowns, including the unconstitutional show-your-papers laws in Arizona and Alabama. Mr. Romney has flipped and flopped all over on immigration, but in allying himself with Mr. Kobach he has lurched toward the extremist right. ‘Kris has been a true leader on securing our borders and stopping the flow of illegal immigration into this country,’ Mr. Romney said.”  [Editorial, New York Times, 1/11/12]   In His Endorsement Of Romney, Kansas Secretary Of State Kris Kobach Said “We Need A President Who Will Finally Put A Stop To A Problem That Has Plagued Our Country For A Generation,” Illegal Immigration And Claimed Undocumented Workers Are “Taking Jobs” From Citizens And “Public Benefits At Taxpayer Expense.” Kobach: “We need a president who will finally put a stop to a problem that has plagued our country for a generation: millions of illegal aliens coming into the country and taking jobs from United States citizens and legal aliens, while consuming hundreds of billions of dollars in public benefits at taxpayer expense.” [Romney For President, 1/11/12]

• KS Secretary Of State Kris Kobach: Romney Is The Only Republican Presidential Candidate Who Has “Taken A Strong Across-The-Board Position On Immigration.” “‘Mitt Romney stands apart from the others. He’s the only one who’s taken a strong across-the-board position on immigration,’ Kobach told The Hill in an interview.” [The Hill, 1/13/12]
• KS Secretary Of State Kris Kobach: “All Of The Other Candidates Stand To The Left Of Romney On Immigration.” “‘All of the other candidates stand to the left of Romney on immigration,’ Kobach said. ‘This is an issue that people with weak backbones sometimes have trouble taking a position on, and Mitt Romney has shown some real backbone on this issue.’” [The Hill, 1/13/12]

REALITY: ROMNEY VOWED TO VETO THE DREAM ACT   When Asked If He Would Veto The DREAM Act, Romney Said, “The Answer Is Yes.” “‘The question is if I were elected and Congress were to pass the Dream Act, would I veto it and the answer is yes,’ Romney said.” [Reuters, 12/31/11; Le Mars, IA Meet & Greet, 12/31/11]   REALITY: ROMNEY CALLED FOR UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS TO RETURN HOME AND GO TO THE BACK OF THE LINE   Romney: Illegal Immigrants “Might Have A Transition Time To Allow Them To Set Their Affairs In Order And Then Go Back Home And Get In Line With Everyone Else. They Start At The Back Of The Line.”  “That’s the principle. And those that have come here illegally, they might have a transition time to allow them to set their affairs in order and then go back home and get in line with everybody else. And if they get in line and they apply to become a citizen or a green card they’ll be treated like everybody else. They start at the back of the line not at the front of the line. I just think we’re not going to go around the country rounding people up. That’s just too big of a task. There are what, eleven, twelve, fifteen million, who knows the total number. But what we are going to do is we’re going to give people a chance to transition- to be able to go home, to get in line, and then to ultimately if they would like to get a green card and enter this country legally. That in my view is the course that we’re going to have to take.” [Romney Town Hall, Cedar Rapids IA, 12/9/11]   REALITY: ROMNEY SAID UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS SHOULD LEAVE REGARDLESS OF THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO THE COMMUNITY AND LENGTH OF TIME IN THE COUNTRY   Romney Said It Was “Amnesty” And A “Magnet” To Allow Undocumented Immigrants Who Have Been In The United States For Years, Have Abided The Law, Put Down Roots, Belong To A Church, Etc, To Stay In The United States. GINGRICH:  “I do suggest if you go back to your district, and you find people who have been here 25 years and have two generations of family and have been paying taxes and are in a local church, as somebody who believes strongly in family, you’ll have a hard time explaining why that particular subset is being broken up and forced to leave, given the fact that they’ve been law-abiding citizens for 25 years.” …BLITZER: Let’s broaden it out. Governor Romney, where do you stand? Are you with the speaker, that some of those illegal immigrants — I think — he didn’t say all — some of them, if they have roots, they belong to a church, for example, should be allowed to stay in this country?” Romney: “Look, amnesty is a magnet.”  …BLITZER: “Just to precise, and I’ll give Speaker Gingrich a chance to respond. Are you saying that what he’s proposing, giving amnesty in effect, or allowing some of these illegal immigrants to stay, is a magnet that would entice others to come to this country illegally?” ROMNEY: There’s no question. But to say that we’re going to say to the people who have come here illegally that now you’re all going to get to stay or some large number are going to get to stay and become permanent residents of the United States, that will only encourage more people to do the same thing.” [CNN/Heritage/AEI Debate, 11/22/11]

• Romney Said Of Gingrich: “He's indicated That For People Who Have Been Here A Certain Length Of Time We Should Let Them Stay In The Country With A Form Of Amnesty. I Think That Is A Mistake.” [American News Room, Fox, 12/7/11]
• Romney: “We Just Make A Mistake As A Republican Party Trying To Describe Which People Who Have Come Here Illegally Should Be Given Amnesty To Be Able To Jump Ahead Of The Line Of The People Who Have Been Waiting In Line.” “I know that there is going to be great interest in finding out how far we can apply amnesty. And I think that we just make a mistake as a Republican Party trying to describe which people who have come here illegally should be given amnesty to be able to jump ahead of the line of the people   who have been waiting in line. My view is that those people who have waited in line patiently to come to this country legally should be ahead of the line. And those who have come here illegally should not be given a special deal or a special accelerated right to become a permanent resident or citizen.” [Romney Press Q&A At Nationwide Insurance Meet & Greet, 11/23/11]

Read More

Depending on the audience he’s talking to and the office he’s running for, Mitt Romney will say anything to get elected. He’s claimed to support maintaining the existing laws protecting choice and later said he’d work to change them. And most recently, Romney committed to a “Personhood Amendment” that defines life as beginning at the moment of conception, outlaws abortion in all instances and some forms of birth control.  For Romney, choice is just another issue to navigate around and use to score political points.

1993: Romney Decides To Run For Senate In Massachusetts As Pro-Choice After Looking At Polling Data That Showed A Pro-Life Candidate Couldn’t Win 1993: Romney Decided To Run As A Pro-Choice Candidate After His Pollster Showed Him Data That A Pro-Life Candidate Couldn’t Win Statewide In Massachusetts. “Scott had worked for Time Inc., and in the fall of 1993, he says, Romney asked him for advice on how to handle various issues the media might pursue in a Senate campaign. Scott gave his advice in a couple of phone conversations and a memo. In the course of the conversations, Scott says, Romney outlined his views on the abortion problem. According to Scott, Romney revealed that polling from Richard Wirthlin, Ronald Reagan's former pollster whom Romney had hired for the '94 campaign, showed it would be impossible for a pro-life candidate to win statewide office in Massachusetts. In light of that, Romney decided to run as a pro-choice candidate, pledging to support Roe v. Wade, while remaining personally pro-life.” [Washington Examiner,  12/29/11]   1994: Romney Says He’s Been Pro-Choice Since 1970   Romney: “I Believe That Abortion Should Be Safe and Legal” And “I Have Since The Time My Mom Took That Position When She Ran In 1970.” During the 1994 debate, Romney said “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe .v Wade has been the law for twenty years that we should sustain and support it. And I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice.” [1994 Senate Debate]   2001: Romney Writes Letter To The Editor In The Salt Lake Tribune Saying He Is Not “Pro-Choice”   2001: Romney: “I Do Not Wish To Be Labeled Pro-Choice.”  “It is an issue that could seal the fate of any aspiring Republican politician in conservative Utah.  ‘I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice,’ Romney wrote this week in a letter to the editor of The Salt Lake Tribune.  ‘I have never felt comfortable with the labels associated with the abortion issue. Because the Olympics is not about politics, I plan to keep my views on political issues to myself.’” [Salt Lake Tribune, 7/11/01]

2002:  Romney, Running Statewide In Massachusetts Again, Campaigns On Protecting Abortion Rights Romney: “I Will Preserve And Protect A Woman’s Right To Choose.” “Let me make this very clear: I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose,” Romney said. [Associated Press, 10/2/02]

2004: Romney Says He Changed His Mind On Abortion Rights And Is Now Pro-Life After Meeting With A Stem Cell Researcher 2004: Romney Says He Changed His Mind And Opposes Abortion After Meeting With Harvard Stem Cell Researcher Douglas Melton And Said Melton Talked About “Killing” Embryos. “According to Romney, he changed his mind about abortion in 2004, during a fight in Massachusetts over embryonic stem cell research. In November of that year, he met with Harvard's Douglas Melton, a prominent embryonic stem cell researcher to discuss the issue. ‘The story goes that he was put off by the cavalier way the medical researcher talked about disposing of excess frozen embryos,’ says Ron Scott, a journalist and distant cousin of the candidate who is the author of a new biography, Mitt Romney: An Inside Look at the Man and His Politics. Scott says that meeting is what led Romney to change his mind on abortion. ‘I'm not sure of all the intricacies therein, but it was a moment for him apparently,’ he says. Only there's a problem with Romney's story. The candidate has said repeatedly that Melton used the word ‘killing’ to describe what happens to two-week old embryos in order to proceed with the research.” [NPR, 11/29/11]

2006: Romney Passes Health Care Legislation That Requires A Planned Parenthood Member To Be On The Advisory Board And Created Copays Of Less Than $100 For Abortions Romney’s Health Care Law Required The Assignment Of A Member of Planned Parenthood To Policy Advisory Board  According to the 2006 Massachusetts Health Care Reform Bill, Subsection 16M of Section 3 creates a MassHealth payment policy advisory board, with one member being appointed by Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts.  Romney did not veto this section of the bill.  [Chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, Signed 4/12/06]   2006: The Massachusetts Commonwealth Connector Released A Frequently Asked Questions Document That Listed Co-Pays For An Abortion At $0 - $100. A “Commonwealth Care Frequently Asked Questions” document posted on the website of the Massachusetts Commonwealth Connector the cost of services listed under “Health Benefits and Copays” included a $50 co-pay for abortion with Plan Type II and a $100 co-pay for abortion with Plan Type III. Plan Types based on poverty level and contribution rate. [Commonwealth Care Frequently Asked Questions, Massachusetts Commonwealth Connector, 12/1/06]

2011-2012: Romney Says That His Health Care Plan Didn’t Mention Planned Parenthood Or Abortion And That He Always Came Down As Pro-Life As Governor Romney: “Our Health Care Bill Doesn't Mention Planned Parenthood In Any Way. In Fact, It Doesn't Even Mention Abortion. The Decision With Regards Abortion Funding Was A Decision By The Court – Not By The Legislature And Certainly Not By Me As The Governor.” [CBS, Early Show, 1/4/12] Romney: Since “The First Time A Piece Of Legislation Reached My Desk That Dealt With The Issue Of Life And Abortion. I Came Down On The Side Of Life.” Romney: “I changed my position on abortion back when I was governor. The first time a piece of legislation reached my desk that dealt with the issue of life and abortion I came down on the side of life. I wrote an op-ed and said, I’m firmly pro life. I simply cannot support a piece of legislation, which would have created new embryos for the purpose of testing them and destroying them so I came down on the side of life while I was governor some years ago.” [Hannity, Fox, 11/21/11]   2011: Romney Said He Would Have Supported A State Personhood Amendment As Governor

Romney Said “Yes” He Would Have Supported An Amendment To The Massachusetts Constitution That Would Have Established Life At Conception. Huckabee: “Would you have supported the constitutional amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception?” Romney: “Absolutely.” [Huckabee, Fox, 10/1/11]

Read More

Tonight, “Say Anything” Mitt Romney touted his record as governor of Massachusetts. But one quick look at his record tells you the real story: under Romney, Massachusetts ranked 47th out of 50th in job creation, saw incomes and wages fall and experienced a decline in manufacturing at twice the national average. That’s not a record Romney should be proud of.   AS GOVERNOR, ROMNEY RANKED 47TH OUT OF 50 IN JOB CREATION, WHILE WAGES AND INCOME IN MASSACHUSETTS FELL   In Romney’s Four Years As Governor Massachusetts Ranked 47th Out Of 50 In Jobs Growth.  “The Republican contender was the governor of Massachusetts from January 2003 to January 2007. And during that time, according to the U.S. Labor Department, the state ranked 47th in the entire country in jobs growth. Fourth from last.  The only ones that did worse? Ohio, Michigan and Louisiana. In other words, two rustbelt states and another that lost its biggest city to a hurricane. The Massachusetts jobs growth over that period, a pitiful 0.9%, badly lagged other high-skill, high-wage, knowledge economy states like New York (2.7%), California (4.7%) and North Carolina (7.6%). The national average: More than 5%.” [Marketwatch, 2/23/10]   Massachusetts Wages and Income Fell By 2% During Romney Years.  “Between 2002 and 2006, the median real (inflation adjusted) weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers in Massachusetts is estimated to have fallen by $10 or nearly 2 percent. The real income of the average (median) family in Massachusetts in 2005 was 1 percent below its value at the time of the 2000 Census while median household income was 3 percent below its 2000 value. Median household income fell even more sharply in the nation. Family incomes in both the United States and Massachusetts have become more unevenly distributed since 2000.” [Boston Globe, 7/28/07]   Between 2003 And 2005 The Median Hourly Wage For Massachusetts Workers Fell 5%--The Largest Decline In The Country During That Period. “Perhaps even worse, wages in Massachusetts, after adjusting for inflation, have dropped across the labor force over the last few years. In particular, the median hourly wage that is, the wage earned by the typical Massachusetts worker fell close to 5 percent between 2003 and 2005, the largest decline in the country during that period and the largest two-year decline in Massachusetts in at least twenty-five years.” [Massachusetts Budget And Policy Center, 9/3/06]   Under Romney, The Median Household Income In Massachusetts Decreased $1,963 In Real Terms.  In 2002, the median household income in Massachusetts was $55,266.  Adjusted for inflation, this amount was $61,932.33 in 2006 buying power.  In 2006, the median household income in Massachusetts was $59,963, a decrease from the inflation adjusted median household income from 2002 of $1,963.33 [Census.gov American Community Survey, 2002 Median Household Income And 2006 Median Household Income; BLS Inflation Calculator, 2002-2006]   MANUFACTURING DECLINED BY TWICE THE NATIONAL AVERAGE IN MASSACHUSETTS UNDER ROMNEY   Under Romney Manufacturing Jobs In Massachusetts Declined By Twice The National Average—“The Third Worst Record In The Country.” “Manufacturing payroll employment throughout the nation declined by nearly 1.1 million or 7 percent between 2002 and 2006, but in Massachusetts it declined by more than 14 percent, the third worst record in the country.” [Boston Globe, 7/29/07] ROMNEY REPEATEDLY AXED FUNDING FOR WORKFORCE TRAINING FOR SMALL MANUFACTURERS   Romney’s Budget Cuts To Manufacturing Partnership Hampered Effort To Save Thousands Of Jobs.  “Romney’s recent move to slice $425 million from state spending will hamper the efforts of a program that has helped hundreds of small manufacturers compete, survive, and save thousands of jobs.  The program, the Massachusetts Manufacturing Extension Partnership, or MassMEP, is jointly funded by state and federal governments and considered by business officials to be a particularly effective economic development effort… Over the past five years, MassMEP has helped small manufacturers create or retain some 3,000 jobs, generate sales of more than $300 million, and undertake nearly $100 million in new investments, according to annual client surveys.”  [Boston Globe, 11/23/06]

• Massachusetts Manufacturing Extension Partnership Is A Nonprofit Which Assists Small Manufacturers With Improving Operations. “But high-tech products don't entirely explain the resilience of the state's manufacturing sector, said Jack Healy, director of the nonprofit Massachusetts Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which assists small manufacturers with improving operations. Low-tech products are also being made here competitively thanks to what are known as ‘lean’ or ‘advanced’ manufacturing approaches, he said.” [Boston Business Journal, 5/27/11]

2006: Romney Vetoed More Than $700,000 In Funding For The Massachusetts Manufacturing Extension Partnership, Which Was Then Overridden By The Legislature. [Westboro News, 12/14/06] 2006: Romney Vetoed Roughly $557,000 For The Massachusetts Manufacturing Extension Partnership From A Stimulus Bill [Boston Business Journal, 6/3/06]   2005: Romney Vetoed $850,000 For The Massachusetts Manufacturing Extension Partnership, Which Was Overridden By The Legislature. [Worcester Telegram & Gazette, 7/15/05]

Read More

Tonight, Mitt Romney invented a new job creation number, now claiming to have created over 120,000 jobs. In just over a month, his job creation number has changed from over a hundred thousand jobs, to thousands, and now 120,000 jobs, without a single number substantiated.  And the reason he can't back up these numbers?  Simply put, "Say Anything" Mitt Romney's goal wasn't job creation: it was creating profit for himself and his partners at any costs by bankrupting companies, outsourcing jobs and laying off workers.   ROMNEY’S SO-CALLED JOB CREATION RECORD AT BAIN CONTINUES TO EVOLVE…   IN HIS NEW AD, ROMNEY CLAIMS TO HAVE CREATED “THOUSANDS OF JOBS”   Romney’s Ad Claims He’s Created “Thousands Of Jobs.” “Long Years Of Experience Creating Thousands Of Jobs.” [Romney, Bright Future, 1/13/12]   WHILE JUST RECENTLY HE CLAIMED HE HELPED CREATE “OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND JOBS”   Romney Said That At Bain He Helped Create “Actually, Over A Hundred Thousands Of Jobs.” “Romney also questioned whether Gingrich understands how the economy works when asked about the former speaker’s suggestion earlier today that Romney give money back to businesses he’s profited from that have then gone bankrupt. ‘Doesn’t he understand how the economy works? In the real economy, some businesses succeed and some fail,” said Romney. “That’s how that works and you try and encourage the more successful and fortunately for many people, tens of thousands of jobs, actually over a hundred thousands of jobs were created by the investments that we were able to help make. ‘” [ABC News, 12/12/11; Romney Press Availability At Madison Lumber Mill, 12/12/11]   AFTER PREVIOUSLY CLAIMING HE CREATED “TENS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS NET-NET”   Romney Said That He Created “Tens Of Thousands Of Jobs, Net-Net.” “Romney has focused on his Bain victories, including providing funding to help launch or grow Staples, Domino’s Pizza, and other household names. ‘When I was at Bain Capital, we invested in about 100 different companies. Not all of them worked,’’ he said earlier this month in a debate. ‘But I’m very proud of the fact that I learned about how you can be successful with an enterprise, why we lose jobs, how we gain jobs and overall, in those 100 businesses we invested in, tens of thousands of jobs, net-net, were created.’’ [Boston Globe, 8/21/11]   2002: ROMNEY CLAIMED HE CREATED “TENS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS”   2002: Romney Claimed That At Bain He Created Tens Of Thousands Of Jobs. “’I don't put profits ahead of people, I put people first,’ Romney said. ‘Shannon puts politics ahead of people.’ He added that his investment firm ‘started 200 companies and created tens of thousands of jobs. There's no question that some are more successful than others. But I'm basically in the investor's hall of fame.’" [Lowell Sun, 10/25/02]   1994: ROMNEY CLAIMED HE “HELPED CREATE” OVER 10,000 JOBS   Romney Said He “Helped Create” Over 10,000 Jobs At Bain. “’That's why I'm always very careful to use the words 'help create,' ‘ Romney acknowledged. ‘Bain Capital, or Mitt Romney, 'helped create' over 10,000 jobs. I don't take credit for the jobs at Staples. I helped create the jobs at Staples.’" [Boston Globe, 8/8/94]   ROMNEY CANNOT SUBSTANTIATE HIS JOB CREATION CLAIMS   REALITY: IN 1994, ROMNEY ACKNOWLEDGED HE COULDN’T BACK UP HIS BAIN JOB CREATION CLAIMS   1994: Romney Acknowledged That There Was No Way To Determine Whether Jobs Had Been Lost Or Gained Economy-Wide Because Of His Ventures. “In a telephone interview late yesterday, Romney dismissed the characterization of Staples and his other investments as streamlining, saying that what he has done is ‘build and grow businesses,’ not shrink them. He asserted that there is no way to calculate whether jobs have been lost or gained economy-wide as a result of his ventures, and noted his 10,000-job figure simply measures what happened to employment at companies in which Bain invested. In a separate interview, Thomas Stemberg, Staples chairman and chief executive, acknowledged that there probably has been some job loss in the paper products business because of superstore companies, but said that the nation is still better off for their advent. Bain contributed 15 percent of the startup money for the Framingham-based company and, until the campaign, Romney sat on its board of directors.” [Boston Globe, 10/6/94]   Boston Globe: “It's Impossible To Say Precisely If More Jobs Were Created Than Cut By Bain Since The Firm Does Not Track Employment In Its Investments.” [Boston Globe, 1/27/08]   REALITY: ROMNEY HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS NUMBERS   Washington Post Fact Checker: Romney Campaign Has Not Provided Any Proof That Bain Created “Thousands Of Jobs” During Romney’s Tenure. “Neither Bain nor the Romney campaign has provided proof that the company created thousands of jobs during Romney’s tenure. His campaign simply mentioned a few start-ups such as Staples and Sports Authority that now employ tens of thousands of people on the whole. But that doesn’t account for possible job losses with other companies. For instance, we know from past news reports that Bain businesses, including Ampad, Dade International and LIVE Entertainment, laid off a combined 2,351 workers under Romney’s leadership. Romney’s record at Bain proves that he can produce enormous returns for investors, but that doesn’t necessarily prove he can create jobs.” [Fact Checker, Washington Post, 12/12/11]   Factcheck.org: Neither The Romney Campaign Nor Restore Our Future Super PAC, A Pro-Romney Group, Have Backed Up Claims That Romney Created “Thousands Of Jobs” While At Bain. From a fact check of Restore Our Future Super PAC’s first TV ad and Romney claims: “A pro-Romney TV spot running heavily in Iowa touts an unproven claim that the candidate ‘helped create thousands of jobs’ as CEO of an investment firm. When we asked the super PAC sponsoring the ad for proof of its claim, a spokeswoman said: ‘We aren’t supplying that information.’ And so far, neither is the Romney campaign. … Since Romney himself has claimed ‘in those 100 businesses we invested in, tens of thousands of jobs, net-net, were created,’ we also reached out to the Romney campaign for backup. But we did not get a response.” [Factcheck.org, 12/9/11]   REALITY: ROMNEY’S JOB CLAIMS ARE “UNPROVEN” “MISLEADING” AND DISHONEST   Factcheck.Org: “Mitt Romney Has Taken To Saying That He Created More Than 100,000 Net Jobs Through His Work In The Private Sector, And More Jobs As Governor Than President Obama Has Created Since Taking Office. But The First Claim Is Unproven, And The Second Is Misleading.” [FactCheck.org, 1/5/12]   New York Times’ Paul Krugman: “The Point Is That Mr. Romney’s Claims About Being A Job Creator Would Be Nonsense Even If He Were Being Honest About The Numbers, Which He Isn’t.” [Krugman, New York Times, 1/5/12]

Read More

Giving his incomprehensible answer the benefit of the doubt, tonight Mitt Romney said he would “probably” release his tax returns in April.  But that’s not what he said last month, when in an interview with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, Romney said he doubted he would release his tax returns at all. He’ll say anything to get elected – previously he’d even criticized his opponents for not releasing their tax returns, but he never has released his own tax returns and he continues to refuse to do so now.   ROMNEY REFUSED TO RELEASE HIS OWN TAX RETURNS…   Romney Said He Did Not Intend To Release His Tax Returns If He Were The Nominee. Asked if he would release his tax returns if he were the nominee, Romney said, “I doubt it. I will, I will provide all the financial info, which is an extraordinary pile of documents which show investments and so forth.” [Interview, NBC News, 12/21/11]   Romney: “In Regards To Income Taxes, That's Not Something That's Required By The Law” So “I'm Not Planning On Releasing My Income Taxes Anytime Soon.” In an interview with KWQC’s Joe St. George, Romney was asked, “Let’s talk about the issue of transparency. You said you’re not going to release some donor information, your tax returns. How can Iowan voters trust someone who is not going to be that transparent?” Romney responded, “Well we have a series of laws that describe the kind of disclosure that's appropriate and required for candidates running for office. We follow all of those disclosure requirements. And in regards to income taxes, that's not something that's required by the law. I'm not planning on releasing my income taxes anytime soon. But, you know we will wait and see what happens – never say never.” St. George then asked, “So you’re open to the possibility of opening them up?” Romney responded, “It’s always a possibility but I'm not planning on it at this point but we'll see what happens down the road.” [KWQC interview with Romney, 12/28/11]

• 2007: Romney Refused To Release His Tax Returns While Running For President.  [AP, 8/13/07]
• 2002: Romney – Who Pumped Nearly $5 Million Of His Own Money Into His Campaign - Refused To Make His Income Tax Returns Public. “Romney, who has pumped nearly $ 5 million of his own money into the campaign, has refused repeated requests by O’Brien’s campaign to follow her lead and make his income tax returns public.” [Salt Lake Tribune, 11/4/02]
• 1994/2002: Romney Refused To Release His Tax Returns While Running For Senate And Governor.  [Washington Post, 6/19/07]

…THOUGH ROMNEY CALLED ON HIS CHALLENGERS TO RELEASE THEIR TAX RETURNS   1994: Romney Said He Would Disclose His Tax Returns If Kennedy Did. “Romney has never released his tax returns - when running for US Senate in 1994, for governor of Massachusetts in 2002, or during his last presidential bid in 2008. During his 1994 race against Senator Edward M. Kennedy, he called on him to release his state and federal taxes to prove he had ‘nothing to hide.’ ‘It’s time the biggest-taxing senator in Washington shows the people of Massachusetts how much he pays in taxes,’ Romney said at the time. He said he would disclose his on the same day as Kennedy, but Kennedy never did.” [Boston Globe, 12/23/11]

• 1994: Romney Challenged Kennedy To Release His Tax Returns And “Chided” Him “For Never Releasing His State Or Federal Taxes In The 32 Years He Has Served In The Senate.” “With the tax-filing deadline looming, Republican Senate candidate Mitt Romney yesterday challenged Sen. Edward M. Kennedy to disclose his state and federal taxes to prove he has ‘nothing to hide,’ but another GOP rival, John R. Lakian, called Romney’s move ‘bush league’ ‘It’s time the biggest-taxing senator in Washington shows the people of Massachusetts how much he pays in taxes," said Romney, a business consultant from Belmont. Romney said he would disclose his own state and federal taxes for the last three years ‘on the very day that Kennedy turns over his taxes for public scrutiny.’ Aides to Kennedy said late yesterday they could not immediately respond to the Romney challenge. Kennedy does release federal disclosure forms every year, but those have only ranges for income and investments. The forms indicate he receives hundreds of thousands of dollars in income from blind trusts and other family wealth. Romney chided Kennedy for never releasing his state or federal taxes in the 32 years he has served in the Senate. Many Massachusetts politicians, including Gov. Weld and Lt. Gov. Paul Cellucci, release their taxes every year.” [Boston Globe, 4/14/94]

2002: Despite Not Releasing His Own Tax Returns, Romney Criticized His Opponent Shannon O’Brien For Not Having Her Husband Release His. “At the moment, however, Mr. Romney is trying to have it both ways. On April 16, he lambasted his most likely Democratic foe, Shannon O’Brien  who discloses her tax return for filing separately from her husband who does not. The husband is Emmett Hayes, a former state representative and until recently a Beacon Hill lobbyist. One of Mr. Hayes’s clients was Enron. Mr. Romney is in high dudgeon that Ms. O’Brien hasn’t released Mr. Hayes’s tax forms with her own. ‘Her hands aren’t clean!’ he says…If Romney & Healey, who are candidates, won’t release their tax forms, they have no business demanding that Mr. Hayes, who isn’t a candidate, do so.” [Editorial, Providence Journal Bulletin, 5/9/02]   WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL: IT’S “UNACCEPTABLE” FOR ROMNEY TO NOT RELEASE HIS TAX RETURNS   Washington Post Editorial: It Is “Unacceptable” For Romney To Not Release His Tax Returns And Criticized Him For Hiding Behind Legal Requirements. “Mitt Romney is zero for two when it comes to transparency in campaigning. … Now Mr. Romney has doubled down on this lack of transparency, telling NBC that he does not intend to release his tax returns even if he becomes the Republican presidential nominee. “Never say never, but I don’t intend to do so,” Mr. Romney said Wednesday. On Thursday, that stance seemed to be softening somewhat, to: “We don’t have any current plans to release tax returns, but never say never.’’ This is unacceptable and, as with the Romney campaign’s stance on bundlers, a sharp departure from previous practice. … Yet it has become a given that nominees, much like presidents and vice presidents, release their income tax returns. Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) has released his, and former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R) pledged he would do so upon becoming the nominee. As with bundlers, Mr. Romney hides behind legal requirements. It is true that candidates are required to file financial disclosure forms, but tax returns provide information not otherwise available, including charitable contributions and effective tax rates.” [Editorial, Washington Post, 12/25/11]   Washington Post Editorial: Romney’s Refusal To Release His Tax Returns “Represents A Striking And Disturbing Departure From The Past Practice Of Presidential Candidates Of Both Parties.” “As Mitt Romney edges closer to the Republican presidential nomination, the imperative grows for the former Massachusetts governor to release his income tax returns and disclose the identities of the fundraising bundlers who have brought in millions for his campaign. Mr. Romney’s determined lack of transparency on these two fronts — the candidate and his campaign have said he has no plans to release either — represents a striking and disturbing departure from the past practice of presidential candidates of both parties. Asking candidates to make their tax returns public is undoubtedly an invasion of privacy. But it is one that comes with the territory of a presidential campaign. Such disclosure is not required by law but, as with the voluntary release of tax filings by the president and vice president, it has become routine, if at times grudging and belated. Tax returns offer information not available on the financial disclosure forms that are legally required of candidates, including their charitable deductions and use of tax shelters. Tax information could be especially revealing in the case of Mr. Romney and his extensive investment income, which may be why he has been reluctant to release it.” [Editorial, Washington Post, 1/11/12]   NH Union-Leader Publisher Joseph W. McQuaid, Citing His Unwillingness To Release His Tax Returns, Wrote That Romney Has A “Tin Ear.” McQuaid: “Romney is a nice, rich man with a tin ear (he may or may not release his income taxes) and plenty of pals in the Republican in-crowd.” [McQuaid Op-Ed, New Hampshire Union Leader, 1/8/12]   GEORGE ROMNEY WAS THE FIRST PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN RECENT HISTORY TO RELEASE HIS TAXES   George Romney Was Believed To Be The First Presidential Candidate To Make His Income Tax Returns Public. "Many presidential candidates in the past have disclosed their net assets, stock holdings and other financial data which might relate to the public trust. But [George] Romney was believed the first to make his income tax returns public - including his annual wages, dividends, interest, capital gains and other compensation." [St. Joseph Gazette, 11/27/67]   In Describing How His Father Influenced Him, Romney Mentioned That His Father, George Romney, Released His Tax Returns. When asked to describe how his father influenced him, Romney said, “My dad was a carpenter who never completed college, yet he went on to be CEO of American Motors and governor of Michigan. At home, he filled us with the conviction that life was not handed to us on a silver platter. He made sure my brother and I mowed the lawn, shoveled the driveway. When he ran for president and his tax returns were published, it was clear he could’ve hired a landscaper. But he decided we would learn to work with our hands.” [Parade, 12/4/11]

Read More

This morning on Fox News Sunday, RNC Chair Reince Priebus claimed that our economy was “losing manufacturing jobs.” That is false. Perhaps he is thinking of Mitt Romney’s record as governor of Massachusetts, where manufacturing jobs decreased at twice the national average.

ROMNEY’S MANUFACTURING JOBS RECORD WAS ONE OF THE WORST IN THE NATION

Under Romney Manufacturing Jobs In Massachusetts Declined By Twice The National Average—“The Third Worst Record In The Country.” “Manufacturing payroll employment throughout the nation declined by nearly 1.1 million or 7 percent between 2002 and 2006, but in Massachusetts it declined by more than 14 percent, the third worst record in the country.” [Boston Globe, 7/29/07]

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S POLICIES HAVE LED TO AN INCREASE IN MANUFACTURING JOBS

New York Times: “Manufacturing Is A Surprising Bright Spot In The U.S. Economy.” [New York Times, 1/5/2012]

New York Times: “Until Last Year, There Had Not Been A Single Year When Manufacturing Employment Rose Since 1997.” [New York Times, 1/5/2012]

The Manufacturing Sector Added 334,000 Jobs From December 2009 Through December 2011. [data.bls.gov, 1/6/2012]

The Manufacturing Sector Expanded For The 29th Consecutive Month Through December 2011. [ISM Report On Business, 1/3/2012]

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S POLICIES HAVE LED TO THE CREATION OF MORE THAN 3.1 MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS WITH POSITIVE JOB GROWTH FOR THE LAST 22 MONTHS

The U.S. Economy Has Added More Than 3.1 Million Private Sector Jobs In The Last 22 Months. [data.bls.gov, accessed 1/6/2012]

Private Sector Job Growth Has Continued For 22 Consecutive Months. [data.bls.gov, accessed 1/6/2012]

Read More

Despite the Republican rhetoric at this morning’s debate, President Obama has taken smart steps to reduce regulatory costs and burdens on businesses - including eliminating unnecessary regulations - while passing reforms that protect American consumers from deceptive lending practices, stop credit card companies from unfairly raising rates and force the big banks to play by rules.

REALITY: PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS CHANGED THE REGULATORY CULTURE IN WASHINGTON TO REDUCE REGULATORY COSTS AND BURDENS

The Bush Administration Imposed More Regulatory Costs In Its Final Two Years Than The Obama Administration Imposed In First Two Years. [The Hill, 8/26/11]

President Obama Signed A Landmark Executive Order Requiring Agencies To Develop Tools To Eliminate Regulations That Are Ineffective Or Burdensome. [GPO.gov, 1/21/11]

President Obama Issued A Memorandum Directing Agencies To Ensure They Do Not Place Unjustified Burdens On Small Business Owners. [WhiteHouse.gov, 1/18/11]

The Obama Administration Issued A Memorandum Directing Agencies To Provide Taxpayers With Easier And More Comprehensive Access To Regulatory Information. [EOP Memorandum, 4/7/10]

The Obama Administration Has, For The First Time Ever, Required Agencies To Engage With Members Of The Public Affected By A Potential Regulation Before They Issue A Notice Of Proposal. [Senate Hearing On Federal Regulation, 6/23/11]

Bloomberg Found That The Obama Administration Had Approved Fewer Regulations Than The Second Bush Administration Through The First 33 Months Of Each Administration’s Tenure. [Bloomberg, 10/26/11]

REALITY: THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS ELIMINATED UNNECESSARY REGULATORY BURDENS

President Obama Initiated An Overhaul Of The Regulatory System Which Will Roll Back Hundreds Of Burdensome Regulations, Saving Businesses More Than $10 Billion In The Next Five Years. [Politico, 8/23/11]

During The Obama Administration, Tens Of Millions Of Hours In Paperwork Related To Regulations Have Been Eliminated, Saving Businesses Hundreds Of Millions In Related Costs. [Senate Hearing On Federal Regulation, 6/23/11]

Under President Obama, The IRS Has Made Changes That Will Save Taxpayers 55 Million Annual Hours In Tax Reporting And Paperwork Burdens. [Senate Hearing On Federal Regulation, 6/23/11]

The Obama Administration Removed An EPA Regulation Defining Milk As An “Oil” Which Will Save The Dairy Industry $1.4 Billion In The Next Decade. [ORIA Speech, 5/26/11]

The Obama Administration Removed Over 1.9 Million Annual Hours Of Redundant Reporting Burdens On Employers, Which Will Save Businesses $40 Million In Annual Costs. [Senate Hearing On Federal Regulation, 6/23/11]

REALITY: THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS FILLED REGULATORY GAPS TO PROTECT TAXPAYERS

President Obama Signed Into Law Major Wall Street Reform, Which Protects Consumers By Closing Regulatory Gaps That Allowed Institutions To Be “Too Big To Fail”, Derivatives Markets To Operate In The Shadows, And Mortgage Lenders To Create Unnecessary Risk. [Senate.gov, 7/1/10]

President Obama Signed Into Law Major Wall Street Reform, Creating The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, Which Will Protect Consumers From Unfair, Deceptive, And Abusive Acts And Ensure That They Understand Financial Products And Decisions. [Testimony Before House Subcommittee On TARP, 5/24/11]

President Obama Signed Into Law The CARD Act, Which Protects Consumers From Hidden Fees, Unfair Late Fees, And Shifting Interest Rates. [New York Times, 2/22/10]

President Obama Signed Into Law The Family Smoking Prevention Act, Which Allows The FDA To Prevent Tobacco Companies From Marketing Their Products Towards Young People. [The Washington Post, 6/13/09]

REALITY: BUSINESS LEADERS HAVE PRAISED PRESIDENT OBAMA’S REGULATORY REFORM

Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein Praised Regulatory Reform, Saying It Would Make The Market Safer And Benefit Consumers. [The Hill, 4/27/10]

Morgan Stanley Chairman John Mack Said He Was “Very Supportive” Of Financial Regulatory Reform And The Creation Of A Systemic Risk Manager. [New York Times, 3/22/10]

A Global Manager Of Moody’s Investors Services Called Regulation Of Credit Rating Agencies “Positive For Our Industry And The Broader Market.” [House Committee On Financial Services, 7/11/11]

The President Of Standard & Poor’s Said That The Ratings Agency Supported Recent Regulatory Changes, Specifically Financial Regulatory Reform Addressing Undue Reliance On Ratings In The Market. [House Committee On Financial Services, 7/11/11]

The Wall Street Journal Praised President Obama’s Choice To Head The Office Of Information And Regulatory Affairs, Calling It “Savvy” And “Promising.” [The Wall Street Journal, 1/20/09]

Read More

This morning, Newt Gingrich pointed out just how long Mitt Romney has been running for office: “The fact is, you ran in '94 and lost, that's why you weren’t serving the Senate with Rick Santorum. The fact is, you had a very bad reelection rating, you dropped out of office, you had been out of state for something like 200 days preparing to run for president, you didn’t have this interlude of citizenship while you thought about what to do. You were running for president while you were governor, and you were going all over the country, you were out of state consistently. You then promptly re-entered politics – you then happen to lose to McCain as you had lost to Kennedy. Now you’re back running. You have been running consistently for years and years and years, so this idea that suddenly citizenship showed up in your mind, just level with the American people, you’ve been running since at least the 1990’s.”

ROMNEY HAS BEEN RUNNING FOR OFFICE SINCE 1994

Romney Has Been Running Since 1994 And “Would Have Been A Career Politician Too, If Only Voters Would Have Let Him.” Jonathan Last, senior writer at The Weekly Standard wrote of Romney: “It’s funny that Romney’s line of attack on Perry seems to be that Perry is a ‘career politician’ because he’s been in elective office since 1984. Well, Mitt Romney would have been a career politician too, if only voters would have let him. He’s been running since 1994. His real gripe about Perry is actually, ‘Hey, that guy wins all the time! No fair!’” [Jonathan Last’s Website, 8/29/11]

ROMNEY REINVENTED HIMSELF IN EACH OF HIS RUNS FOR PUBLIC OFFICE

LA Times: “In Each Of His Runs For Public Office, Romney Has Remade Himself.” “The problem has been fed by the fact that, in each of his runs for public office, Romney has remade himself. Last time out, he shed his moderate social views on abortion and gay rights, then struggled to convince primary voters of his conservative bona fides. A perception grew that the handsome candidate, with his almost-too-perfect hair and teeth and seemingly scripted answers to every question, would say anything to get elected.” [LA Times, 3/5/11]

“There Have Been Different Versions Of Mitt Romney” – Moderate 1994-2002, Social Conservative 2008, Economist 2012. “There have been different versions of Mitt Romney. When he ran for U.S. Senate against Ted Kennedy in 1994 and successfully for Massachusetts governor in 2002, he was the moderate, can-do businessman who supported abortion rights and distanced himself from Ronald Reagan. When he ran for president in 2008, Romney stressed social conservatism. He stressed his opposition to abortion rights, as well as tough anti-illegal immigration positions. These days Romney tries for a looser look, sans tie, and focuses on the economy.” [St. Petersburg Times, 6/16/11]

Romney Has Re-Invented Himself From “A Fairly Liberal US Senate Candidate” To “A Moderate Gubernatorial Candidate” To “A Conservative Presidential Candidate.”  “But some of those same people concede that, as a political strategy, there are two big potential hazards to ‘letting Mitt be Mitt.’ First, Romney’s previous reinventions — as a fairly liberal US Senate candidate, a moderate gubernatorial candidate, and then as a conservative presidential candidate — have already strained his credibility beyond the breaking point. Any further change — even to become the real, authentic Romney — will be viewed with suspicion, if not derision.” [Boston Phoenix, 2/10/10]

Read More

ROMNEY’S JOB CREATION RECORD IN MASSACHUSETTS WAS ONE OF THE WORST IN THE COUNTRY

During Romney’s Tenure as Governor, Massachusetts’ Economic Performance Was “One Of The Worst In The Country” On “All Key Labor Market Measures.”  [Boston Globe, 7/29/07]

Factcheck.org: “Romney’s Jobs Record Provides Little To Boast About.” [Factcheck.org, 1/11/08]

In Romney’s Four Years As Governor Massachusetts Ranked 47th Out Of 50 In Jobs Growth. [Marketwatch, 2/23/10]

PolitiFact “No Matter How We Sliced The Data” Massachusetts Was 47th Out Of 50 States In Job Creation Under Romney. [Politifact, 6/22/11]

UNDER ROMNEY GOVERNMENT JOB GROWTH INCREASED AT A RATE 6 TIMES THAT OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR

Under Romney, State Government Employment Increase At 6 Times The Rate Of Private Sector Job Growth.  [bls.gov, accessed 9/23/11]

Comparing The Last Full Month Before Romney Took Office And The Last Full Month Of Romney’s Administration, Romney’s Massachusetts Ranked 48th Out Of 50 States In Private Sector Job Growth. [Calculated from bls.gov, accessed 9/23/11]

UNDER ROMNEY WAGES FELL IN MASSACHUSETTS

Under Romney The Wages Of The Average Worker In Massachusetts Fell By Nearly 2 Percent.  [Boston Globe, 7/29/07]

ROMNEY INCREASED SPENDING

State Spending Under Romney Increased By 6.5% Annually.  [New York Times, 12/31/07]

Factcheck.org: It’s “Correct” That Romney Proposed 8% Higher Spending Per Person In Massachusetts. [Factcheck.org, 10/12/07]

ROMNEY RAISED TAXES ON INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESS

Romney’s Raised Fees And Taxes By Between $740-$750 Million A Year. [Boston Globe, 9/27/06]

• Factcheck.org: Romney’s Fee And Tax Increases Were “Between $740 And $750 Million Per Year.” [Factcheck.org, 1/31/08]

Romney Raised Fees As Governor; Romney Increased Fees By $400 Million And Raised Corporate Tax Revenue By $300 Million. [Vennochi, Boston Globe, 10/11/07]

• President Of The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation: “It’s Straightforward... He Raised Corporate Taxes.” [Bergen County Record, 12/7/07]
• Romney’s Third Round Of Business Tax Hikes Were Cut In Half After Democrats Balked “Amid Protests From Some Of The State’s Leading Business Groups.” [Patriot Ledger, 1/26/08]

MASSACHUSETTS TAX BURDEN WENT UP UNDER ROMNEY

During Romney’s Tenure The Massachusetts Tax Burden Increased From 10% To 10.6% Of Per Capita Income. [Boston Globe, 6/29/07]

• Factcheck.org: The Massachusetts Tax Burden Went Up Under Romney From 5.93% To 6.57%. [Factcheck.org, 10/12/07]
• State & Local Tax Burden Increased 6.5 Percent During The Romney Administration. [The Tax Foundation, 8/7/08]]

ROMNEY CAME INTO OFFICE AND LEFT WITH A SIMILAR DEFICIT

Factcheck.org: Romney’s Claim To Have Closed A $3 Billion Budget Gap Is “Misleading” As The Gap Was Closer To $1.2 Billion. [Factcheck.org, 9/6/07]

Romney Made The Economy A Central Part Of His 2008 Campaign But “Unemployment Is Still Relatively High” In Massachusetts And Romney Left A $1.3 Billion Budget Gap. [New York Times, 3/16/07]

President Obama’s Job Creation Record

REALITY: OBAMA’S POLICIES HAVE LED TO THE CREATION OF MORE THAN 3.1 MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS WITH POSITIVE JOB GROWTH FOR THE LAST 22 MONTHS

The U.S. Economy Has Added More Than 3.1 Million Private Sector Jobs In The Last 22 Months. [data.bls.gov, accessed 1/6/2012]

Private Sector Job Growth Has Continued For 22 Consecutive Months. [data.bls.gov, accessed 1/6/2012]

New York Times: “Manufacturing Is A Surprising Bright Spot In The U.S. Economy.” [New York Times, 1/5/2012]

New York Times: “Until Last Year, There Had Not Been A Single Year When Manufacturing Employment Rose Since 1997.” [New York Times, 1/5/2012]

The Manufacturing Sector Added 334,000 Jobs From December 2009 Through December 2011. [data.bls.gov, 1/6/2012]

The Manufacturing Sector Expanded For The 29th Consecutive Month Through December 2011. [ISM Report On Business, 1/3/2012]

REALITY: ROMNEY’S CLAIM ABOUT JOB LOSSES UNDER OBAMA HAS BEEN CALLED “MISLEADING” AND “INDEFENSIBLE”

FactCheck.org: Romney’s Claim About Job Losses Under Obama “Is Misleading.”   “Romney has taken to saying that he created more than 100,000 net jobs through his work in the private sector, and more jobs as governor than President Obama has created since taking office. But the first claim is unproven, and the second is misleading… as usual after recent recessions, businesses (and state and local governments) continued to shed jobs long after the recession ended and business began to turn up. The job slump continued for Obama’s first full year in office and finally hit bottom in February 2010. Since that bottom, the nation has added nearly 2.7 million jobs.” [Factcheck.org, 1/5/12]

Krugman: “Indefensible” To Claim Obama Caused Job Losses From The Recession. “To claim that Obama caused the job loss is indefensible.” [New York Times, “The Conscience Of A Liberal” Blog, 1/3/12]

Greg Sargent: “It Is Not Debatable To Claim That The Overall Net Job Loss Number Romney Cites Is A Fair Measure Of The Success or Failure Of Obama’s Policies.”   ““Romney’s claim that two million jobs were lost under the Obama presidency is based on the idea that there’s been a net loss of jobs since he took office. In other words, Romney is taking into account the fact that the economy continued hemorrhaging jobs at a furious rate after Obama took office — before Obama’s stimulus passed. But the figures show that once it became law, monthly job loss declined over time, and turned around in the spring of 2010, after which the private sector added jobs for over 20 straight months, totaling around 2.2 million of them.  You can debate whether the stimulus underperformed. You can debate whether the stimulus is the reason the economy did add private sector jobs. You can argue that public sector jobs loss should be factored in. But it is not debatable to claim that the overall net jobs loss number Romney cites is a fair measure of the success or failure of Obama’s policies.” [Washington Post, “The Plum Line” blog, 1/3/12]

Read More

REALITY: ROMNEY ATTACKED PRESIDENT OBAMA FOR HIS DECISION TO WITHDRAW TROOPS FROM IRAQ THEN TOUTED IT AS “THE TIMETABLE THAT PRESIDENT BUSH LAID OUT”

DECEMBER 2011: Romney Said That Obama Should Not Take A “Victory Lap” For Withdrawing From Iraq Since He Used “Bush’s Wisdom And Judgment” In Following “The Timetable That President Bush Laid Out.” Romney said, “The timetable that President Bush laid out is now the timetable that President Obama has followed.  Him doing a victory lap on President Bush’s wisdom and judgment in this regard is an embarrassment.” [Hannity Radio Show, 12/14/11] 

• OCTOBER 2011: Romney Attacked President Obama Over His Decision To Withdraw Troops From Iraq Calling It “Naked Political Calculation.”  Mitt Romney issued the following statement on President Obama’s decision to withdraw troops from Iraq: “President Obama’s astonishing failure to secure an orderly transition in Iraq has unnecessarily put at risk the victories that were won through the blood and sacrifice of thousands of American men and women. The unavoidable question is whether this decision is the result of a naked political calculation or simply sheer ineptitude in negotiations with the Iraqi government. The American people deserve to hear the recommendations that were made by our military commanders in Iraq.” [Romney For President, 10/21/11]

REALITY: ROMNEY WANTED TO LEAVE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF TROOPS IN IRAQ

Romney Said The President Made Iraq "More Fragile And More Dangerous" By Not Leaving 20,000-30,000 Troops There.  Romney: “We have Iraq, right now, more fragile than it was. How in the world the president was incapable and unwilling to exert the personal effort to put in place a status of forces agreement which would provide protection for our troops while they were in Iraq and then leave at least ten to twenty or thirty thousand behind to help in the transition beyond me. And so we’ve made Iraq more fragile and more dangerous by virtue of his failure to put in place a status of forces agreement.” [Romney Town Hall, Mason City IA, 12/29/11]

Romney Said That The U.S. “Has Pulled Our Troops Out In A Precipitous Way” And Should Have Left 30,000 Troops To “Help Transition To The Iraqis’ Own Military Capabilities.” Romney: “We're, of course, very happy to see our troops come out. But I think you're going to see another lesson learned. I think we're going to find that this president by not putting in place a status in forces agreement with the Iraqi leadership has pulled our troops out in a precipitous way and we should have left 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 personnel there to help transition to the Iraqis' own military capabilities. I'm very concerned in this setting. I hope it works out. But I'm concerned. [Fox News Sunday, 12/18/11]

REALITY: ROMNEY’S FOREIGN POLICY WHITE PAPER DIDN’T PROPOSE A CLEAR STRATEGY FOR IRAQ

Romney’s Foreign Policy White Paper Portion On Iraq Said Only That It Would Be “Impossible To Forecast What Conditions In Iraq Will Confront The Next American President” And He Would Use “The Broad Array Of Our Foreign-Policy Tools” To Establish A Lasting Relationship With Iraq. “In light of these developments, it is impossible to forecast what conditions in Iraq will confront the next American president in January 2013. Mitt Romney will enter office seeking to use the broad array of our foreign-policy tools — diplomatic, economic, and military — to establish a lasting relationship with Iraq and guarantee that Baghdad remains a solid partner in a volatile and strategically vital region.” [Romney’s Foreign Policy White Paper, 10/7/11]

REALITY: ROMNEY DIDN’T PUT FORTH A PLAN FOR IRAQ IN HIS FOREIGN POLICY SPEECH AND MENTIONED 11 COUNTRIES MORE THAN IRAQ

Romney’s Single Iraq Reference: “Over 1400 of your alumni have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere fighting the war against terrorism.  And sixteen have paid the ultimate price.” [Transcript Of Romney's Foreign Policy Speech, 10/7/11]

• Countries Mentioned More Than Iraq: Afghanistan (3), Iran (6), Israel (6), Pakistan (2), China (2), Russia (2), Venezuela (3), Cuba (4), Mexico (2), United Kingdom (3), and Greece (2).

Read More

ROMNEY’S TAX PLAN WOULD CUT TAXES FOR THE WEALTHY AND RAISE TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS

Romney’s Tax Plan Constitutes A Major Tax Cut For Wealthy Americans And Proposes Effective Tax Increases For People Making Less Than $40,000 Compared To Current Tax Rates. “The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center crunched the numbers — part of a series of analyses the group has done of the GOP candidates’ tax proposals — and found that the plan constitutes a major tax cut for wealthy Americans. But compared to today’s rates, Romney proposes effective tax increases for people making less than $40,000.” [Talking Points Memo, 1/15/12]

Almost Half (49 Percent) Of Romney's Tax Breaks Go To Families Making More Than $1 Million A Year-The Top 0.4 Percent Of Households. These Families Get An Average Of $146,000 Each. [Tax Policy Center, Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan, 1/5/12]

Romney’s Plan Would End Middle Class Tax Credits, And Many Of The Bottom 80% Would Pay More.  Because Romney ends middle class tax credits for college, children, and earned income, most families in the middle get no help or actually pay more. On average they get only $138-less than $3 a week. In fact, the bottom 80 percent of families would get only 5 percent of the help, and many would end up paying more. [Tax Policy Center, Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan, 1/5/12]

To Deliver These Regressive Tax Cuts, The Plan Drives Up The Deficit By $180 Billion In 2015 Alone. [Tax Policy Center, Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan, 1/5/12]

ROMNEY WOULD LET TAX PROGRAMS HELPING THE MIDDLE CLASS EXPIRE…

Romney’s Plan Would Allow Tax Provision In The 2009 Recovery Act To Expire, Including The “American Opportunity Tax Credit For Higher Education, The Expanded Refundability Of The Child Credit, And The Expansion Of The EITC.” “Tax  provisions in the 2009 stimulus act and subsequently extended through 2012 would expire. These include the American Opportunity tax credit for higher education, the expanded refundability of the child credit,  and the expansion of the earned income tax credit (EITC).” [Tax Policy Center, Romney Plan Analysis, 1/5/12]

…RESULTING IN A TAX PLAN WOULD RAISE TAXES ON LOWER-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS

Romney’s Tax Plan, Compared To Current Policy, Would Increase Taxes For Those Making Under $40,000. Romney’s tax plan would increase taxes for those making less than $10,000 by $112. For those making $10,000 to $20,000, their taxes would raise $191. For those between $20,000 to $30,000 their taxes would increase $126. And for those making between $30,000 and $40,000, their taxes would increase by $14. Each income level’s income levels after-tax would decrease 1.9, 1.2, 0.5, and 0.0 percent respectively. [Tax Policy Center, Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan By Cash Income Level (Baseline: Current Policy), 1/5/12]

Romney’s Tax Plan, Compared To Current Policy, Would Increase Taxes For The Lowest Quintile Group Of Households By 69.7%. Romney’s tax plan would increase taxes by $157 for the lowest income quintile of households, increases taxes by 69.7%. [Tax Policy Center, Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan By Cash Income Percentile (Baseline: Current Policy), 1/5/12]

Romney’s Tax Plan, Compared To Current Policy, Would Increase Taxes On Married Tax Units Filing Jointly For Those Making Less Than $50,000. Romney’s tax plan would increases taxes on married units filing jointly for those making less than $50,000. A family filing jointly and making between $50,000 to $40,000 would see a $125 tax increase. A married unit making from $40,000 to $30,000 would see a tax increase of $236. [Tax Policy Center, Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan Married Tax Units Filing Jointly (Baseline: Current Policy), 1/5/12]

• Married Units Filing Together, And Making Between $30,000 and $20,000 Would See Their Taxes Increased By 90.8% Compared To Current Policy. [Tax Policy Center, Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan Married Tax Units Filing Jointly (Baseline: Current Policy), 1/5/12]

Romney’s Tax Plan, Compared To Current Policy, Would Raise Taxes For Tax Units With Children Making Less Than $75,000. Under Romney’s tax plan, tax units with children making less than $75,000 but more than $50,000 would see an average tax change of $60. For Tax units with children making between $50 and $40,000, they would see an average tax increase of $292. For families between thirty and forty thousand, the tax increase would be $352. [Tax Policy Center, Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan Married Tax Units Filing Jointly (Baseline: Current Policy), 1/5/12]

Romney’s Tax Plan, Compared To Current Policy, Would Increase Taxes By 65.6% For Households Earning Less Than $20,000. Romney’s plan would increase taxes for households making less than $20,000 by $191, or a 65.6% increase. The lowest level of households, those making less than $10,000, would see their taxes increased by 68.9% [Tax Policy Center, Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan By Cash Income Level (Baseline: Current Policy), 1/5/12]

…WHILE INSTITUTING POLICIES GEARED TOWARDS HIGHER-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS AND CORPORATIONS

Romney’s Tax Plan Would Permanently Extend The Bush Tax Cuts While Also Repealing “Certain Tax Provisions In The 2010 Health Reform Legislation.” “Governor Romney would permanently extend all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts now scheduled to expire in 2013 and continue to “patch” the alternative minimum tax, but would allow some recently enacted provisions to expire and would repeal certain tax provisions in the 2010 health reform legislation.” [Tax Policy Center, Romney Plan Analysis, 1/5/12]

Romney’s Plan Would Eliminate Tax On Long-Term Capital Gains, Dividends And Interest Incomes For Families Earning Under $200,000, While Repealing The Federal Estate Tax. “The plan would also eliminate tax on long-term capital gains, dividends, and interest income for married couples filing jointly with income under $200,000 ($100,000 for single filers and $150,000 for heads of household) and repeal the federal estate tax, while continuing the gift tax with a maximum tax rate of 35 percent.” [Tax Policy Center, Romney Plan Analysis, 1/5/12]

Romney’s Tax Plan Would Cut Corporate Tax From 35 Percent To 25 Percent, Making Research Credit Permanent, And Extend The Full Expensing Of Capital Expenditures. “At the corporate level, the Romney plan would make two major changes: 1) reduce the corporate income tax rate from 35 to 25 percent and 2) make the research and experimentation credit permanent and extend for one year the full expensing of capital expenditures.” [Tax Policy Center, Romney Plan Analysis, 1/5/12]

Romney’s Tax Plan Would Allow A Tax Holiday For The Repatriation Of Corporate Profits Overseas, But Does Not Specify At What Rate. “It would also allow a “tax holiday” for the repatriation of corporate profits held overseas but does not specify whether repatriated earnings would face any tax (and, if so, at what rate).” [Tax Policy Center, Romney Plan Analysis, 1/5/12]

Romney’s Long Term Tax Plan Would “Reduce The Corporate Rate Further” While Broadening The Tax Base And “Would Move The Corporate Tax To A Territorial System.” “In the longer run, Gov. Romney would reduce the corporate rate further in conjunction with base broadening and simplification and would move the corporate tax to a territorial system.” [Tax Policy Center, Romney Plan Analysis, 1/5/12]

Romney Would Permanently Repeal The 0.9 Tax On Wages And The 3.8 Percent Tax On Investment Income Imposed On Higher-Income Taxpayers Imposed By The 2010 Health Reform Legislation. “Gov. Romney would also permanently repeal the 0.9 percent tax on wages and the 3.8 percent tax on investment income of high-income individual taxpayers that were imposed by the 2010 health reform legislation and are scheduled to take effect in 2013.” [Tax Policy Center, Romney Plan Analysis, 1/5/12]

…RESULTING IN MASSIVE TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY

Romney’s Tax Plan, Compared To Current Policy, Would Cut Taxes An Average Of $82,188 For Those In The Top 1 Percent, And By $464,005 For The Top 0.1 Percent – Cuts Of 14.2% and 16.8%. Households with incomes in the top 1 Percent would see a tax cut of 14.2% or an average of $82,188. Households with incomes in the top 0.1 Percent would have a tax cut of 16.8%, or an average cut of $464,005. Their after-tax income would increase 6.1 and 8.3 respectively. [Tax Policy Center, Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan By Cash Income Percentile (Baseline: Current Policy), 1/5/12]

Romney’s Tax Plan, Compared To Current Policy, Would Cut Taxes By 15.1 Percent For Millionaires, Or An Average Cut Of $145,568. Under Romney’s plan, those making over $1,000,000 would see an average tax cut of $145,568. Their income after-tax would rise by 6.9 percent, and their average federal tax rate would decrease by 15.1%. [Tax Policy Center, Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan By Cash Income Level (Baseline: Current Policy), 1/5/12]

ROMNEY ALREADY ADMITTED HE WASN’T INTERESTED IN HELPING MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES

Romney: “Actually, I'm Not Looking To Put Money In People's Pockets. That's The Other Party. I Am Interested In Lowering The Tax Burden That Gets Taken Out Of Your Pockets. I Don't Want You To Have To Pay More And More To Government.” [Romney At Nationwide Insurance Meet & Greet, 11/23/11]

Romney Admitted His Capital Gains Tax Cut For The Middle Class Was “Not A Huge Tax Cut.”  Wallace: “But the argument is middle class people can't afford, they don't have enough money to have a lot of capital gains and dividends.” Romney: “Look, I recognize it's not a huge tax cut. It is a tax reduction and it allows middle-income folks to participate in making a brighter future for themselves and for saving. And you're going to find in this country that if there's no tax on savings, middle-income people are going to take advantage of that to save for college, to save for retirement, to save for things that they want. And saying, look, let's provide that same break to the high income people, that costs a lot of money, and is really not a tax cut that's needed there.” [Fox News Sunday, 12/18/11]

Read More

ROMNEY CRITICIZED OBAMA FOR IMPOSING TARIFFS ON CHINESE TIRES CALLING IT “PROTECTIONISM”

Romney: Obama’s Chinese Tire Tariffs Are “Bad For The Nation And Our Workers” And Called It “Protectionism.”  “President Obama’s action to defend American tire companies from foreign competition may make good politics by repaying unions for their support of his campaign, but it is decidedly bad for the nation and our workers. Protectionism stifles productivity.” [Romney, No Apology (Case for American Greatness), Page 119 (audio available)]

…THEN CLAIMED THAT HE WOULD IMPOSE TARIFFS ON CHINA

Romney Said He Would Clamp Down On China By Designating Them A Currency Manipulator And Which “Allows Us To Apply Tariffs.” In an interview with Mitt Romney, Greta Van Susteren asked, “So what's sort of the mechanics of your clamping down on China?” Romney, “Well, first of all is to designate China as a currency manipulator, which allows us to apply tariffs to goods where we think their manipulation is having the greatest impact, and particularly in places where they're stealing our intellectual property. And you know, that means our patents, our designs, our know-how, where they are stealing, where they're hacking into our computer systems or where they're doing -- as we saw the other day, selling out of stores, Apple stores, apparently, Apple goods, and they weren't really legitimate Apple stores or legitimate Apple goods. Look, when that sort of thing is happening, we have to take corrective action. You can't just sit there and take that year after year. America has to say that if you're going to enter into an agreement with this country that we expect you to live by it. And right now, they're selling to America a multiple of what we sell to them, and that's not something that can go on forever. It's clearly the result of currency manipulation. That's got to end. And tariff and currency manipulator status is one way to do that.” [On The Record With Greta Van Susteren, Fox, 9/6/11]

Romney Said He Would Put Tariffs On China “If They Don’t Abide By The Rules.” In an interview with Mitt Romney, Larry Kudlow asked what Romney’s corrective actions would be on China.  Romney said, “Well, you take a--when you negotiate, you let them know that you're willing to take whatever action is necessary, and that would include, for instance, if they've stolen intellectual property on a particular series of goods that you're going to put tariffs on their products if they don't abide by the rules.” [Kudlow Report, CNBC, 9/6/11]

AUGUST 2011: WHEN ROMNEY DECIDED HE WOULD SUDDENLY GET TOUGH ON CHINA AFTER CRITICIZING THE PRESIDENT FOR ENFORCING TRADE LAWS, HE DUMPED BETWEEN $700,000-1.5 MILLION OF HIS INVESTMENTS IN CHINA

Romney’s Financial Advisers In Charge Of His Blind Trusts Sold All Of Romney’s Investments In China After Mid-August, About The Time Romney Made “Confronting China” On Trade Part Of His Economic Platform. “Mitt Romney's financial advisers shed all his investments in China, worth as much as $1.5 million, at some point after mid-August, about the time that Mr. Romney made ‘confronting China’ on trade a central plank of his economic platform as a Republican presidential candidate. The investments were held in blind trusts for Mr. Romney and his wife, Ann, according to his most recent financial-disclosure forms filed with election officials in mid-August. His campaign said that the former Massachusetts governor did not make investment decisions related to the trusts, and that his financial advisers tried to keep his portfolio consistent with his beliefs.” [Wall Street Journal, 12/17/11]

Romney Acquired Investments In Chinese Enterprises Like China Merchant Holdings And Industrial & Commercial Bank Of China, Worth $700,000 To $1.5 Million Sometime After His First Presidential Campaign. “The blind trusts for Mr. and Mrs. Romney held investments in Chinese enterprises worth from $700,000 to $1.5 million, according to the disclosure forms. They included holdings in China's largest port operator, China Merchant Holdings; its largest commercial bank, Industrial & Commercial Bank of China; and a for-profit Chinese education company that was sued by a U.S. testing company for allegedly stealing copyrighted material. The U.S. company won a court award in Beijing. The investments don't appear in financial-disclosure forms that Mr. Romney filed in 2007 for his 2008 presidential campaign, suggesting they were acquired after that. Campaign officials said that they were sold within the last couple of months.” [Wall Street Journal, 12/17/11]

Read More

ROMNEY PROMOTED THE SWISS AND FRENCH CO-INSURANCE MODEL

Romney Touted Switzerland’s Co-Insurance Health Care Model As “Something The States Might Want To Look At.”  “In the interview yesterday, Romney said there are policies of European nations that could be worth considering in the United States. Switzerland, he said, has a health care model where people pay about 20 percent of their medical bills, giving them an incentive to consider cost when making medical decisions. ‘I'm not going to adopt a Swiss health care system, but the power of incentives in a co-insurance model that the Swiss have is something states might want to look at,’ he said. ‘So there are many things, in addition to good food, that we can learn from our European friends. But what I don't want is to adopt a strategy of ever-shrinking government support of the military and ever-increasing support for government programs.’” [Editorial Board Interview With Romney, Concord Monitor, 12/23/11]

Romney Touted The Co-Insurance Model Used By The French And Swiss Where Individuals Are Responsible For 20 Percent Of Their Adding “You Care How Much The Bill Is Because You Aren’t Just Going To Pay The First $1,000, You Pay 20%.” “Believe it or not, the French and the Swiss have some ideas that might be relevant. They have something called co-insurance; you are responsible for 20% of your hospital bill in France. So you care how much the bill is because you aren’t just going to pay the first $1000, you pay 20%. I understand for the poor they don’t charge that 20%, and if its an emergency they don’t charge that 20%, but if you have time to shop around they want you to shop around.” [Portsmouth Herald Editoril Board Interview, 11/3/11]

Romney: “Give People A Stake In What The Cost Of Insurance Is Going To Be, What The Cost Of It Is Going To Be. Co-Insurance, Where People Pay A Share Of The Bill, That Makes A Difference.” [Republican Primary Debate, CNN/Tea Party, 9/12/11]

Romney: “I’d Like To See Us Open Doors For Something Like Coinsurance, Not Copay, Coinsurance.” “And I want to get health care to work more like a market. You’re in the insurance business and you’ll appreciate this. For those of you not, hopefully you’ll get my analogy here. Right now health care insurance is a bit like the following: what would happen if they told you, you could have any car you want, you pay a thousand dollars down, a thousand dollar deductible. You put a thousand dollars in and after that it’s free and the salesman tells you that the car gets a commission based on the more you spend. So think of that, you can have whatever car you want for a thousand dollars down, why you’d all be propping Ferraris, Lincolns, Rolls Royce’s. So that’s a bit of what we have in health care. We really don’t have it working like a market with a consumer and a provider have an incentive to keep costs down. I’d like to see us open doors for something like coinsurance, not copay, coinsurance and try some of these ideas on a state by state level.” [Romney Town Hall, Littleton NH, 8/16/11]

ROMNEY’S PLAN TO MAKE PEOPLE PAY 20 PERCENT FOR MEDICAL EXPENSES WOULD COST THE AVERAGE AMERICAN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IF THEY GOT SICK

Consumers Union Policy Analyst: “Ten Or 20 Percent May Not Sound Like Much, But 20 Percent Of A $100,000 Surgery Is A Lot Of Money.”  “Because of the confusion involving co-pay and co-insurance, many patients don’t realize just how much it may cost them until they become seriously ill or are hospitalized, said Lynn Quincy, a senior policy analyst at Consumers Union. ‘Ten or 20 percent may not sound like much, but 20 percent of a $100,000 surgery is a lot of money,’ she said.” [New York Times Health, 7/9/10]

COST FOR CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS SURGERY = $46,500 FOR WOMEN - $31,100 FOR  MEN

2008: Average Cost of A Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Was $232,600 For Women And $155,571 For Men. [Nevada Compare Care, Report 2008]

• With Romney’s Coinsurance Plan Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Would Cost The Average American $46,520 - $31,114.

COST FOR A BACK SURGERY = $20,000 - $33,800

The Direct Cost For A Back Surgery Cost From $100,000 To $169,000. “The costs of back surgeries are among the most expensive, and these costs do not include hospitalization, imaging, drugs or medications: ‘Anterior cervical fusion: $44,000 Cervical fusion: $19,850 Decompression back surgery: $24,000 Lumbar laminectomy: $18,000 Lumbar spinal fusion: $34,500’ Deyo found that the mean hospital costs alone for surgical decompression and complex fusions ranged from $23,724 for the former to $80,888 for the latter. When combined with surgical costs, medications, MRIs, rehab, and disability, every spine surgery case approaches $100,000 or more. The direct costs are astronomical and may reach as high as $169,000 for a lumbar fusion, and for a cervical fusion as high as $112,480.” [J.C. Smith MA, DC, Dynamic Chiropractic, 4/9/11]

• With Romney’s Coinsurance Plan Back Surgery Would Cost The Average American $20,000 - $33,800.

ANNUAL COST FOR DIALYSIS TREATMENT= $15,000 - $20,000

The Annual Cost Dialysis For People With Kidney Disease Reaches To $75,000 To $100,000 Per Patient. “About 400,000 Americans undergo dialysis, with the annual cost of treating end-stage kidney disease sufferers reaching $75,000 to $100,000 per patient, Chertow said. The study was reported today at the American Society of Nephrology meeting in Denver. More sessions may be costlier and inconvenient for patients, and spur companies led by DaVita Inc., the biggest U.S. dialysis provider, and Renal Advantage Inc., to expand.  [Bloomberg, 11/20/10]

• With Romney’s Coinsurance Plan Dialysis Would Cost The Average American $15,000 - $20,000 Annually.

COST FOR TWO YEARS OF BREAST CANCER TREATMENT = $4,500 - $23,400

Cost Of Breast Cancer Treatment Within Two Years Of Diagnosis Ranged From $22,343 To $117,033 Dependant On Local, Regional And Distant Brest Cancers. “Administrative data from the North Carolina Medicaid program linked with cancer registry data were analyzed to derive monthly Medicaid costs for cancer patients and the incremental costs of breast cancer treatment at 6, 12, and 24 months from diagnosis. We compared 848 beneficiaries diagnosed with cancer during the years 2002 to 2004 with 1696 comparison cases matched on age. With the exception of in situ cancers, the cost of cancer care continued to increase beyond the initial 6-month period. The incremental costs at 6 months after diagnosis are $14,341, $24,002, and $34,469 for those with local, regional, and distant breast cancers, respectively; and these costs increased to $22,343, $41,005, and $117,033 at 24 months.” [Subramanian et al, RTI International Study, January 2011]

• With Romney’s Coinsurance Plan Two Years Of Breast Cancer Treatment Would Cost The Average American $4,468 - $23,406.

COINSURANCE IS SOMETHING ONLY THE WEALTHY CAN AFFORD

“In The 1960s Only The Poor Could Not Afford Coinsurance. Today, Only The Wealthy Can Afford It.” “In the 1960s, only the poor could not afford coinsurance. Today, only the wealthy can afford it. Public discussion of the introduction of coinsurance for tier 4 drugs has centered thus far on the sticker shock experienced by individual patients whose costs for essential treatments have skyrocketed.” [Lee & Emanuel, New England Journal of Medicine, 7/24/08]

Coinsurance Out-Of-Pocket Expenses Usually Far Exceed What Patients Who Rely On The Insurance Can Bear. “‘Coinsurance’ is a different animal. Instead of a fixed amount, patients are charged a percentage — often 20 to 33% — of the overall costs of ‘tier 4’ medications such as biologic agents. Patients who require these drugs are unlucky to begin with, and the out-of-pocket expenses usually far exceed what their budgets can bear.” [Lee & Emanuel, New England Journal of Medicine, 7/24/08]

Health Care Specialist: With Coinsurance “Costs Could Quickly Climb For More Expensive Visits And Procedures.” “One big change, [healthcare specialist in the Stamford, Conn., office of the benefits consulting firm Watson Wyatt, Thomas] Billet says, is that many more employers have changed their coverage so that instead of a co-pay (say, $20 for an office visit) one now has to pay a percentage of the cost (a ‘coinsurance model’). At 20% coinsurance -- a typical rate -- a patient's share of a $150 doctor's office visit would go up to $30 from $20. But costs could quickly climb for more expensive visits and procedures.” [Los Angeles Times, 10/12/09]

A Move To Coinsurance Could Leave People Owing Hundreds Of Dollars The Day Of Their Visit To The Doctor. “A move by a growing number of physicians to ask patients to pay their full share of an office visit (the co-pay, the deductible if still not met, and any coinsurance) on the day of the appointment could catch many consumers by surprise. Say the coinsurance is 20%; an office visit with a $75 strep test could cost an extra $15 on top of a $20 co-pay. It could cost the full $95 if the deductible hasn't been met. Similarly, having a complete physical before a deductible is paid up could make you responsible for hundreds of dollars on the day of the visit.” [Los Angeles Times, 2/2/09]

THE HIGH COST OF ROMNEY’S PLAN COULD PREVENT AMERICANS FROM GETTING CARE

New York Times: High Co-Insurance And Other Out-Of-Pocket Costs Can Sometimes Discourage Patients From Receiving The Treatment They Need. “High co-insurance and other out-of-pocket costs, including insurance premiums, can sometimes discourage patients from receiving the treatment they need.” [New York Times Health, 7/9/10]

Enirqueta Dickens Saw Her Coinsurance Costs Rise Wildly For Diabetes Check-Ups To $100 Out-Of-Pocket And Decided “She Would Simply Stop Getting Checkups.” “Enriqueta Dickens, 70, a legal immigrant from Honduras, described how she lost a portion of her coverage and saw her coinsurance costs rise wildly for diabetes check-ups: $100, out of pocket, to get her blood tested at a teaching hospital. She had a made a decision that felt coldly rational: She would simply stop getting checkups. `I don't worry about it anymore,' Dickens told the group. `I'm gonna die from something, so . . . ' She threw up her hands.” [Boston Globe, 11/21/10]

Coinsurance And High Deductibles Effectively Serves To Ration Health Care By Income Class. Uwe Reinhardt, Professor of political economy, Princeton University wrote in an op-ed: “Therefore, the solution policymakers will adopt is a wholesale undoing of health insurance through health insurance policies with very high deductibles and coinsurance, which effectively serve to ration health care by income class. It will be fascinating to watch Americans squirm and whine under this new, new thing when it really begins to bite.” [Uwe Reinhardt Op-ed, Chicago Tribune, 9/9/06]

ROMNEY SAID HE WOULD CONSIDER A VALUE-ADDED TAX

Romney Said He Could Support A Value-Added Tax As A Replacement For Part Of The Tax Code. “Since Mr. Romney mentioned a consumption tax, would he rule out a value-added tax? He says he doesn't ‘like the idea’ of layering a VAT onto the current income tax system. But he adds that, philosophically speaking, a VAT might work as a replacement for some part of the tax code, ‘particularly at the corporate level,’ as Paul Ryan proposed several years ago. What he doesn't do is rule a VAT out.” [Interview, Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, 12/24/11]

Cato Institute’s Daniel J. Mitchell Criticized Romney For Considering A Value-Added Tax, Saying A VAT-Supporter “Should Not Be Allowed Anywhere Near The White House.” Mitchell: “Simply stated, this is an awful tax. If it ever gets implemented in the United States, the battle will be over. America will descend to European-style stagnation, eventually leading to fiscal crisis. Any politician that supports a VAT (or even hints at supporting a VAT) should not be allowed anywhere near the White House. That applies to Mitt Romney.” [Forbes, 12/24/11]

Cato Institute’s Daniel J. Mitchell: “Mitt Romney Won't Rule Out The Possibility Of Imposing A Tax That's The Fast Track To A European Welfare State.” [Mitchell Op-Ed, Wall Street Journal, 1/4/12]

• Cato Institute’s Daniel J. Mitchell Warned That If Romney, “A VAT Sympathizer,” Wins And Institutes A Value-Added Tax, It Would Be “A Terrible Deal For Taxpayers.” Mitchell: “But what if a VAT sympathizer like Mr. Romney wins next November and decides that his plan for a lower corporate tax rate is only possible if accompanied by a VAT? There will be quite a few Republicans who like that idea because they want to do something nice for their lobbyist friends in the business community. And there will be many Democrats drawn to the plan because they realize that they need this new source of revenue to enable bigger government. That's a win-win deal for politicians and a terrible deal for taxpayers.” [Mitchell Op-Ed, Wall Street Journal, 1/4/12]
• Cato Institute’s Daniel J. Mitchell Warned Of Romney’s Support For A Value-Added Tax, Saying Some Republicans Would Be Attracted To A Lower Corporate Tax Rate Accompanied By A VAT Because It Would Be “Nice For Their Lobbyist Friends In The Business Community.” Mitchell: “But what if a VAT sympathizer like Mr. Romney wins next November and decides that his plan for a lower corporate tax rate is only possible if accompanied by a VAT? There will be quite a few Republicans who like that idea because they want to do something nice for their lobbyist friends in the business community.” [Mitchell Op-Ed, Wall Street Journal, 1/4/12]

Read More

Romney Said “Absolutely” He Would Have Supported An Amendment To The Massachusetts Constitution That Would Have Established Life At Conception. Huckabee: “Would you have supported the constitutional amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception?” Romney: “Absolutely.” [Huckabee, Fox, 10/1/11]

• A Personhood Amendment, Like The One Proposed In Mississippi, Could Have An Impact On A Woman’s Ability To Get Various Forms Of Birth Control Including A Number Of Birth Control Pills And The Morning After Pill.  “Though the text of the amendment is simple, the implications if it passes couldn't be more complex. If approved by Mississippi voters on Tuesday, it would make it impossible to get an abortion and hamper the ability to get some forms of birth control. Because the amendment would define a fertilized egg as a person with full legal rights, it could have an impact on a woman's ability to get the morning-after pill or birth control pills that destroy fertilized eggs, and it could make in vitro fertilization treatments more difficult because it could become illegal to dispose of unused fertilized eggs.” [CNN, 11/4/11]

Read More

ROMNEY FLIP-FLOPPED ON KILLING OSAMA BIN LADEN

FLIP: 2007: Romney: “It’s Not Worth Moving Heaven And Earth And Spending Billions Of Dollars Just Trying To Catch One Person.” Romney said he doubts whether the capture of Osama bin Laden would substantially impact American security. Romney said, "It’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person." He argued that the country would be safer by only "a small percentage" and would see "a very insignificant increase in safety." Rather that targeting bin Laden, he said he supports a broader strategy to defeat the global Islamic jihad movement. [Associated Press, 4/27/07]

FLIP: Romney On Taking Action Against Terrorists In Pakistan: “You Can Be Sure We Would Take Necessary Action” But Wouldn’t Talk About It. Romney said, “You can be sure we would take necessary action to get Osama bin Laden, but I would certainly not say something which would tend to incite people in Pakistan against the leadership that country. You can anticipate that we have a close relationship with General Musharraf and that that relationship would continue. But we don’t talk about taking unilateral action and bombing people who are our allies and our friends.” [Fox News, 8/17/07]

FLIP: Romney On Taking Action Against Terrorists In Pakistan: “I Do Not Concur In The Words Of Barack Obama To Enter An Ally Of Ours.”  Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticized Democrat Barack Obama on Friday for vowing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan if necessary as the Obama camp issued a strident defense of his plan. What had been an internecine foreign policy battle between rival Democrats Obama, an Illinois senator, and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, spilled into the Republican arena in the heavily contested state of Iowa. ‘I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally of ours... I don’t think those kinds of comments help in this effort to draw more friends to our effort,’ Romney told reporters on the campaign trail. Obama on Wednesday said if elected president in November 2008 he would be willing to launch military strikes against al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan with or without the approval of the Pakistani government of President Pervez Musharraf. ‘If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will,’ Obama said.”  [Reuters, 8/4/07]

FLOP: 2011: Romney Said That “Any President” Would Have Given The Order To Take Out Osama Bin Laden.” Romney: “With regards to Osama bin Laden, we're delighted that he gave the order to take out Osama bin Laden, any president would have done that. But this one did and that's a good thing.” [Fox News Sunday, 12/18/11] 

ROMNEY FLIP-FLOPPED ON REMOVING QADDAFI

FLIP: Romney Attacked Obama For Calling For The Removal Of Qaddafi Saying “Who’s Going To Own Libya If We Get Rid Of The Government There?” “During remarks in New Hampshire in last month, Mitt Romney accused President Obama of ‘mission muddle’ for expanding United States operations in Libya beyond enforcing a no-fly zone to a wider goal of preventing Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi from attacking his own people. ‘Now the president is saying we have to remove Qaddafi,’ Mr. Romney said at the time, adding, ‘Who’s going to own Libya if we get rid of the government there?’” [New York Times, 8/22/11]

FLOP: Romney Said “The World Celebrates The Removal Of Qaddafi.” “But on Monday evening, as the rebels surged through Tripoli, Mr. Romney told Neil Cavuto of Fox Business Network that ‘the world celebrates the idea of getting rid of Qaddafi.’ And instead of assessing Mr. Obama’s actions, he called on a new Libyan government to extradite the man convicted in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.” [New York Times, 8/22/11]

ROMNEY FLIP-FLOPPED ON SETTING TIMETABLES FOR AFGHANISTAN WITHDRAWAL

FLIP: Romney Criticized President Obama’s Announcement Of A Troop Withdrawal Timeline In Afghanistan Saying “The Taliban May Not Have Watches, But They Do Have Calendars.” “Romney praised the decision to send additional troops to Afghanistan, but criticized President Obama’s announcement of when troops will withdraw. ‘The Taliban may not have watches, but they do have calendars,’ Romney said.” [Boston Globe, 6/3/11]

FLOP: Romney: “The Generals Actually Concur With The Idea That We Should Bring Down The Surge Troops And Ultimately By 2014, Take Our Footprint - Our Large Combat Footprint Out Of Afghanistan, That’s Something With Which I Concur.” On Moring Joe, Mitt Romney said: “The generals actually concur with the idea that we should bring down the surge troops, and ultimately by 2014, take our footprint -- our large combat footprint out of Afghanistan, that's something with which I concur.” [Morning Joe, MSNBC, 9/28/11]

ROMNEY FLIP-FLOPPED ON WITHDRAWING TROOPS FROM AFGHANISTAN

FLIP: Romney: “It Is My Desire And My Political Party’s Desire To Support The People Of Afghanistan And Not To Leave.” “Although the media have not been invited to his events, a glimpse into Romney’s thinking was provided by an individual who attended the meeting between Romney and the young Afghans and who allowed a reporter to view a video of the event. At one point, Romney said he supports a longer-term US presence in Afghanistan and asked Afghans for their own suggestions about how the United States can help overcome the raging insurgency and endemic corruption here. President Obama’s administration has said it plans to begin reducing the number of US troops in July with the goal of handing over security to the Afghans by the end of 2014. ‘It is my desire and my political party’s desire to support the people of Afghanistan and not to leave,’ Romney said in response to a question about whether the United States was going to pull out of the country soon. ‘So we look to you to tell us the best ways that we can support you.’” [Boston Globe, 1/14/11]

FLOP: Romney’s Went Middle Of The Road On President Obama’s Announcement Of Troop Reductions In Afghanistan Saying “We All Want Out Troops To Come Home As Soon As Possible.” “Some of the leading Republican presidential candidates offered dramatically different reactions to President Obama’s announcement of troop reductions in Afghanistan, a reflection of the schism in the Republican Party over the future of the war… Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, is somewhere in the middle. In a statement, Mr. Romney said that ‘we all want our troops to come home as soon as possible,’ but he stopped short of praising Mr. Obama’s speech.” [New York Times, 6/23/11]

• Romney Said Of Afghanistan: “I Also Think We’ve Learned That Our Troops Shouldn’t Go Off And Try To Fight A War Of Independence For Another Nation.” At the New Hampshire Republican primary debate Romney said of Afghanistan: “I also think we've learned that our troops shouldn't go off and try and fight a war of independence for another nation. Only the Afghanis can win Afghanistan's independence from the Taliban.” [New Hampshire Debate, 6/13/11]

ROMNEY FLIP-FLOPPED ON BUSH’S HANDLING OF IRAQ

FLIP: Romney On Iraq Plan: I Would Not Presume To Do It Differently From Bush. O’REILLY: Now, on the same poll it gave Bush’s 44 percent approval said that more than 60 percent of Americans think he is screwing up Iraq and has no plan. Do you have a plan in Iraq? ROMNEY: Well, I wouldn’t presume to present a plan different than that of the president. But I can tell you that I believe he was right to take the war on terror on an aggressive front rather than a defensive front.” [O’Reilly Factor, FNC, 9/27/06]

FLOP: Romney: The Iraq War After Hussein Was Captured Was “Undermanaged, Underprepared, Underplanned, Understaffed.” Romney said, “It was the right decision to go into Iraq. I supported it at the time; I support it now. It was not well managed in the -- after the takedown of Saddam Hussein and his military. That was done brilliantly, an extraordinary success. But in the years that followed, it was not well -- we were undermanaged, underprepared, underplanned, understaffed, and then we come into the phase that we have now.” [GOP Debate, 1/24/08]

Read More

Romney's So-Called Job Creation Record at Bain Continues to Evolve...

1994: ROMNEY CLAIMED HE “HELPED CREATE” OVER 10,000 JOBS

Romney Said He “Helped Create” Over 10,000 Jobs At Bain. “’That's why I'm always very careful to use the words 'help create,' ‘ Romney acknowledged. ‘Bain Capital, or Mitt Romney, 'helped create' over 10,000 jobs. I don't take credit for the jobs at Staples. I helped create the jobs at Staples.’" [Boston Globe, 8/8/94]

LATER, ROMNEY CLAIMED HE CREATED “TENS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS NET-NET”

Romney Said That He Created “Tens Of Thousands Of Jobs, Net-Net.”  “Romney has focused on his Bain victories, including providing funding to help launch or grow Staples, Domino’s Pizza, and other household names. ‘When I was at Bain Capital, we invested in about 100 different companies. Not all of them worked,’’ he said earlier this month in a debate. ‘But I’m very proud of the fact that I learned about how you can be successful with an enterprise, why we lose jobs, how we gain jobs and overall, in those 100 businesses we invested in, tens of thousands of jobs, net-net, were created.’’ [Boston Globe, 8/21/11]

NOW, ROMNEY CLAIMS HE HELPED CREATE “OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND JOBS”

Romney Said That At Bain He Helped Create “Actually, Over A Hundred Thousands Of Jobs.” “Romney also questioned whether Gingrich understands how the economy works when asked about the former speaker’s suggestion earlier today that Romney give money back to businesses he’s profited from that have then gone bankrupt. ‘Doesn’t he understand how the economy works? In the real economy, some businesses succeed and some fail,” said Romney. “That’s how that works and you try and encourage the more successful and fortunately for many people, tens of thousands of jobs, actually over a hundred thousands of jobs were created by the investments that we were able to help make. ‘” [ABC News, 12/12/11; Romney Press Availability At Madison Lumber Mill, 12/12/11]

ROMNEY CANNOT SUBSTANTIATE HIS JOB CREATION CLAIMS

REALITY: IN 1994, ROMNEY ACKNOWLEDGED HE COULDN’T BACK UP HIS BAIN JOB CREATION CLAIMS

1994: Romney Acknowledged That There Was No Way To Determine Whether Jobs Had Been Lost Or Gained Economy-Wide Because Of His Ventures. “In a telephone interview late yesterday, Romney dismissed the characterization of Staples and his other investments as streamlining, saying that what he has done is ‘build and grow businesses,’ not shrink them. He asserted that there is no way to calculate whether jobs have been lost or gained economy-wide as a result of his ventures, and noted his 10,000-job figure simply measures what happened to employment at companies in which Bain invested. In a separate interview, Thomas Stemberg, Staples chairman and chief executive, acknowledged that there probably has been some job loss in the paper products business because of superstore companies, but said that the nation is still better off for their advent. Bain contributed 15 percent of the startup money for the Framingham-based company and, until the campaign, Romney sat on its board of directors.” [Boston Globe, 10/6/94]

Boston Globe: “It's Impossible To Say Precisely If More Jobs Were Created Than Cut By Bain Since The Firm Does Not Track Employment In Its Investments.” [Boston Globe, 1/27/08]

REALITY: ROMNEY HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS NUMBERS

Washington Post Fact Checker: Romney Campaign Has Not Provided Any Proof That Bain Created “Thousands Of Jobs” During Romney’s Tenure. “Neither Bain nor the Romney campaign has provided proof that the company created thousands of jobs during Romney’s tenure. His campaign simply mentioned a few start-ups such as Staples and Sports Authority that now employ tens of thousands of people on the whole. But that doesn’t account for possible job losses with other companies. For instance, we know from past news reports that Bain businesses, including Ampad, Dade International and LIVE Entertainment, laid off a combined 2,351 workers under Romney’s leadership. Romney’s record at Bain proves that he can produce enormous returns for investors, but that doesn’t necessarily prove he can create jobs.” [Fact Checker, Washington Post, 12/12/11]

Factcheck.org: Neither The Romney Campaign Nor Restore Our Future Super PAC, A Pro-Romney Group, Have Backed Up Claims That Romney Created “Thousands Of Jobs” While At Bain. From a fact check of Restore Our Future Super PAC’s first TV ad and Romney claims: “A pro-Romney TV spot running heavily in Iowa touts an unproven claim that the candidate ‘helped create thousands of jobs’ as CEO of an investment firm. When we asked the super PAC sponsoring the ad for proof of its claim, a spokeswoman said: ‘We aren’t supplying that information.’ And so far, neither is the Romney campaign. … Since Romney himself has claimed ‘in those 100 businesses we invested in, tens of thousands of jobs, net-net, were created,’ we also reached out to the Romney campaign for backup. But we did not get a response.” [Factcheck.org, 12/9/11]

REALITY: ROMNEY’S JOB CLAIMS ARE “UNPROVEN” “MISLEADING” AND DISHONEST

Factcheck.Org: “Mitt Romney Has Taken To Saying That He Created More Than 100,000 Net Jobs Through His Work In The Private Sector, And More Jobs As Governor Than President Obama Has Created Since Taking Office. But The First Claim Is Unproven, And The Second Is Misleading.” [FactCheck.org, 1/5/12]

New York Times’ Paul Krugman: “The Point Is That Mr. Romney’s Claims About Being A Job Creator Would Be Nonsense Even If He Were Being Honest About The Numbers, Which He Isn’t.” [Krugman, New York Times, 1/5/12]

BAIN CAPITAL MAXIMIZED PROFITS BY FIRING WORKERS AND CUTTING BENEFITS AND PENSIONS

Under Romney, Bain “Also Maximized Returns By Firing Workers, Seeking Government Subsidies, And Flipping Companies Quickly For Large Profits.” “But a closer examination of the prospectus paints a different picture of Bain's operation. Under Romney's leadership, Bain became one of the nation's top leveraged-buyout firms, helping lead a trend in which companies were acquired using debt often pledged against their own assets or earnings. Bain expanded many of the companies it acquired. But like other leveraged-buyout firms, Romney and his team also maximized returns by firing workers, seeking government subsidies, and flipping companies quickly for large profits. Sometimes Bain investors gained even when companies slid into bankruptcy.” [Los Angeles Times, 12/3/11]

Under Romney And Bain Capital, Dade And DuPont Workers Saw Pension Plans Cut And Were Not Paid For Overtime. “Cost-cutting became a mantra inside the company. After his employer, DuPont, was bought by Dade, William T. Mowrey, a field engineer, said his generous pension plan was replaced by a 401(k); his salary was cut by $1 an hour, costing him $2,000 a year in income. When he filed for overtime, he said, his new bosses refused to pay it. ‘They were just trying to milk as much out of us as they could,’ he said.” [New York Times, 11/13/11]

• Under Romney And Bain Capital, Good Paying Jobs – Some Paying More Than $80,000 A Year—Were Cut At Dade. “Many workers, like Mr. Shoemaker, the Dade employee in Westwood, and his wife, a temporary employee at the same plant, did not leave on their own terms. When they lost their jobs in 1997, they had to abandon plans to buy their first home together. ‘It created a lot of stress,’ said Mr. Shoemaker, 59, who had earned more than $80,000 a year.” [New York Times, 11/13/11]

Bain Capital Cut Jobs And Benefits At GSI Industries While Bain And Other Investors Received Management Fees And A $65 Million Dividend. “That was true in the case of GS Industries, the 10th-biggest Bain investment in the Romney years. Bain formed GSI in the early 1990s by spending $24 million to acquire and merge steel companies with plants in Missouri, South Carolina and other states. Company managers cut jobs and benefits almost immediately. Meanwhile, Bain and other investors received management fees from GSI and a $65-million dividend in the first years after the acquisition, according to interviews with company employees.” [Los Angeles Times, 12/3/11]

• While Bain Capital Partners Made A 100% Gain On Their Initial Investment In GSI, 700 Workers Were Fired And Lost Health Insurance, Severance And A Chunk Of Their Pension Benefits. “More than 700 workers were fired, losing not only their jobs but health insurance, severance and a chunk of their pension benefits. GSI retirees also lost their health insurance and other benefits. Bain partners received about $50 million on their initial investment, a 100% gain.” [Los Angeles Times, 12/3/11] 

BAIN CAPITAL PROFITED BY ADDING DEBT AND DRIVING COMPANIES INTO BANKRUPTCY

“Bain Investors Typically Profited,” Even When They Added “Significant” Debt To Their Acquisitions And Increased The Likelihood Of Bankruptcy And Job Cuts. “Leveraged buyouts allow investors to purchase businesses with the acquisition funded sometimes by significant amounts of debt. To critics, these leveraged deals can make acquired companies more vulnerable to economic downturns, leading to a greater likelihood of bankruptcy and job cuts. At the same time, the deals sometimes introduce discipline to firms and even whole industries that need it. Either way, Bain investors typically profited.” [Los Angeles Times, 12/3/11]

• April 1999: Bain Capital “Pushed Dade To Borrow Hundreds Of Millions Of Dollars” To Buy Half Of Investors’ Shares In The Company, Netting Bain $242 Million, Goldman Sachs $121 Million And Top Dade Executives $55 Million – Enough To Cover Most Of The Purchase Price For Dade.  “Bain settled on a common tactic in private equity: it pushed Dade to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars in April 1999 to buy half of Bain’s shares in the company — and half of those of its investment partners. Bain pocketed the $242 million. Goldman received $121 million. Top Dade executives got $55 million, records show. The total payout to shareholders reached $420 million — nearly as much as the purchase price for Dade. The money was hard to resist, acknowledged Mr. Brightfelt, the former Dade president. ‘We were all glad to get some cash out,’ he said, ‘and we thought we deserved it.’” [New York Times, 11/13/11]
• Under Romney’s And Bain Capital’s Direction, Dade International “Quadrupled” Its Debt, “Propelled The Business Toward Bankruptcy” And Cut 1,700 Workers In The United States. “By the time the Harvard M.B.A.’s from Bain were finished, sales at the medical company, Dade International, had more than doubled. The business acquired two of its rivals. And Mr. Romney’s firm collected $242 million, a return eight times its investment. But an examination of the Dade deal shows the unintended human costs and messy financial consequences behind the brand of capitalism that Mr. Romney practiced for 15 years. At Bain Capital’s direction, Dade quadrupled the money it owed creditors and vendors. It took steps that propelled the business toward bankruptcy. And in waves of layoffs, it cut loose 1,700 workers in the United States, including Brian and Christine Shoemaker, who lost their jobs at a plant in Westwood, Mass. Staggered, Mr. Shoemaker wondered, ‘How can the bean counters just come in here and say, Hey, it’s over?’” [New York Times, 11/13/11]

BAIN CAPITAL PARTNERS DIDN’T CARE ABOUT SAVING OR CREATING JOBS – THEIR GOAL WAS TO CREATE WEALTH

Marc B. Walpow, A Former Managing Partner At Bain: “I Never Thought Of What I Do For A Living As Job Creation … The Primary Goal Of Private Equity Is To Create Wealth For Your Investors.” “Bain managers said their mission was clear. ‘I never thought of what I do for a living as job creation,’ said Marc B. Walpow, a former managing partner at Bain who worked closely with Romney for nine years before forming his own firm. ‘The primary goal of private equity is to create wealth for your investors.’” [Los Angeles Times, 12/3/11]

Read More

ROMNEY’S JOB CREATION RECORD IN MASSACHUSETTS WAS ONE OF THE WORST IN THE COUNTRY

During Romney’s Tenure as Governor, Massachusetts’ Economic Performance Was “One Of The Worst In The Country” On “All Key Labor Market Measures.”  [Boston Globe, 7/29/07]

Factcheck.org: “Romney’s Jobs Record Provides Little To Boast About.” [Factcheck.org, 1/11/08]

In Romney’s Four Years As Governor Massachusetts Ranked 47th Out Of 50 In Jobs Growth. [Marketwatch, 2/23/10]

PolitiFact “No Matter How We Sliced The Data” Massachusetts Was 47th Out Of 50 States In Job Creation Under Romney. [Politifact, 6/22/11]

UNDER ROMNEY GOVERNMENT JOB GROWTH INCREASED AT A RATE 6 TIMES THAT OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR

Under Romney, State Government Employment Increase At 6 Times The Rate Of Private Sector Job Growth.  [bls.gov, accessed 9/23/11]

Comparing The Last Full Month Before Romney Took Office And The Last Full Month Of Romney’s Administration, Romney’s Massachusetts Ranked 48th Out Of 50 States In Private Sector Job Growth. [Calculated from bls.gov, accessed 9/23/11]

UNDER ROMNEY WAGES FELL IN MASSACHUSETTS

Under Romney The Wages Of The Average Worker In Massachusetts Fell By Nearly 2 Percent.  [Boston Globe, 7/29/07]

ROMNEY INCREASED SPENDING

State Spending Under Romney Increased By 6.5% Annually.  [New York Times, 12/31/07]

Factcheck.org: It’s “Correct” That Romney Proposed 8% Higher Spending Per Person In Massachusetts. [Factcheck.org, 10/12/07]

ROMNEY RAISED TAXES ON INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESS

Romney’s Raised Fees And Taxes By Between $740-$750 Million A Year. [Boston Globe, 9/27/06]

• Factcheck.org: Romney’s Fee And Tax Increases Were “Between $740 And $750 Million Per Year.” [Factcheck.org, 1/31/08]
• Romney Raised Fees As Governor; Romney Increased Fees By $400 Million And Raised Corporate Tax Revenue By $300 Million. [Vennochi, Boston Globe, 10/11/07]
•  President Of The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation: “It’s Straightforward... He Raised Corporate Taxes.” [Bergen County Record, 12/7/07]
• Romney’s Third Round Of Business Tax Hikes Were Cut In Half After Democrats Balked “Amid Protests From Some Of The State’s Leading Business Groups.” [Patriot Ledger, 1/26/08]

MASSACHUSETTS TAX BURDEN WENT UP UNDER ROMNEY

During Romney’s Tenure The Massachusetts Tax Burden Increased From 10% To 10.6% Of Per Capita Income. [Boston Globe, 6/29/07]

• Factcheck.org: The Massachusetts Tax Burden Went Up Under Romney From 5.93% To 6.57%. [Factcheck.org, 10/12/07]
• State & Local Tax Burden Increased 6.5 Percent During The Romney Administration. [The Tax Foundation, 8/7/08]]

ROMNEY CAME INTO OFFICE AND LEFT WITH A SIMILAR DEFICIT

Factcheck.org: Romney’s Claim To Have Closed A $3 Billion Budget Gap Is “Misleading” As The Gap Was Closer To $1.2 Billion. [Factcheck.org, 9/6/07]

Romney Made The Economy A Central Part Of His 2008 Campaign But “Unemployment Is Still Relatively High” In Massachusetts And Romney Left A $1.3 Billion Budget Gap. [New York Times, 3/16/07]

President Obama’s Job Creation Record

REALITY: OBAMA’S POLICIES HAVE LED TO THE CREATION OF MORE THAN 3.1 MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS WITH POSITIVE JOB GROWTH FOR THE LAST 22 MONTHS

The U.S. Economy Has Added More Than 3.1 Million Private Sector Jobs In The Last 22 Months. [data.bls.gov, accessed 1/6/2012]

Private Sector Job Growth Has Continued For 22 Consecutive Months. [data.bls.gov, accessed 1/6/2012]

New York Times: “Manufacturing Is A Surprising Bright Spot In The U.S. Economy.” [New York Times, 1/5/2012]

New York Times: “Until Last Year, There Had Not Been A Single Year When Manufacturing Employment Rose Since 1997.” [New York Times, 1/5/2012]

The Manufacturing Sector Added 334,000 Jobs From December 2009 Through December 2011. [data.bls.gov, 1/6/2012]

The Manufacturing Sector Expanded For The 29th Consecutive Month Through December 2011. [ISM Report On Business, 1/3/2012]

REALITY: ROMNEY’S CLAIM ABOUT JOB LOSSES UNDER OBAMA HAS BEEN CALLED “MISLEADING” AND “INDEFENSIBLE”

FactCheck.org: Romney’s Claim About Job Losses Under Obama “Is Misleading.”   “Romney has taken to saying that he created more than 100,000 net jobs through his work in the private sector, and more jobs as governor than President Obama has created since taking office. But the first claim is unproven, and the second is misleading… as usual after recent recessions, businesses (and state and local governments) continued to shed jobs long after the recession ended and business began to turn up. The job slump continued for Obama’s first full year in office and finally hit bottom in February 2010. Since that bottom, the nation has added nearly 2.7 million jobs.” [Factcheck.org, 1/5/12]

Krugman: “Indefensible” To Claim Obama Caused Job Losses From The Recession. “To claim that Obama caused the job loss is indefensible.” [New York Times, “The Conscience Of A Liberal” Blog, 1/3/12]

Greg Sargent: “It Is Not Debatable To Claim That The Overall Net Job Loss Number Romney Cites Is A Fair Measure Of The Success or Failure Of Obama’s Policies.”   ““Romney’s claim that two million jobs were lost under the Obama presidency is based on the idea that there’s been a net loss of jobs since he took office. In other words, Romney is taking into account the fact that the economy continued hemorrhaging jobs at a furious rate after Obama took office — before Obama’s stimulus passed. But the figures show that once it became law, monthly job loss declined over time, and turned around in the spring of 2010, after which the private sector added jobs for over 20 straight months, totaling around 2.2 million of them.  You can debate whether the stimulus underperformed. You can debate whether the stimulus is the reason the economy did add private sector jobs. You can argue that public sector jobs loss should be factored in. But it is not debatable to claim that the overall net jobs loss number Romney cites is a fair measure of the success or failure of Obama’s policies.” [Washington Post, “The Plum Line” blog, 1/3/12]

Read More

Tonight, both Romney and Gingrich put America’s seniors on notice.  They’ve endorsed Republicans plans that would end Medicare as we know it, while not asking large corporations or the wealthiest for a dime to create jobs or restore economic security for the middle class. While these candidates embrace the policies favored by the Tea Party, it’s clear that not even the programs seniors rely on the most are safe.

REALITY: ROMNEY AND GINGRICH SUPPORT GOP BUDGET THAT WOULD END MEDICARE AS WE KNOW IT

WSJ: “The [GOP Budget] Plan Would Essentially End Medicare.” “The plan would essentially end Medicare, which now pays most of the health-care bills for 48 million elderly and disabled Americans, as a program that directly pays those bills.” [Wall Street Journal, 4/4/11]

Romney: “I Believe It Is A Very Important Step To Protect Medicare...We’re Going To Have To Make Changes Like The Ones Paul Ryan Proposed.” ROMNEY: “Actually I spent a good deal of time with Congressman Ryan. When he plan came out I applauded it as a very important step. I said my plan would be a little different or would be different in some respects but that we were on the same page. This is a place where speaker Gingrich and I disagree. He called this right wing social engineering. I believe it is a very important step to protect Medicare and to protect social security we’re going to have to make changes like the ones Paul Ryan proposed.” [Romney, Cedar Rapids Town Hall, 12/9/11]

• Romney Said “Yes” He Would Sign The Republican Budget. “On health care, Romney responded ‘yes’ when asked if he would sign the plan written by Rep. Paul Ryan that would restructure Medicare if it reached his desk as President, but quickly added that he would be offering his own plan.” [ABC News, 6/2/11]
• Gingrich Said He Would Have Voted For The Ryan Plan. “A couple of weeks ago, I spent a day following Newt Gingrich around New Hampshire. After a radio interview in Concord, Gingrich had a lunchtime Guinness at the Barley House in Concord with Thomas Wilhelmsen, the CEO of a local hospital who first met Gingrich in the mid-1990s. They lapsed into wonky talk about ObamaCare and health insurance premiums. ‘Every hospital administrator, like Tom here, will tell you it’s unsustainable, it can’t be done,’ Gingrich said, explaining why he wants to repeal the law. So, I asked if he would advocate replacing it with Paul Ryan’s plan. The former speaker sang Ryan’s praises for being a ‘brave’ ‘man of ideas,’ like Gingrich himself. ‘But would you have voted for Ryan’s plan?’ I pressed. ‘Sure,’ Gingrich replied.” [Time, 5/15/11]

REALITY: THE RYAN PLAN WOULD COST SENIORS OVER $6,000 OUT OF POCKET

The GOP Budget Would Force Seniors To Pay Twice As Much. The Republican budget would end the traditional Medicare program for those 55 and under and essentially convert it into a voucher program. The budget forces seniors into a more expensive private plan. In 2022, a typical 65-year-old would have to pay $6,400 more in health care expenses, or twice the amount they would under the current system. [LA Times, 4/7/11]

• In 2022, Beneficiaries Out Of Pocket Costs Would Be $6,400 Higher Under Ryan's Proposal Than Traditional Medicare. "In 2022, the first year the voucher would apply, CBO estimates that total health care expenditures for a typical 65-year-old would be almost 40 percent higher with private coverage under the Ryan plan than they would be with a continuation of traditional Medicare.  (See graph.)  CBO also finds that this beneficiary's annual out-of-pocket costs would more than double — from $6,150 to $12,500.  In later years, as the value of the voucher eroded, the increase in out-of-pocket costs would be even greater." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/7/11]
• CBO: “Most Elderly People Would Pay More For Their Health Care Than They Would Pay Under The Current Medicare System.” According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, under the GOP budget, “most elderly people would pay more for their health care than they would pay under the current Medicare system. For a typical 65-year-old with average health spending enrolled in a plan with benefits similar to those currently provided by Medicare, CBO estimated the beneficiary’s spending on premiums and out-of-pocket expenditures as a share of a benchmark: what total health care spending would be if a private insurer covered the beneficiary. By 2030, the beneficiary’s spending would be 68 percent of that benchmark under the proposal, 25 percent under the extended-baseline scenario, and 30 percent under the alternative fiscal scenario.” [CBO, 4/5/11]

Read More

Earlier this year in Detroit, Romney said that the President was "out of touch" for encouraging young people for pursuing manufacturing jobs. And Romney repeatedly vetoed funding for manufacturing when he was Governor of Massachusetts - manufacturing jobs declined by twice the national rate in Massachusetts under Romney.  But as a corporate buyout specialist, it’s clear that Romney’s priority is profits, not the lives of middle-class families.   ROMNEY HAS REPEATEDLY SCOFFED AT PRESIDENT OBAMA ENCOURAGING YOUNG PEOPLE TO PURSUE MANUFACTURING

• Romney Said “The President Seems To Be Out Of Touch” For Encouraging Young People To Pursue Manufacturing Jobs. “At the stop in Detroit, Romney said Obama showed he was ‘out of touch’ this week when he encouraged young people to pursue manufacturing jobs. ‘Last month, 5,000 people lost their jobs in manufacturing,’ Romney said. ‘The president seems to be out of touch.’” [Detroit News, 6/9/11 ]

• Romney “Appeared To Scoff… At The Notion Of Manufacturing As A Job Engine For The Future.” “Mitt Romney, a former Massachusetts governor and the Republican frontrunner, opposed the federal bailout of the auto industry and appeared to scoff this month, first in Detroit, then in Florida, at the notion of manufacturing as a job engine for the future.” [Wall Street Journal, 6/24/11] 

• Romney “Twice This Month Said That The President Was Out Of Touch For Suggesting Young People Go Into Manufacturing” But “We Have Had Manufacturing Growth That Rivals The Levels Of The 1980s.”  Jonathan Weisman said in an interview on the manufacturing industry: “Actually, Obama sees and opening here because Mitt Romney, twice this month said that the president was ‘out of touch’ for suggesting young people go into manufacturing, go into community college to study, different kind of high-end manufacturing techniques and if fact if you look at the sort of sluggish recovery of jobs, manufacturing is one of the bright spots. Not particularly beaming but we have had good strong manufacturing growth. We have had manufacturing growth that rivals the levels of the 1980s.” [News Hub, Wall Street Journal, 6/24/11]  

MANUFACTURING WAS DEVASTATED UNDER ROMNEY IN MASSACHUSETTS  

• Romney’s Budget Cuts To Manufacturing Partnership Hampered Effort To Save Thousands Of Jobs.  “Romney’s recent move to slice $425 million from state spending will hamper the efforts of a program that has helped hundreds of small manufacturers compete, survive, and save thousands of jobs.  The program, the Massachusetts Manufacturing Extension Partnership, or MassMEP, is jointly funded by state and federal governments and considered by business officials to be a particularly effective economic development effort… Over the past five years, MassMEP has helped small manufacturers create or retain some 3,000 jobs, generate sales of more than $300 million, and undertake nearly $100 million in new investments, according to annual client surveys.”  [Boston Globe, 11/23/06]
• Under Romney Manufacturing Jobs In Massachusetts Declined By Twice The National Average—“The Third Worst Record In The Country.” “Manufacturing payroll employment throughout the nation declined by nearly 1.1 million or 7 percent between 2002 and 2006, but in Massachusetts it declined by more than 14 percent, the third worst record in the country.” [Boston Globe, 7/29/07]  

ROMNEY AXED FUNDING FOR THE MASSACHUSETTS MANUFACTURING EXTENTION PARTNERSHIP WHICH HELPS SMALL MANUFACTURERS WITH WORKFORCE TRAINING AND OPERATION IMPROVEMENTS

• 2006: Romney Vetoed More Than $700,000 In Funding For The Massachusetts Manufacturing Extension Partnership, Which Was Then Overridden By The Legislature. “Beacon Hill Roll Call recorded local representatives and senators' votes on two roll calls from prior legislative sessions. There were no roll call votes in the House or Senate this past week. The House (143-10) and the Senate (34-2) overrode Gov. Mitt Romney’s veto of $706,666 in funding for the Massachusetts Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MassMEP). Supporters of the $706,666 said MassMEP is an important group that provides small Massachusetts manufacturers with affordable and innovative solutions to their problems. They said it helps leverage many public and private resources and services to help these small companies become more competitive and profitable. Opponents acknowledged that MassMEP has helped many companies but argued that it should fund itself by the revenue that it generates from charging fees for its services.” [Westboro News, 12/14/06]

• 2006: Romney Vetoed Roughly $557,000 For The Massachusetts Manufacturing Extension Partnership From A Stimulus Bill. “Business leaders are looking to salvage various projects following Gov. Mitt Romney's 39 vetoes of sections of the economic stimulus bill passed earlier this month. Among those items top on the list: worker training money, international trade stimulus and tax incentives and funding for manufacturing companies… Restoring $11 million in new work force training money begged for by business leaders during the legislature's job growth listening tour last year tops both Bosley's and Rodrigues' agendas. Manufacturing consultant Jack Healy said about $557,000 in funding for his Worcester-based Massachusetts Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which aids small manufacturers, and language allowing cities and towns to grant tax incentives to companies sinking cash into worker training are critical.” [Boston Business Journal, 6/3/06]

• 2005: Romney Vetoed $850,000 For The Massachusetts Manufacturing Extension Partnership, Which Was Overridden By The Legislature. “The House and Senate yesterday overrode almost $60 million of the $110 million Gov. Mitt Romney vetoed from the Legislature's budget for fiscal 2006. Included was restoration of $250,000 cut by Mr. Romney for the Massachusetts Biotechnology Initiative based in Worcester, bringing its funding back to the $500,000 level appropriated last year. The Legislature also reversed an $850,000 budget veto for the Massachusetts Manufacturing Extension Partnership based in Worcester and restored $80,900 earmarked for the Central Massachusetts Housing Alliance Donations Clearinghouse.” [Worcester Telegram & Gazette, 7/15/05]

• Massachusetts Manufacturing Extension Partnership Is A Nonprofit Which Assists Small Manufacturers With Improving Operations. “But high-tech products don't entirely explain the resilience of the state's manufacturing sector, said Jack Healy, director of the nonprofit Massachusetts Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which assists small manufacturers with improving operations. Low-tech products are also being made here competitively thanks to what are known as ‘lean’ or ‘advanced’ manufacturing approaches, he said.” [Boston Business Journal, 5/27/11]

• Massachusetts Manufacturing Extension Partnership Hosts A Network Of Manufacturing Extension Centers That Provide Business And Technical Assistance To Smaller Manufacturers In All 50 States, DC, And Puerto Rico. “The MassMEP (www.massmep.org) is an affiliate of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) under the U.S. Department of Commerce. The national MEP system is a network of manufacturing extension centers that provide business and technical assistance to smaller manufacturers in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Through MEP, manufacturers have access to more than 2,000 manufacturing and business ‘coaches’ whose job is to help firms make changes that lead to greater productivity, increased profits and enhanced global competitiveness.”  [Press Release, MassMEP. 5/5/11]

MANUFACTURING GROWTH HAS BEEN A LEADING CONTRIBUTOR TO THE RECOVERY

• “Durable–Goods Manufacturing Led The Recovery In U.S. Real GDP By State In 2010; It Was The Leading Contributor To Real GDP Growth In Seven Of The Eight BEA Regions And In 29 States.” [BEA, 6/7/2011]

• The Manufacturing Industry Added 308,000 Jobs From December 2009 Through November 2011. [data.bls.gov, 12/2/2011]

• Manufacturing Has Added More Jobs In Each Of The Last Two Years Than Any Year Since 1997. [data.bls.gov, accessed 11/4/2011]

• The Wall Street Journal Called Manufacturing A “Bright Spot” In The Job Market. [WSJ, 6/24/2011]

• The Manufacturing Sector Expanded For The 28th Consecutive Month Through November 2011. [ISM Report On Business, 12/1/2011]

• The U.S. Economy Has Added 2.9 Million Private Sector Jobs Over The Last 21 Months. [data.bls.gov, accessed 12/2/2011]

• Private Sector Job Growth Has Continued For 21 Consecutive Months.  [data.bls.gov, accessed 12/2/2011]

• President Obama LaunchedThe Advanced Manufacturing Partnership, “A National Effort Bringing Together Industry, Universities, And The Federal Government To Invest In The Emerging Technologies.” [White House Press Release, 6/24/2011]  

  PRESIDENT OBAMA LAUNCHED THE RECOVERY ACT, WHICH INDEPENDENT ECONOMISTS ESTIMATE RAISED EMPLOYMENT IN MANUFACTURING AND CONSTRUCTION BY OVER 1 MILLION JOBS

• According To Economists At The Federal Reserve Of San Francisco, “The Construction Sector Is Estimated To Have Created Or Saved 1.0 Million Jobs (13.2%) In The ARRA’s First Year, Suggesting The Sector Was One Of The Key Beneficiaries Of The ARRA.” [Federal Reserve Bank Of San Francisco, Working Paper 2010-17, October 2011 ]

• Manufacturing Is Estimated To Have Increased Net Employment By 200,000 Jobs (1.9%) Through February 2010.  [Federal Reserve Bank Of San Francisco, Working Paper 2010-17, October 2011]

Read More

Tonight, Mitt Romney said he’d like to ask President Obama,“How did you do running General Motors?” We’ve got the answer - by making the tough and politically unpopular decision to extend emergency rescue loans to the American auto industry, President Obama saved 1.4 million jobs at GM, Chrysler, and throughout the domestic automotive supply chain, preventing an economic catastrophe for communities across the country. Michigan, where more than one in every five workers’ jobs are supported by the auto industry, would have been at the center of that collapse. In exchange for government loans, GM and Chrysler were required to cut labor costs and overhaul their business models, guaranteeing their accountability to taxpayers. Today, GM and Chrysler have repaid the loans they received from the Obama administration, become profitable and rehired thousands of workers. Yet Romney opposed the very loans the President extended to the auto industry – loans that industry experts say saved the auto companies from liquidation - and instead proposed “letting Detroit go bankrupt” in an op-ed in the New York Times.   

THE RESCUE LOANS FOR THE AUTO INDUSTRY PREVENTED ECONOMIC DISASTER ACROSS THE NATION AND IN MICHIGAN

• The New York Times Reported That Rick Snyder Believes That, “If The Federal Government Had Not Intervened…The Financial Casualties Would Have Extended Far Beyond Chrysler And General Motors To The Supply Chain That Is The Economic Lifeblood Of The Industrial Midwest.” [The New York Times, 11/9/11 <http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/michigan-governor-warns-candidates-on-auto-bailout/> ]  
• Gov. Rick Snyder: The Loss Of GM And Chrysler “Would Have Had A Devastating Impact On The Economy.” [Detroit News, 11/9/11 <http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/nolanfinleyblog/index.php?blogid=1428#ixzz1dFeaCPSU> ]

• The Center For Automotive Research: The Auto Industry Rescue Saved More Than 1.4 Million Jobs, Including 1.14 Million Jobs In 2009 And 314,400 Jobs In 2010.  [CAR Report, 11/7/10 <http://www.cargroup.org/pdfs/bankruptcy.pdf> ]

• The Auto Industry Rescue Prevented More Than $96 Billion In Personal Income Losses. [CAR Report, 11/7/10 <http://www.cargroup.org/pdfs/bankruptcy.pdf> ]  

• 2008: Moody’s Economist Mark Zandi Said That Without Government Help “The Automakers Will Quickly End Up In Bankruptcy And Be Effectively Liquidated, Resulting In  Hundreds Of Thousands Of Layoffs.” [Testimony To U.S. Senate Banking Committee, 12/4/2008]

• Center For Automotive Research Chairman: “The Whole [Auto] Industry Was At The Edge Of Collapse” And “Had That Occurred It Would Have Taken The Economy Very Likely Into A Depression.” [Detroit News, 2/24/10 <http://www.detnews.com/article/20100224/POLITICS02/2240334/1022/LOCAL/GM--Claims-in-Romney-book-are-false#ixzz0gSsZ5bMP> ]

• Ford CEO Alan Mulally: The Auto Rescue Was “Absolutely Key In Helping Create A Chance For GM And Chrysler Going Forward.” [The Daily Beast, 10/16/10 <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/10/16/ford-ceo-alan-mulally-on-the-auto-bailout-electric-cars.html> ]  

• Mulally: The Rescue Of GM And Chrysler Was “The Right Thing.” [The Daily Beast, 10/16/10 <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/10/16/ford-ceo-alan-mulally-on-the-auto-bailout-electric-cars.html> ]

• CNN: “Doing Nothing” For GM Chrysler “Could Have Cost More Than Twice As Much” As The Auto Rescue, Which Prevented More Than $28 Billion In Lost Tax Revenues And Assistance To The Unemployed. [CNN Money, 7/22/11 <http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/21/autos/chrysler_bailout_costs_gains/index.htm> ]  
• UofC Bankruptcy Expert Said GM Would “Die” Without Government Intervention. [McClatchy Newspapers, 3/30/09]

• The Center For Automotive Research Reported That If GM & Chrysler Had Undergone An Unstructured, Disruptive Bankruptcy, Michigan Would Have Lost Over 337,000 Jobs Reliant On The Auto Industry In 2009 And 2010. [CAR Automaker Bankruptcies Report, 5/26/09 <http://www.cargroup.org/pdfs/impact.pdf> ]  

• The Center For Automotive Research Reported That The Auto Industry Supports Over 1.1 Million Jobs In Michigan, A Full 21.8% Of The State’s Workforce. [CAR Industry Contribution Report, 4/21/10 <http://www.cargroup.org/pdfs/association_paper.pdf> ]  

THE AUTO RESCUE HAS MADE THE AMERICAN AUTO INDUSTRY STRONGER AND MORE COMPETITIVE

• Wall Street Journal: “Resurgent” Auto Makers Have “Helped Stir Michigan's Economy And Provided Relief To Auto-Driven Local Economies.” [WSJ, 6/22/2011 <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304887904576399801933093180.html?mod=googlenews_wsj> ]

• The Government Accountability Office Found That The Auto Rescue Allowed GM And Chrysler To Reduce Their Labor Costs And Increase Their Production Capacity. [GAO Report On Treasury’s Exit From Chrysler & GM, 5/10/11 <http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11471.pdf> ]  

• Since The Auto Rescue, GM And Chrysler Have Added Thousands Of Jobs And Are On Course To Return To Pre-Crisis Levels Of Employment. [Detroit Free Press, 5/11/11 <http://www.freep.com/article/20110511/BUSINESS01/105110429/GM-Ford-Chrysler-adding-jobs-near-pre-crash-employment-levels> ]

• For The First Time In Nearly Seven Years, All The Big Three Automakers Are Profitable. [Associated Press, 5/2/11 <http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Chrysler-turns-first-profit-apf-2599749535.html?x=0> ] 

• Since The Rescue, GM Has Had Six Consecutive Quarters Of Profitability. [Detroit News, 10/26/11 <http://www.detnews.com/article/20111026/AUTO01/110260335/> ]  

• In 2011, Chrysler Is Expected To Make Its First Annual Profit In 6 Years. [Detroit News, 10/28/11 <http://www.detnews.com/article/20111028/AUTO01/110280338/1148/Chrysler-posts-profit-of-$212M> ]  

• For The First Time Since 1995, All Of The Big Three Have Gained Market Share. [TARP 3 Year Retrospective, 10/3/11 <http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/financial-stability/briefing-room/reports/agency_reports/Documents/TARP%20Three%20Year%20Anniversary%20Report.pdf> ]  

• The Government Accountability Office Said That The Auto Rescue “Allowed GM And Chrysler To Restructure Their Balance Sheets [And] Tackle Key Challenges To Achieving Viability.” [GAO Report, 5/10/11 <http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11471.pdf> ]  

• The Center For Automotive Research Said “Loans And Other Financial Assistance Provided To General Motors And Chrysler…Averted Certain Economic Catastrophe Had The Companies Been Allowed To Fail.” [Center For Automotive Research, 12/17/2010 <http://www.cargroup.org/pdfs/bankruptcy.pdf> ]  

• Consumer Reports Called Chrysler’s Pace Of Change Under Fiat Leadership “Blistering” And Its Progress “Laudable [New York Times, 7/30/11 <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/30/business/forced-marriage-of-fiat-and-chrysler-yields-success.html?pagewanted=all> ]

ALL OBAMA ADMINISTRATION LOANS TO GM & CHRYSLER HAVE BEEN REPAID

• April 2010: GM Repaid The Loans It Received From The US Government. [USA Today, 4/21/10 <http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2010-04-20-gm-loan_N.htm> ]  

• May 2011: Chrysler Repaid Its Outstanding Loans To The Government Six Years Ahead Of Schedule. [Chrysler Press Release, 5/24/11 <http://media.chrysler.com/newsrelease.do;jsessionid=E3B4ACAD0F44D500DD399074F2147902?&id=10922&mid=1> ]  

• 100% Of The Money President Obama Loaned To Chrysler Has Been Repaid, Representing Over 85% Of The Entire Investment In Chrysler. [PBS, 5/24/11 <http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/jan-june11/chrysler_05-24.html> ]  

• Chrysler Has Repaid $11.2 Billion Of The $12.5 Billion Total Committed By The US Government. [CNN Money, 7/31/11 <http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/21/autos/chrysler_government_exit/index.htm> ]  

• Chrysler Received $4 Billion From The Bush Administration And $8.5 Billion From The Obama Administration. [Government Accountability Office Report, 11/2/09 <http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10151.pdf> ]  

• The GAO Found That Treasury Had “Taken Steps To Protect The Taxpayer’s Interest In Divesting From GM.” [GAO Report On Treasury’s Exit From Chrysler & GM, 5/10/11 <http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11471.pdf> ]

Read More

Both Romney and Gingrich claim their policies are good for the American middle class.  But the economic plans they’ve both embraced slash taxes on corporations and the wealthiest Americans while doing nearly nothing for the middle class. 

ROMNEY’S ECONOMIC PLAN WOULD DO ALMOST NOTHING FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS 

Romney Said He Would Eliminate Capital Gains For People Making Less Than $200,000 But Most Capital-Gains Are Paid By The Richest Americans And The Romney Campaign Didn’t Offer An Impact Estimate. “He would eliminate taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains for people making less than $200,000 a year. A campaign spokeswoman declined to offer estimates of the proposal's budget impact ‘because they are still being refined and finalized.’ Most capital-gains taxes are paid by the richest Americans, and Democrats said Mr. Romney's plan would have scant effect.” [Wall Street Journal, 9/6/11]

• A Typical Middle Class Family Nationwide Making Between $40,000-$50,000 Would See An Average Tax Cut Of $54 if Romney’s Proposal To Eliminate Taxes On Capital Gains, Interest, And Dividends Were in Place in 2011.  Over 70 percent of these families would see no benefit at all.  [Tax Policy Center, 6/16/11]
• Citizens For Tax Justice Director Criticized Romney’s Plan Saying “For People Earning Below $100,000, Cutting The Tax Rate On Interest, Dividends, And Capital Gains Means Almost Nothing.” “‘For people earning below $100,000, cutting the tax rate on interest, dividends, and capital gains means almost nothing,’ said Robert S. McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice. ‘For those people earning between $100,000 and $200,000, you might be talking several hundred dollars in tax savings. Then, the question is, does he really have a plan that cuts off exactly at $200,000? That would be nuts - the person who makes $200,001 would be kind of angry.’” [Boston Globe, 9/8/07]

ROMNEY’S ECONOMIC PLAN GIVES MASSIVE TAX BREAKS TO CORPORATIONS AND THE WEALTHIEST

Romney Would Keep The Bush Tax Cuts For The Wealthiest Americans. “Mr. Romney said he would keep the Bush-era income-tax cuts unchanged. Mr. Obama wants the cuts, which were set to expire this year, to disappear for the wealthiest taxpayers.” [Wall Street Journal, 9/6/11]

• Extending The Bush Tax Cuts For The Top 2 Percent Would Add $700 Billion To The Deficit. [OMB, The Budget for FY2012, Table S-2, pg. 173]
• Romney Called For Lowering The Corporate Income Tax Rate To 25% From The Current 35% Though Tax Breaks Allow Many US Companies To Pay Little Or No Corporate Tax. “Mr. Romney called for lowering the corporate income tax to 25% from the current 35%. That rate is high compared with other advanced economies, but tax breaks allow many U.S. companies to pay little or no corporate tax. Mr. Romney said a lower rate would encourage companies to keep more operations within the U.S.” [Wall Street Journal, 9/6/11]
• Cutting the Corporate Tax Rate To 25 Percent Would Cost $915.5 Billion. [Analysis of the Paul Ryan Budget Plan, Tax Policy Center, 4/7/11]
• Romney Would Eliminate The Estate Tax. Romney “would seek a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, cut non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent, eliminate the estate tax and undo the 2010 health care overhaul championed by President Barack Obama.” [AP, 9/6/11]
• Eliminating The Estate Tax Would Cost $178 Billion. The CBO/JCT estimates Mitt Romney’s proposal on the estate tax would cost $178 billion. [CBO, “Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue Options, March 2011]

GINGRICH HAS ENDORSED THE DEVASTATING CUT, CAP, AND BALANCE PLAN

REALITY: GINGRICH SIGNED THE CUT, CAP, AND BALANCE PLEDGE

Gingrich Signed A Pledge To Oppose A Debt Ceiling Increase Unless The Federal Budget Reduces The Debt, Cuts Federal Spending, And Passes A Balanced Budget Amendment.  “GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich signed onto the Cut, Cap and Balance pledge today, joining other presidential candidates Herman Cain, Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania) and former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. The pledge urges Congress to oppose raising the debt ceiling limit unless three conditions are met: cuts to federal spending to reduce the debt, caps on federal spending and passage of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. ‘Balanced budgets are achieved by those who are committed,’ Gingrich said in a press release. ‘Fiscal discipline requires lawmakers to be smart not cheap and requires a different type of thinking than we see in Washington. I am proposing bold solutions because we have big problems. I pledge to be a President who will rein in deficits, the debt and out of control spending. It can be done, I know because we’ve done it before.’” [The Daily Caller, 6/28/11]

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

ROMNEY FLIP-FLOPPED ON TAKING OUT TERRORISTS IN PAKISTAN   As commander-in-chief, a president only gets one chance to make the right decision but Mitt Romney has repeatedly flip-flopped on military action to go after terrorists in Pakistan.   ROMNEY PRAISED OBAMA FOR USING UNILATERAL ACTION TO TAKE OUT TERRORISTS ON AFGHAN/PAKISTAN BORDER…   Romney Praised Obama’s Use Of Predator Drones To Go After Terrorists Along The Pakistani/Afghanistan Border. “Romney refused to echo some Republicans who have attacked Obama’s every move as ill-advised, but he showed little willingness to go out of his way to praise the president, either. ‘We have a responsibility to acknowledge the president when he’s doing the right things and to be critical of his mistakes; otherwise we lose credibility,’ Romney said, citing Obama’s aggressive moves to shore up U.S. troops in Afghanistan and his use of predator drones to go after suspected terrorists along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.” [The Hill, 4/2/09]   BUT EARLIER CRITICIZED OBAMA FOR WANTING TO TAKE OUT TERRORISTS IN PAKISTAN   Romney Said He Didn’t Agree With Obama on Taking Unilateral Action Against Al Qaeda Targets in Pakistan.  Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticized Democrat Barack Obama on Friday for vowing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan if necessary as the Obama camp issued a strident defense of his plan. What had been an internecine foreign policy battle between rival Democrats Obama, an Illinois senator, and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, spilled into the Republican arena in the heavily contested state of Iowa. ‘I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally of ours... I don’t think those kinds of comments help in this effort to draw more friends to our effort,’ Romney told reporters on the campaign trail. Obama on Wednesday said if elected president in November 2008 he would be willing to launch military strikes against al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan with or without the approval of the Pakistani government of President Pervez Musharraf. ‘If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will,’ Obama said.”  [Reuters, 8/4/07]

• Romney: US Troops “Shouldn’t Be Sent All Over The World” And Obama’s Comments Were “Ill-Timed” And “Ill-Considered.” “Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who is one of the Republican front-runners, said U.S. troops ‘shouldn’t be sent all over the world.’ He called Obama’s comments ‘ill-timed’ and ‘ill-considered.’ ‘There is a war being waged by terrorists of different types and nature across the world,’ Romney said. ‘We want, as a civilized world, to participate with other nations in this civilized effort to help those nations reject the extreme with them.’” [Reuters, 8/4/07]

Romney Criticized Obama For Comments About Attacking Terrorists In Pakistan.  Romney said Obama’s comments were “ill-conceived” and would hurt American efforts to create a global effort to root out radical Islamic terrorists.  Romney said, “We want as a civilized world to participate with other nations in this civilized effort to help those nations reject the extreme within them. That doesn’t mean that our troops are going to go all over the world,” before saying about Obama’s comments, “I think his comments were ill-timed and ill-considered.” [Associated Press, 8/5/07]   ROMNEY FLIP-FLOP-FLIP ON AMERICAN MILITARY SUPPORT IN PAKISTAN   FIRST: Romney Proposed Dispatching Army Special Forces and CIA Agents to Stabilize Pakistan. “In places like Pakistan, America needs to work not just on a military front, he said. Romney proposed putting together a ‘Special Partnership Force,’ a team of CIA agents and Army special forces to work with the local population – ‘not just to provide guns but to help make sure that they have the rule of law, water projects, bridges built.’” [Palm Beach Post, 7/8/07]   THEN: Romney on Pakistan: We’re Not Going to Send Our Troops “All Over the World.” “Romney spoke at a luncheon meeting of young Republicans in Des Moines and later with reporters who asked for his reaction to Obama’s comments. In a speech this week, the senator from Illinois issued a warning to Pakistani leaders that if they didn’t do a better job of rooting out terrorists who use that country as a sanctuary, the U.S. might intervene with force. Instead of issuing threats, the U.S. should work with nations to root out extremist forces which may exist, Romney said. ‘We want as a civilized world to participate with other nations in this civilized effort to help those nations reject the extreme within them,’ Romney said. ‘That doesn’t mean that our troops are going to go all over the world.’” [Associated Press, 8/3/07]   NOW: Romney Could Imagine “Future Scenarios That Would Require American To Put Boots On The Ground,” Including Pakistan And Former Russian Satellites. During a speech to the Heritage Foundation on June 1, 2009, Mitt Romney said, “Those who shout ‘no more Iraqs’ should remember that we are still in a counter-insurgency war in Afghanistan. And it was not so long ago that 500,000 troops were needed to fight in Desert Storm. It is not hard to imagine future scenarios that would require America to put boots on the ground, particularly given the developments in Pakistan, or even Russia’s apparent designs on its former satellites. [Mitt Romney, Ben Smith’s blog, Politico, 6/1/09]        

Read More

ROMNEY’S PLAN LIKE CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS WOULD WIPE OUT INVESTMENTS IN THE FUTURE OF AMERICA   Romney says "everything I do will make America stronger,” but his plan would wipe out investments in the future of America including investments in education, nutrition and health programs for children and clean energy programs, while ceding innovation to other countries.   ROMNEY’S BUDGET AND THE RYAN PLAN WOULD ADOPT DEEP CUTS TO PELL GRANTS THAT HELP STUDENTS GO TO COLLEGE   Romney’s Plan To Adopt The GOP Budget Would Cut Funds For Pell Grants That Help Students Go To College By Nearly 25%. “The GOP budget plan that Romney wants to adopt would make steeper cuts to Head Start, Pell Grants and workforce training than to other programs. Romney would completely eliminate funding for a program backing remedial literacy in low-income schools, as well as federal assistance that helps low-income families pay their heating and cooling bills. Ultimately, as a result of such cuts — combined with the budget reductions passed on Obama’s watch — ‘157,000 at-risk children up to age 5 could lose education, health, nutrition, and other services under Head Start, while funds for Pell Grants that help students go to college would fall by nearly 25 percent,’ according to a CBPP analysis of the House GOP proposal.” [Washington Post, 11/4/11]   ROMNEY AND THE RYAN PLAN WOULD CUT EDUCATION, NUTRITION AND HEALTH PROGRAMS FOR CHILDREN   Romney’s Plan To Adopt The GOP Budget Would “Completely Eliminate Funding For A Program Backing Remedial Literacy In Low-Income Schools.” “The GOP budget plan that Romney wants to adopt would make steeper cuts to Head Start, Pell Grants and workforce training than to other programs. Romney would completely eliminate funding for a program backing remedial literacy in low-income schools, as well as federal assistance that helps low-income families pay their heating and cooling bills. Ultimately, as a result of such cuts — combined with the budget reductions passed on Obama’s watch — ‘157,000 at-risk children up to age 5 could lose education, health, nutrition, and other services under Head Start, while funds for Pell Grants that help students go to college would fall by nearly 25 percent,’ according to a CBPP analysis of the House GOP proposal.” [Washington Post, 11/4/11]   As A Result Of Romney’s Adoption Of The GOP Budget Proposal, “157,000 At-Risk Children Up To Age 5 Could Lose Education, Health, Nutrition, And Other Services Under Head Start.” “The GOP budget plan that Romney wants to adopt would make steeper cuts to Head Start, Pell Grants and workforce training than to other programs. Romney would completely eliminate funding for a program backing remedial literacy in low-income schools, as well as federal assistance that helps low-income families pay their heating and cooling bills. Ultimately, as a result of such cuts — combined with the budget reductions passed on Obama’s watch — ‘157,000 at-risk children up to age 5 could lose education, health, nutrition, and other services under Head Start, while funds for Pell Grants that help students go to college would fall by nearly 25 percent,’ according to a CBPP analysis of the House GOP proposal.” [Washington Post, 11/4/11]   ROMNEY AND THE RYAN PLAN WOULD CUT CLEAN ENERGY INVESTMENTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE   Romney’s Plan To Adopt The GOP Budget Cuts Clean Energy Investments By 70 Percent And Infrastructure By One Third. The Paul Ryan budget would end Medicare as we know it and double out of pocket costs to future beneficiaries, increase the number of uninsured by 50 million, cut clean energy investments by 70 percent and cut infrastructure by one-third. [White House Blog, 7/19/11]      

Read More

When the President stood up for American workers and enforced trade laws against China, Romney said those very laws were “bad for the nation and our workers.”  

ROMNEY CLAIMED HE WOULD APPLY TARIFFS IF CHINA DOESN’T PLAY BY THE RULES

Romney Said He Would Apply Tariffs On Chinese Goods If China Didn’t Play By The Rules. “Number three, where they have stolen intellectual property and hacked into computers and where there are artificial pricing is causing goods to have predatory levels of pricing, I would apply if necessary tariffs to make sure that they understand we are willing to play playing field.” [CNBC, 11/9/11]

BUT PREVIOUSLY ROMNEY CRITICIZED OBAMA FOR ENFORCING TRADE LAWS ON CHINESE TIRES

Romney: Obama’s Chinese Tire Tariffs Are “Bad For The Nation And Our Workers” And Called It “Protectionism.”  “President Obama’s action to defend American tire companies from foreign competition may make good politics by repaying unions for their support of his campaign, but it is decidedly bad for the nation and our workers. Protectionism stifles productivity.” [Romney, No Apology (Case for American Greatness), Page 119]

REALITY: PRESIDENT OBAMA IS IMPLEMENTING THE WTO SAFEGUARD PROVISION TO PROTECT AMERICAN PRODUCTS FROM UNFAIRLY PRICED IMPORTS   President Obama Imposed Stiff Imports On Chinese-Made Tires, For The First Time Imposing Safeguard Provisions To Protect A US Industry From Chinese Competition.   [MarketWatch, 9/11/09]   Inside U.S.-China Trade Said The Section 421 Safeguard Petition Would Provide “The First Major Test” Of Whether President Obama Would Fulfill His Pledge To Shift U.S. Trade Policy From Emphasis On Negotiations To A Focus On Enforcement. [Inside US-China Trade, 4/22/2009, via Nexis]   President Obama Signed A Determination To Apply An Increased Duty To All Imports Of Passenger Vehicle And Light Truck Tires From China. [Statement By The Press Secretary, 9/11/2009]   USW International President Leo Gerard Said, “Today, President Obama Made Clear That He Will Enforce America’s Trade Laws And Stand With American Workers.”  [USW International Press Release, 9/11/2009]   USW Praised The Success Of The Tariff On Boosting Domestic Tire Production.  [New York Times, 12/14/10]   The WTO Ruled China Had No Legal Right To Impose Export Restrictions On Nine Raw Materials Following A Compliant Filed By The U.S. And Other Countries. [WSJ, 2/18/2011]   Economist Simon Evenett Called The Ruling, “A Punch Against China’s Trade Policy.” [WSJ, 2/18/2011]   REALITY: PRESIDENT OBAMA IS PURSUING STRONG INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENFORCEMENT   President Obama Said, “We’re Going To Aggressively Protect Our Intellectual Property…It Is Essential To Our Prosperity And Will Only Become More So In This Century.”  [Remarks by the President at the Export-Import Bank’s Annual Conference, 3/11/2010]   In A Joint Press Conference, President Obama Publically Pressed President Hu On The Need For Strengthened Enforcement Of Intellectual Property Rights And Market Access For American Good. [Transcript [01/19/11]   After Meeting With President Obama In January 2011, President Hu Of China Agreed To Strengthen China’s Efforts To Enforce Intellectual Property Rights. [Office Of The United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, January 2011]   China Affirmed This Pledge At The May 2011 U.S.-China Strategic And Economic Dialogue. [The 2011 U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue U.S. Fact Sheet, 5/10/2011]   The Obama Administration Released The First Ever Joint Strategic Plan On Intellectual Property Enforcement, Covering 33 Action Items. [U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator Joint Strategic Plan, 2011]   President Obama Signed An Executive Order Establishing A Cabinet-Level Intellectual Property Advisory Committee. [U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator Joint Strategic Plan, 2011]   The Office Of The Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator Designated ICE’s First Intellectual Property Attaché In China, And The FBI Is Preparing To Send An Intellectual Property Dedicated Attaché To China This Year. [U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator Joint Strategic Plan, 2011]   REALITY: PRESSING CHINA REPEATEDLY ON CURRENCY POLICY AND GAINING A COMMITMENT FROM CHINA ON EXCHANGE RATE REFORM   January 2011: President Obama Pressed China On Its Intervention In Its Currency Markets.   [Joint Press Conference Transcript 01/19/11]   November 2010: President Obama Criticized China’s Currency Policy At The G-20 Summit.  [New York Times 11/12/10]

September 2010: President Obama Focused On Encouraging China to Revalue its Currency. [New York Times 09/23/10]   April 2010: President Obama Pressed China to Revalue Its Currency. [Reuters 04/13/2010]   Since Last June, The Renmibi Has Appreciated Against The Dollar By More Than 5 Percent, And At An Annual Rate Of Roughly Ten Percent When China’s Higher Inflation Rate Is Taken Into Account. [The 2011 U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue U.S. Fact , 5/10/2011]   The New York Times Said That President Obama “Repeatedly” Made The Point That The United States Would No Longer Tolerate Deliberate Currency Manipulation During Talks With China’s Prime Minister. [NYT, 9/30/2010, via Nexis]   President Obama Said, “The Reason I’m Pushing China About Their Currency Is Because Their Currency Is Undervalued.” [NYT, 9/30/2010, via Nexis]   January 2011: Secretary Geithner Said “The Relative Competitiveness Of American Companies, American Products...Is Moving In Our Favor, Because The Chinese Are Allowing Their Currency To Now Strengthen. [Press Briefing By Secretary Geither, 1/14/2011]   The New York Times Reported That In April 2011, The Chinese Currency “Hit A Milestone” By Rising To The Strongest Level Since 2005. [NYT, 4/29/2011]   China’s Leaders Increasingly Acknowledge The Importance Of Currency Appreciation. [The 2011 U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue U.S. Fact , 5/10/2011]   China Has Recently Begun To Take Steps To Make The Renminbi An Internationally Traded Currency. [The 2011 U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue U.S. Fact , 5/10/2011]   REALITY: EXPORTS TO CHINA ARE INCREASING FASTER THAN TO THE REST OF THE WORLD AND SUPPORTING JOBS ACROSS THE US   Last Year, U.S. Exports Grew 50 Percent Faster To China Than The Rest Of The World, Reaching More Than $110 Billion And Supporting Hundreds Of Thousands Of Jobs Across The U.S. [The 2011 U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue U.S. Fact Sheet, 5/10/2011]   China Agreed To Approve Airline Contracts For 200 Orders, The Final Step In A $19 Billion Package Of Aircraft That Helps Support More Than 100,000 American Jobs. [Fact Sheet On US-China Relations, 1/19/2011]      

Read More

ROMNEY HAS BEEN ALL OVER THE MAP ON AFGHANISTAN   Romney has been all over the map on what his strategy would be in Afghanistan.  First, he refused to say what he would do, then in January he said it was his desire not to leave Afghanistan, and then five months later he claimed he wanted the troops to come home as soon as possible.  As for timelines for withdrawal, Romney first criticized the President for setting a timeline to leave Afghanistan, but three months later he said he agreed with President Obama that the troops should be out by 2014.   REALITY: ROMNEY HAD NO STRATEGY FOR AFGHANISTAN AND DODGED QUESTIONS ON IT   Byron York: Romney Seemed “Off Balance” When Asked What Strategy He Would Employ In Afghanistan Saying “I’m Not In That Position.” “Then there’s Afghanistan. ‘I’m a little surprised that, having made Afghanistan the center of his anti-terrorist strategy, he says he doesn’t have a strategy at this stage for what to do in Afghanistan,’ Romney says of the president. ‘I would have expected him to have accomplished that by this point.’ As Romney sees it, Obama has a choice. He can go along with Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s expected request for more troops, or he can betray his own campaign promise of a firm U.S. stand in Afghanistan. ‘I think his only choice, and the correct choice, is the former,’ Romney says. But it might not be that simple. When I ask Romney, ‘What would you have done?’ he seems slightly off-balance. ‘I’m not in that position,’ Romney says. He pauses a moment. ‘When you say, what would I have done, I, I – ‘ ‘Do you think we needed a new strategy in Afghanistan?’ I ask. ‘I’m going to Afghanistan and Iraq in a couple of months,’ Romney says. ‘I’ll get an assessment of what’s happening there and what the prospects are. But I certainly would support our troops with the additional troops which are being called for by General McChrystal, and provide the equipment and the manpower and the budgetary support which our troops deserve.’” [Byron York, Washington Examiner, 9/27/09]

• Headline: Romney Critical Of Obama’s Afghan Policy—But Hesitant Himself

REALITY: ROMNEY FLIP-FLOPPED ON WITHDRAWING TROOPS FROM AFGHANISTAN

FLIP: Romney: “It Is My Desire And My Political Party’s Desire To Support The People Of Afghanistan And Not To Leave.” “Although the media have not been invited to his events, a glimpse into Romney’s thinking was provided by an individual who attended the meeting between Romney and the young Afghans and who allowed a reporter to view a video of the event. At one point, Romney said he supports a longer-term US presence in Afghanistan and asked Afghans for their own suggestions about how the United States can help overcome the raging insurgency and endemic corruption here. President Obama’s administration has said it plans to begin reducing the number of US troops in July with the goal of handing over security to the Afghans by the end of 2014. ‘It is my desire and my political party’s desire to support the people of Afghanistan and not to leave,’ Romney said in response to a question about whether the United States was going to pull out of the country soon. ‘So we look to you to tell us the best ways that we can support you.’” [Boston Globe, 1/14/11]

FLOP: Romney’s Went Middle Of The Road On President Obama’s Announcement Of Troop Reductions In Afghanistan Saying “We All Want Out Troops To Come Home As Soon As Possible.” “Some of the leading Republican presidential candidates offered dramatically different reactions to President Obama’s announcement of troop reductions in Afghanistan, a reflection of the schism in the Republican Party over the future of the war… Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, is somewhere in the middle. In a statement, Mr. Romney said that ‘we all want our troops to come home as soon as possible,’ but he stopped short of praising Mr. Obama’s speech.” [New York Times, 6/23/11]

Romney Said Of Afghanistan: “I Also Think We’ve Learned That Our Troops Shouldn’t Go Off And Try To Fight A War Of Independence For Another Nation.” At the New Hampshire Republican primary debate Romney said of Afghanistan: “I also think we've learned that our troops shouldn't go off and try and fight a war of independence for another nation. Only the Afghanis can win Afghanistan's independence from the Taliban.” [New Hampshire Debate, 6/13/11]   REALITY: ROMNEY FLIP-FLOPPED ON SETTING TIMETABLES FOR AFGHANISTAN WITHDRAWAL   FLIP: Romney Criticized President Obama’s Announcement Of A Troop Withdrawal Timeline In Afghanistan Saying “The Taliban May Not Have Watches, But They Do Have Calendars.” “Romney praised the decision to send additional troops to Afghanistan, but criticized President Obama’s announcement of when troops will withdraw. ‘The Taliban may not have watches, but they do have calendars,’ Romney said.” [Boston Globe, 6/3/11]

FLOP: Romney: “The Generals Actually Concur With The Idea That We Should Bring Down The Surge Troops And Ultimately By 2014, Take Our Footprint - Our Large Combat Footprint Out Of Afghanistan, That’s Something With Which I Concur.” On Moring Joe, Mitt Romney said: “The generals actually concur with the idea that we should bring down the surge troops, and ultimately by 2014, take our footprint -- our large combat footprint out of Afghanistan, that's something with which I concur.” [Morning Joe, MSNBC, 9/28/11]  

Read More

PRESIDENT OBAMA IS STANDING UP TO IRAN WITH THE TOUGHEST SANCTIONS YET, KEEPING ALL OPTIONS ON THE TABLE, AND DEFENDING OF OUR ALLIES, WHILE MITT ROMNEY WOULD ASK HIS LAWYERS WHAT TO DO   In 2007, Romney said he would defer to attorneys on whether he could launch a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, a position the Wall Street Journal called a “dangerous” first instinct of a Commander In Chief.  President Obama, on the other hand, has maintained a position of strength in his dealing with threats from Iran, making it clear that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, signing into law the toughest sanctions that are having a real effect on the country, and continuing America’s strong support of Israel.   REALITY: ROMNEY PREVIOUSLY SAID HE WOULD DEFER TO LAWYERS ON WHETHER HE WOULD TAKE ACTION AGAINST IRAN   Romney Said He Would Talk To His Lawyers Before Deciding Whether To Use Military Force Against Iran’s Nuclear Facilities.  Asked whether congressional authorization would be necessary to launch a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, Romney declined to answer definitively, instead deferring to lawyers’ opinions.  “You sit down with your attorneys and tell you what you have to do, but obviously the president of the United States has to do what’s in the best interest of the United States,” Romney told moderator Chris Matthews. On whether President Bush needed authorization to invade Iraq, Romney again deferred to legal experts, saying, “You know, we’re going to let the lawyers sort out what he needed to do and what he didn’t need to do.” [CNBC/WSJ GOP Debate, 10/9/07]   Romney Suggested You Sit Down With Your Attorneys Before You Deal With Iran. “Romney was the first to answer a question about whether a president would need authorization from Congress to take military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities. ‘You sit down with your attorneys’ for advice, he said, but ‘the president of the United States has to do what’s in the best interest of the United States.” [USA Today, 10/10/07]

• WSJ Editorial: “Deferring To Lawyers To Tell A President When He Can And Cannot Use Force To Defend The Country Is Not A Proper Understanding Of The Executive Power Under The Constitution, And It Is Dangerous If It Is The First Instinct Of A Commander In Chief.” The Wall Street Journal editorial page wrote, “Egad. Call in the attorneys? Perhaps it is Mr. Romney’s experience in business that taught him to want lawyers at his elbow, given that no CEO can survive without them these days. Or perhaps it is our hyper-legalized politics, with Mr. Bush accused daily of "breaking the law" over mere policy disagreements. But deferring to lawyers to tell a President when he can and cannot use force to defend the country is not the proper understanding of executive power under the Constitution, and it is dangerous if it is the first instinct of a Commander in Chief. Mr. Romney should have said that a President’s first duty is to do whatever it takes to protect the United States, and that he’d have the Constitutional authority to use military force to do so -- as Presidents from Washington to Teddy Roosevelt to Reagan have done -- but that of course he would want to consult with Congress and win its support as time and circumstances allowed. Mr. Romney doesn’t need a lawyer; he needs to reread the Federalist Papers.” [Editorial, Wall Street Journal, 10/11/07]
• Admiral Robert J. Natter Criticized Romney Saying “Lawyers Should Not Debate While Our National Security Is On The Line.” Admiral Robert J. Natter said of Romney’s remark that he would consult attorney’s before using military action against Iran, "Going to war is the most serious decision a president can make. Lawyers should not debate while our national security is on the line. In these momentous decisions, we need leadership, not litigation.” [MSNBC, Firstread, 10/10/07]

  REALITY: WHILE ROMNEY CALLS FOR TOUGHER SANCTIONS, HIS CHARITABLE HAS FINANCIAL INTERESTS IN COMPANIES THAT DO BUSINESS WITH IRAN   Romney’s Pledge To Sell Off Interests That Conflict With His GOP Stances Did Not Extend To Some Investments In A Family Charity. According to the Associated Press, “Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's personal wealth — up to $250 million — survived the nation's economic crisis, according to figures released Friday. But his pledge to sell off interests that conflict with his GOP stances did not extend to some investments in a family charity”. [Associated Press, 8/12/11]   Romney’s Charity, In 2007 And 2008, Purchased And Sold Investment Shares In “More Than A Dozen Other Foreign And Domestic Companies That Have Conducted Dealings With Iran, China Or Stem Cell Research.” According to the Associated Press, “In 2007 and 2008, the charity also purchased and sold hundreds of other investment shares - worth thousands of dollars - in more than a dozen other foreign and domestic companies that have conducted dealings with Iran, China or stem cell research.  The companies included China-based businesses Hang Lung, Telefonica and China Mobile Limited; medical research companies such as Merck, Roche Holdings and Fisher Scientific; and companies that dealt with Iran, among them Schlumberger, Gazprom and Total.” [Associated Press, 8/12/11]   2009: Romney’s Charity Bought Shares In Petroleo Brasiliero, Which “Invested $100 Million To Develop Iranian Oil And Natural Gas Reserves.” According to the Associated Press, “Yet as late as the 2009 period, tax filings show, Romney's charity bought shares worth $5,734 in Petroleo Brasiliero SA, also known as Petrobras, a Brazilian state-owned energy company that reportedly invested $100 million to develop Iranian oil and natural gas reserves in the Caspian Sea. The charity later sold the shares that year at a loss.” [Associated Press, 8/12/11]   REALITY: PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS MADE IT CLEAR HE WILL NOT ALLOW A NUCLEAR IRAN   President Obama has repeatedly affirmed that it would be unacceptable for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.  [MSNBC, 6/9/10]   REALITY: PRESIDENT OBAMA PASSED THE MOST SEVERE SANCTIONS IRAN HAS EVER FACED   With President Obama’s leadership, the United States gained the support of Russia, China and other nations to pass United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929, creating the most comprehensive and biting international sanctions regime the Iranian government has ever faced. [UN News Centre, 6/9/10]

• Citing Sanctions, Russia Banned All Exports Of Major Weapons Systems To Iran. [NYT, 09/22/10]

President Obama worked with Congress to pass the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act, which strengthens existing US sanctions and makes it harder for the Iranian government to buy refined petroleum and other goods it needs to modernize its oil and gas sector. [Associated Press, 6/24/10]

• Close to $60 billion in energy-related projects in Iran have already been put on hold or discontinued as of the end of 2010. [Bloomberg, 12/1/10]
• President Ahmadinejad Has Been Forced To Admit The Serious Impact Of Sanctions Placed On Government By The Obama Administration.  [Washington Post, 11/1/11]
• The Iranian Economy Now Faces Its Bleakest Prospects In Two Decades With An Almost Unanimous Forecast Of Low Growth, High Inflation, And Continued Double-Digit Unemployment. [Carnegie Endowment For International Peace, 03/18/10]

REALITY: PRESIDENT OBAMA STRONGLY CONDEMNED THE IRANIAN REGIME’S ATTACKS ON ITS CITIZENS   President Obama Forcefully Spoke Out In Support Of The Iran People’s Efforts To Make Their Voices Heard And “Strongly Condemned” The “Unjust Actions” Of The Iranian Government.  [NYT, 06/23/09]   REALITY: PRESIDENT OBAMA STOOD BY ISRAEL IN THE FACE OF THE IRANIAN THREAT   Prime Minister Netanyahu praised President Obama for his efforts to prevent Iranian nuclearization and for defending Israel's right to protect itself against Iranian proxies. "President Obama has said that the United States is determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The president successfully led the Security Council at the UN to adopt sanctions against Iran." [Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s Address to Congress, 5/24/11]   The Obama administration has reinstituted sanctions against Iran-allied Syria and strongly condemned Syria’s transfer of Scud missiles and other arms to Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy in Lebanon. [New York Times, 5/19/11; The Telegraph, 4/20/10]

President Obama Accelerated The Deployment Of Ships And Antimissile Systems To The Persian Gulf To Defend Against Possible Iranian Missile Strikes. [NYT, 1/30/10]      

Read More

When the President stood up for American workers and enforced trade laws against China, Romney said those very laws were “bad for the nation and our workers.”   

ROMNEY CLAIMED HE WOULD APPLY TARIFFS IF CHINA DOESN’T PLAY BY THE RULES

Romney Said He Would Apply Tariffs On Chinese Goods If China Didn’t Play By The Rules. “Number three, where they have stolen intellectual property and hacked into computers and where there are artificial pricing is causing goods to have predatory levels of pricing, I would apply if necessary tariffs to make sure that they understand we are willing to play playing field.” [CNBC, 11/9/11]

BUT PREVIOUSLY ROMNEY CRITICIZED OBAMA FOR ENFORCING TRADE LAWS ON CHINESE TIRES

Romney: Obama’s Chinese Tire Tariffs Are “Bad For The Nation And Our Workers” And Called It “Protectionism.”  “President Obama’s action to defend American tire companies from foreign competition may make good politics by repaying unions for their support of his campaign, but it is decidedly bad for the nation and our workers. Protectionism stifles productivity.” [Romney, No Apology (Case for American Greatness), Page 119]

REALITY: PRESIDENT OBAMA IS IMPLEMENTING THE WTO SAFEGUARD PROVISION TO PROTECT AMERICAN PRODUCTS FROM UNFAIRLY PRICED IMPORTS   President Obama Imposed Stiff Imports On Chinese-Made Tires, For The First Time Imposing Safeguard Provisions To Protect A US Industry From Chinese Competition.   [MarketWatch, 9/11/09]   Inside U.S.-China Trade Said The Section 421 Safeguard Petition Would Provide “The First Major Test” Of Whether President Obama Would Fulfill His Pledge To Shift U.S. Trade Policy From Emphasis On Negotiations To A Focus On Enforcement. [Inside US-China Trade, 4/22/2009, via Nexis]   President Obama Signed A Determination To Apply An Increased Duty To All Imports Of Passenger Vehicle And Light Truck Tires From China. [Statement By The Press Secretary, 9/11/2009]   USW International President Leo Gerard Said, “Today, President Obama Made Clear That He Will Enforce America’s Trade Laws And Stand With American Workers.”  [USW International Press Release, 9/11/2009]   USW Praised The Success Of The Tariff On Boosting Domestic Tire Production.  [New York Times, 12/14/10]   The WTO Ruled China Had No Legal Right To Impose Export Restrictions On Nine Raw Materials Following A Compliant Filed By The U.S. And Other Countries. [WSJ, 2/18/2011]   Economist Simon Evenett Called The Ruling, “A Punch Against China’s Trade Policy.” [WSJ, 2/18/2011]   REALITY: PRESIDENT OBAMA IS PURSUING STRONG INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENFORCEMENT   President Obama Said, “We’re Going To Aggressively Protect Our Intellectual Property…It Is Essential To Our Prosperity And Will Only Become More So In This Century.”  [Remarks by the President at the Export-Import Bank’s Annual Conference, 3/11/2010]   In A Joint Press Conference, President Obama Publically Pressed President Hu On The Need For Strengthened Enforcement Of Intellectual Property Rights And Market Access For American Good. [Transcript, 01/19/11]   After Meeting With President Obama In January 2011, President Hu Of China Agreed To Strengthen China’s Efforts To Enforce Intellectual Property Rights. [Office Of The United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, January 2011]   China Affirmed This Pledge At The May 2011 U.S.-China Strategic And Economic Dialogue. [The 2011 U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue U.S. Fact Sheet, 5/10/2011]   The Obama Administration Released The First Ever Joint Strategic Plan On Intellectual Property Enforcement, Covering 33 Action Items. [U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator Joint Strategic Plan, 2011]   President Obama Signed An Executive Order Establishing A Cabinet-Level Intellectual Property Advisory Committee. [U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator Joint Strategic Plan, 2011]   The Office Of The Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator Designated ICE’s First Intellectual Property Attaché In China, And The FBI Is Preparing To Send An Intellectual Property Dedicated Attaché To China This Year. [U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator Joint Strategic Plan, 2011]   REALITY: PRESSING CHINA REPEATEDLY ON MONETARY POLICY AND GAINING A COMMITMENT FROM CHINA ON EXCHANGE RATE REFORM   January 2011: President Obama Pressed China On Its Intervention In Its Currency Markets.   [Joint Press Conference Transcript 01/19/11]   November 2010: President Obama Criticized China’s Monetary Policy At The G-20 Summit.  [New York Times 11/12/10]

September 2010: President Obama Focused On Encouraging China to Revalue its Currency. [New York Times 09/23/10]   April 2010: President Obama Pressed China to Revalue Its Currency. [Reuters 04/13/2010]   The New York Times Said That President Obama “Repeatedly” Made The Point That The United States Would No Longer Tolerate Deliberate Currency Manipulation During Talks With China’s Prime Minister. [NYT, 9/30/2010, via Nexis]   President Obama Said, “The Reason I’m Pushing China About Their Currency Is Because Their Currency Is Undervalued.” [NYT, 9/30/2010, via Nexis]   January 2011: Secretary Geithner Said “The Relative Competitiveness Of American Companies, American Products...Is Moving In Our Favor, Because The Chinese Are Allowing Their Currency To Now Strengthen. [Press Briefing By Secretary Geither, 1/14/2011]   The New York Times Reported That In April 2011, The Chinese Currency “Hit A Milestone” By Rising To The Strongest Level Since 2005. [NYT, 4/29/2011]   Since Last June, The Renmibi Has Appreciated Against The Dollar By More Than 5 Percent, And At An Annual Rate Of Roughly Ten Percent When China’s Higher Inflation Rate Is Taken Into Account. [The 2011 U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue U.S. Fact , 5/10/2011]   China’s Leaders Increasingly Acknowledge The Importance Of Currency Appreciation. [The 2011 U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue U.S. Fact , 5/10/2011]   China Has Recently Begun To Take Steps To Make The Renminbi An Internationally Traded Currency. [The 2011 U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue U.S. Fact , 5/10/2011]   REALITY: EXPORTS TO CHINA ARE INCREASING FASTER THAN TO THE REST OF THE WORLD AND SUPPORTING JOBS ACROSS THE US   Last Year, U.S. Exports Grew 50 Percent Faster To China Than The Rest Of The World, Reaching More Than $110 Billion And Supporting Hundreds Of Thousands Of Jobs Across The U.S. [The 2011 U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue U.S. Fact Sheet, 5/10/2011]   China Agreed To Approve Airline Contracts For 200 Orders, The Final Step In A $19 Billion Package Of Aircraft That Helps Support More Than 100,000 American Jobs. [Fact Sheet On US-China Relations, 1/19/2011]  

Read More

REALITY: ROMNEY SAID FORECLOSURES SHOULD “HIT THE BOTTOM” AND WE SHOULD DO NOTHING TO HELP STRUGGLING HOMEOWNERS

Let’s not forgot that Romney said we should let the foreclosure process that has devastated so many families “run its course and hit the bottom.” That’s appalling, but not unexpected from a former financial executive who wants to let Wall Street – the same guys whose recklessness brought the housing market and our economy to the brink – write its own rules, even if it means hanging the middle-class out to dry. Mitt Romney believes families who work hard and play by the rules should be kicked out of their homes so bankers and the mortgage companies that scammed homeowners can get rich. His vision of the American Dream would be a nightmare for America’s homeowners.

Romney: “Don’t Try To Stop The Foreclosure Process. Let It Run Its Course And Hit The Bottom.” Romney: “As to what to do for the housing industry specifically and are their things that you can do to encourage housing. One is, don’t try to stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom. Allow investors to buy homes, put renters in them, fix the homes up and let it turn around and come back up. The Obama administration has slow walked the foreclosure process [inaudible] that has long existed and as a result we still have a foreclosure overhang.” [Las Vegas Review-Journal, 10/17/11]

Las Vegas Sun Editorial: Romney Said He Wants To Move Quickly By Having Foreclosures “Washed Through The System” Meaning Even More Foreclosures. “In an interview with the Las Vegas Sun, Romney said ‘the key thing for me is let the market do its work. Get the foreclosures washed through the system ... let the market rebound from the bottom that it hits, and get people back into homes.’ In other words, Romney doesn’t want the government involved but instead wants the market left on its own. And he wants it to move quickly by having foreclosures ‘washed through the system,’ meaning even more foreclosures.” [Editorial, Las Vegas Sun, 10/30/11]

• Romney: “Let The Market Do Its Work. Get The Foreclosures Washed Through The System… Let The Market Rebound From The Bottom That It Hits.” Romney said in his interview with the Las Vegas Sun: “Is there some way of helping people refinance their homes? With lower-priced debt? We’ll look at those things, but the key thing for me is let the market do its work. Get the foreclosures washed through the system ... let the market rebound from the bottom that it hits, and get people back into homes.” [Las Vegas Sun, 10/23/11]

Read More

Tonight, Mitt Romney said, “I’m a man of steadiness and constancy.” But as recently as yesterday, conservatives weighed in on Romney’s “steadiness and constancy,” with one noting that Romney “is a man devoid of any principles other than getting himself elected.” And who can blame them? With ever-changing positions on abortion, climate change, Afghanistan, and many, many others it’s clear – even Republicans know Mitt Romney will say and stand for anything to get elected.

THE LEFT AND RIGHT HAVE RECOGNIZED ROMNEY AS A FLIP-FLOPPER

Red State Blogger And CNN Contributor Erick Erickson: Mitt Romney Is “A Man Devoid Of Any Principles Other Than Getting Himself Elected.” “Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is a man devoid of any principles other than getting himself elected. As much as the American public does not like Barack Obama, they loath a man so fueled with ambition that he will say or do anything to get himself elected. Mitt Romney is that man.” [Red State, 11/8/11]

George Will: Romney Is “A Recidivist Reviser Of His Principles.” “Romney, supposedly the Republican most electable next November, is a recidivist reviser of his principles who is not only becoming less electable, he might damage GOP chances of capturing the Senate: Republican successes down the ticket will depend on the energies of the Tea Party and other conservatives, who will be deflated by a nominee whose blurry profile in caution communicates only calculated trimming.” [George Will, Washington Post, 10/28/11]

National Review: Romney “Bounces Around” On Issues By “What He Thinks The Next Election’s Voters Want To Hear.” Deroy Murdock wrote in the National Review, “This little episode proves that Romney is less tethered than a soccer ball at the World Cup. He bounces around, not thanks to his own compass, but in reaction to forces that encircle him — first and foremost what he thinks the next election’s voters want to hear… In contrast — from abortion to spending to taxes to guns — Romney keeps shifting, just like the political pressures that toss him this way and that. Compared to Willard Mitt Romney, I have seen mannequins in less empty suits.” [National Review, 2/11/11]

Vennochi: “Romney’s Position Revolves Around Where Romney Is In His Political Career.” In a Boston Globe op-ed, Vennochi wrote “The Road to the White House gets rocky when you’re a Massachusetts flip flopper…Romney says his abortion stance “has evolved.” You might say it ‘revolved.’ Romney’s position revolves around where Romney is in his political career: in the Bay State, or beyond. [Boston Globe, 3/2/06]

“Romney Is Running As The New Rorschach. He Runs From His Own Record, Seems To Be For Everything Before He Was Against Everything, Unless He Says Nothing.” “Does Mitt Romney have anything to say about the great issue of the hour? He remains in seclusion, hiding from the debate, silent about his views, weak and timid and vacillating. What a pathetic performance from a man who aspires to the presidency who looks like the worst of Obama without the best. Romney is running as the new Rorschach. He runs from his own record, seems to be for everything before he was against everything, unless he says nothing.” [Hill, 7/29/11]

Romney’s “Practically A Flip-Flopping Legend” He’s “Like A Box Of Chocolates – You Never Know What You’re Going To Get.”“We’re talking about a man who’s practically a flip-flopping legend. Romney has demonstrated a willingness to flip-flop like no other American politician in a generation. Romney was a pro-choice supporter of gay rights, gun control, and comprehensive immigration reform. He’s reversed course on everything from economic stimulus to health care, the auto-industry rescue to foreign policy. Mitt Romney is like a box of chocolates — you never know what you’re going to get.” [Benen, Washington Monthly, 6/9/11]

ROMNEY HAS FLIP-FLOPPED ON NUMEROUS MAJOR ISSUES

ROMNEY FLIP-FLOPPED ON OHIO’S COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LAW

JUNE: Romney Posted His Support Of Gov. Kasich’s Laws Against Unions. “My friends in Ohio are fighting to defend crucial reforms that the state has put in place to limit the power of union bosses and keep taxes low. I stand with John R. Kasich and Ohio’s leaders as they take on this important fight to get control of government spending. Please visit www.BetterOhio.org for more information.” [Romney, Facebook, 6/18/11] ·

• OCTOBER: Romney Said Of The Ohio Ballot Initiatives: “I’m Not Terribly Familiar With The Two Ballot Initiatives.” Romney said of the Ohio ballot initiatives: “I’m not speaking about the particular ballot issues, those are under the people of Ohio but I certainly support the effort of the governor to reign in the scale of government. So I’m not terribly familiar with the two ballot initiatives but I certainly supportive of the Republican Party’s effort here.” [Romney, Cincinnati OH, 10/25/11] · 
• NEXT DAY: Romney: “I’m Sorry If I Created Any Confusion… With Regards To Question 2 Which Is The Collective Bargaining Question, I Am 110 Percent Behind Gov. Kasich In Support Of That, That Question.” “I'm sorry if I created any confusion in that regard. I fully support Gov. Kasich’s, I think it’s called question 2 in Ohio. Fully support that… But with regards to question 2 which is the collective bargaining question I am 110 percent behind Gov. Kasich in support of that, that question.” [Romney Presser, Fairfax VA, 10/26/11]

ROMNEY FLIP-FLOPPED ON ROE V. WADE

Romney Wants To Overturn Roe V. Wade. Romney said, “I would love to see an America where there was no abortion. But that’s not where the American people are. What I do want to see, and where I think the American people are today, is to see a conservative jurist on the Supreme Court and to see Roe v. Wade overturned.” [Associated Press, 10/13/07] ·

• 1994: Romney on Roe v. Wade: “I Do Not Want To Change It, Overturn It, Reverse It.” “Romney has said he supports Roe v. Wade, the landmark case establishing a woman’s right to an abortion, though he does not favor federal funding of abortions except where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or threatens the life of the mother. ‘(It) has been the law of the land for over 20 years, and I do not want to change it, overturn it, reverse it. I want it to remain the law of the land,’ Romney said of Roe v Wade.” [Boston Herald, 5/19/94]

ROMNEY FLIP-FLOPPED ON WITHDRAWING TROOPS FROM AFGHANISTAN

FLIP: Romney: “It Is My Desire And My Political Party’s Desire To Support The People Of Afghanistan And Not To Leave.” “Although the media have not been invited to his events, a glimpse into Romney’s thinking was provided by an individual who attended the meeting between Romney and the young Afghans and who allowed a reporter to view a video of the event. At one point, Romney said he supports a longer-term US presence in Afghanistan and asked Afghans for their own suggestions about how the United States can help overcome the raging insurgency and endemic corruption here. President Obama’s administration has said it plans to begin reducing the number of US troops in July with the goal of handing over security to the Afghans by the end of 2014. ‘It is my desire and my political party’s desire to support the people of Afghanistan and not to leave,’ Romney said in response to a question about whether the United States was going to pull out of the country soon. ‘So we look to you to tell us the best ways that we can support you.’” [Boston Globe, 1/14/11] · 

• FLOP: Romney’s Went Middle Of The Road On President Obama’s Announcement Of Troop Reductions In Afghanistan Saying “We All Want Out Troops To Come Home As Soon As Possible.” “Some of the leading Republican presidential candidates offered dramatically different reactions to President Obama’s announcement of troop reductions in Afghanistan, a reflection of the schism in the Republican Party over the future of the war… Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, is somewhere in the middle. In a statement, Mr. Romney said that ‘we all want our troops to come home as soon as possible,’ but he stopped short of praising Mr. Obama’s speech.” [New York Times, 6/23/11] · 
• Romney Said Of Afghanistan: “I Also Think We’ve Learned That Our Troops Shouldn’t Go Off And Try To Fight A War Of Independence For Another Nation.” At the New Hampshire Republican primary debate Romney said of Afghanistan: “I also think we've learned that our troops shouldn't go off and try and fight a war of independence for another nation. Only the Afghanis can win Afghanistan's independence from the Taliban.” [New Hampshire Debate, 6/13/11] 

ROMNEY FLIP-FLOPPED ON SETTING TIMETABLES FOR AFGHANISTAN WITHDRAWAL

FLIP: Romney Criticized President Obama’s Announcement Of A Troop Withdrawal Timeline In Afghanistan Saying “The Taliban May Not Have Watches, But They Do Have Calendars.” “Romney praised the decision to send additional troops to Afghanistan, but criticized President Obama’s announcement of when troops will withdraw. ‘The Taliban may not have watches, but they do have calendars,’ Romney said.” [Boston Globe, 6/3/11] ·

• FLOP: Romney: “The Generals Actually Concur With The Idea That We Should Bring Down The Surge Troops And Ultimately By 2014, Take Our Footprint - Our Large Combat Footprint Out Of Afghanistan, That’s Something With Which I Concur.” On Moring Joe, Mitt Romney said: “The generals actually concur with the idea that we should bring down the surge troops, and ultimately by 2014, take our footprint -- our large combat footprint out of Afghanistan, that's something with which I concur.” [Morning Joe, MSNBC, 9/28/11]

ROMNEY FLIP-FLOPPED ON DEPORTATION OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

Romney: 12 Million Illegal Immigrants Should Not Be Allowed to Stay Permanently. At the ABC GOP Debate on January 5, 2008, Romney said: “I disagree fundamentally that the 12 million people who come here illegally, should be allowed to stay here permanently. I think that is a form of amnesty and that it’s not appropriate.” [NH ABC Debate, 1/5/08] ·

• PREVIOUSLY: Romney: It’s Not “Practical Or Economic For The Country” To Deport 12 Million Illegal Immigrants. “Romney also said in the interview that it was not ‘practical or economic for the country’ to deport the estimated 12 million immigrants living in the US illegally. ‘These people contribute in many cases to our economy and to our society,’ he said. ‘In some cases, they do not. But that’s a whole group we’re going to have to determine how to deal with.’” [Boston Globe, 3/16/07]

ROMNEY FLIP-FLOPPED ON ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN

Romney Became The First Governor In The Nation To Sign A Permanent Ban On Assault Weapons Calling Them “Instruments Of Destruction With The Sole Purpose Of Hunting Down And Killing People.” “But perhaps the most significant gun legislation Romney signed as governor was a 2004 measure instituting a permanent ban on assault weapons. The Legislature mirrored the law after the federal assault weapons ban, which was set to expire. According to activists at the time, the bill made Massachusetts the first state to enact its own such ban, and Romney hailed the move. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense," he was quoted as saying. ‘They areinstruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.’” [Boston Globe, 1/14/07] ·

• Romney: “I Do Not Support Any New Legislation Of An Assault Weapon Ban Nature, Including That Against Semiautomatic Weapons.” Romney said, “And so we signed that in Massachusetts, and I said I’d -- I would would support that at the federal level, just as the president said he would. It did not pass at the federal level. I do not believe we need new legislation. I do not support any new legislation of an assault weapon ban nature, including that against semiautomatic weapons. I instead believe that we have laws in place that, if they’re implemented and enforced, will provide the protection and the safety of the American people. But I do not support any new legislation, and I do support the right of individuals to bear arms, whether for hunting purposes or for protection purposes or any other reasons. That’s the right that people have.” [Florida Atlantic University Debate, 1/24/08]

ROMNEY FLIP-FLOPPED ON DON’T ASK DON’T TELL

1994: Romney Supported Allowing Gays And Lesbians “To Serve Openly And Honestly In Our Nation’s Military.” “Clinton’s don’t ask/don’t tell policy on gays in the military is a fine first step, Mitt muses, but must ‘ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military’ - a prospect that causes military professionals to cringe.” [Boston Herald, 10/20/94] ·

• Romney Said He Supported Maintaining Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Asked if he stood by a letter he wrote to the Log Cabin Republicans in 1994 where he indicated that he could support allowing GLBT individuals to serve in the military, Romney replied, “As for military policy and the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy, I trust the counsel of those in uniform who have set these policies over a dozen years ago. I agree with President Bush’s decision to maintain this policy and I would do the same.” [National Review Online, 12/14/06]

ROMNEY FLIP-FLOPPED ON CAP AND TRADE

Romney Said Cap And Trade “Tax” Dissuaded “Expansion By Employers In The Energy Sector.” Romney wrote, “Promoting an open-ended cap-and-trade tax dissuades expansion by employers in the energy sector.” [Romney Op-Ed, Boston Globe, 8/18/10] ·

• 2005: Romney Endorsed Regional Cap And Trade System, Saying "This Is A Great Thing For The Commonwealth ... We Can Effectively Create Incentives To Help Stimulate A Sector Of The Economy And At The Same Time Not Kill Jobs. ... I’m Convinced It Is Good Business." "Governor Mitt Romney signaled his support yesterday for a regional agreement among Northeastern states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, despite opposition from power companies and other business interests that have been lobbying the administration against the plan. In opening remarks to a clean-energy conference in Boston, Romney said the first-of-its-kind agreement, under which Massachusetts and eight other states could be required to cut power plant emissions by 2020, will not hurt the economy, as some have charged. He argued that it would spur businesses to develop clean -- and renewable-energy technology to market worldwide. ‘This is a great thing for the Commonwealth,’ Romney said, his strongest endorsement of the pact to date. ‘We can effectively create incentives to help stimulate a sector of the economy and at the same time not kill jobs.’... Romney said yesterday that he had some concerns about the agreement, known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, but he endorsed this and other clean-energy initiatives by saying they would stimulate the development of technology that Massachusetts companies could sell to other states and countries, as the emphasis on climate change grows. ‘I’m convinced it is good business,’ Romney said." [Boston Globe, 11/8/05] ·
• Romney In 2003: "Now Is The Time To Take Action Toward Climate Protection ... Our Joint Work To Create A Flexible Market-Based Regional Cap And Trade System Could Serve As An Effective Approach To Meeting These Goals.” “In another nod to environmentalists, Gov. Mitt Romney has joined with New York Gov. George Pataki in a plan to limit greenhouse gases from Northeast power plants. In a July 21 letter to Mr. Pataki, Mr. Romney acknowledged that carbon dioxide emissions are harming the environment and agreed to help design a regional emissions cap for power generating plants. Mr. Pataki last spring invited New England and mid-Atlantic state governors to spend two years on a plan to bring about significant reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. ‘I concur that climate change is beginning to affect our natural resources and that now is the time to take action toward climate protection,’ the governor wrote. ‘I share your interest in ensuring that the economic and security contributions made by our electricity generating system are not negated by the impact of emissions from that system on the health of our citizens,’ he continued… ‘Our joint work to create a flexible market-based regional cap and trade system could serve as an effective approach to meeting these goals,’ Mr. Romney wrote in the letter.” [Telegram & Gazette [Worcester, MA], 8/6/03]

ROMNEY FLIP-FLOPPED ON ECONOMIC STIMULUS PACKAGE 

Romney: The Democrats Stimulus “Will Accelerate The Timing Of The Start Of The Recovery.” According to the Boston Phoenix, Romney wrote in his book that “A stimulus package ‘was called for’ after the late-2008 economic downturn, and the Democrats’ stimulus ‘will accelerate the timing of the start of the recovery.’” [Boston Phoenix, 2/10/10] ·

• Romney Called The Stimulus Package A Failure And Said The President Made The Economy Worse. “Romney was in Utah to be a part of the grand opening of the APX Alarms new headquarters in Provo. After a ribbon cutting, he posed for pictures with supporters and told reporters the president has the economy all wrong. ‘This 10 percent unemployment is an albatross around the president’s neck,’ said Romney. ‘Other president’s have inherited recessions before, but this president didn’t make it better, he made it worse.’ Romney also said the stimulus package was a failure. ‘The president indicated that his stimulus would hold unemployment to 8 percent, and that if he didn’t pass the stimulus of almost a trillion dollars it would go to 10 percent. Well, we went to 10 percent. So it was a bad miscalculation that’s going to cost the American people a lot.’” [KSL, 12/3/09]

Read More

Tonight, Mitt Romney said, “I care about this state and auto industry like no one else on this stage.” But Romney should explain to voters why, when the jobs of 1.4 million American workers were on the line, he turned his back on them.  Romney opposed the loan the President extended to the auto industry and instead proposed “letting Detroit go bankrupt” in an op-ed in the New York Times. And earlier this year in Detroit, Romney said that the President was "out of touch" for encouraging young people for pursuing manufacturing jobs. But this should come as no surprise - he's been turning his back on workers and middle-class families throughout his career.  

REALITY: GM & CHRYSLER FACED LIQUIDATION WITHOUT GOVERNMENT ACTION, CAUSING MASSIVE JOB LOSS AND ECONOMIC DAMAGE

The Congressional Oversight Panel For TARP Said That GM & Chrysler “Faced Bankruptcy And Probable Liquidation” In December Of 2008. “By the beginning of December 2008, GM and Chrysler could no longer secure the credit they needed to conduct their day-to-day operations. The CEOs of Chrysler and GM appeared before Congress and appealed for government assistance to help them remain in business, but they were unable to muster sufficient congressional support to get a rescue bill through the Senate.  Unless they could raise billions of dollars in new financing from private investors, they faced bankruptcy and probable liquidation.” [COP January Oversight Report, 1/13/11]  

Mark Zandi Of Moody’s Analytics: “Without Any Government Help, The Big Three Will Quickly End Up In Bankruptcy And Be Effectively Liquidated, Resulting In Hundreds Of Thousands Of Layoffs At Just The Wrong Time.” “Without any government help, the Big Three will quickly end up in bankruptcy and be effectively liquidated, resulting in hundreds of thousands of layoffs at just the wrong time. They would file for Chapter 11, a restructuring, but it would likely turn into a Chapter 7 liquidation. Their factories and other operations would be shut down and their assets sold to pay creditors. Given the collapse in the financial system and resulting credit crunch, debtor in possession, or DIP, financing would be all but impossible to get.” [Chief Economist Mark Zandi Of Moody Analytics, Testimony To U.S. Senate Banking Committee, 12/4/2008]  

CEO Of Ford Motor Company: “If GM And Chrysler Had Gone Into Freefall Bankruptcy” They Would Have “Taken The Industry Down Plus Maybe Turned The U.S. Recession Into A Depression.” “The government’s intervention was absolutely key to helping create a chance for GM and Chrysler going forward. That’s why I testified on behalf of GM and Chrysler, as you know. The reason we did was that we believed—like two presidents [Bush and Obama]—that if GM and Chrysler would have gone into freefall bankruptcy, they would have taken the supply base down and taken the industry down plus maybe turned the U.S. recession into a depression.” [CEO Of Ford Motor Company  Alan Mullaly, 10/16/2010]  

Center For Automotive Research Chairman: “The Whole [Auto] Industry Was At The Edge Of Collapse” And “Had That Occurred It Would Have Taken The Economy Very Likely Into A Depression” So Romney’s Opposition To The Auto Bailout Shows He “Didn’t Understand The Circumstances.”  “Asked about that statement, David Cole, the chairman of the Ann Arbor-based Center for Automotive Research, said, ‘The whole industry was at the edge of collapse. This was before the bankruptcy. Had that occurred, it would have taken the economy very likely into a depression.’ Cole added of Romney: ‘He sounds like most of the people from Washington. They really didn’t understand the circumstances. They talk without knowledge. I would vote for him, but he is off base. He doesn’t understand the details here.’” [Detroit News, 2/24/10]  

Fiat-Chrysler Head Said Romney Must Have Been “Smoking Illegal Material” When He Argued The US Auto Industry Could Have Been Resurrected Without Federal Assistance. “The head of Fiat-Chrysler said today that Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney must have been ‘smoking illegal material’ when he argued in 2008 that the US auto industry could be resurrected without federal financial assistance.” [Boston Globe, 6/3/11]  

Fiat-Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne Attacked Romney’s “Managed Bankruptcy” Without Federal Assistance Theory Saying “The Government Stepped In, As The Actor Of Last Resort. It Had To Do It Because The Consequences Would Have Been Just Too Large To Deal With.”  “During an interview with CNN, Sergio Marchionne, chief executive of Fiat and Chrysler, said government support was pivotal. The comment contrasted with a 2008 op-ed column in which Romney urged the federal government not to provide an industry bailout but instead force automakers into a ‘managed bankruptcy.’ Marchionne told CNN: ‘Whoever told you that is smoking illegal material. That market had become absolutely dysfunctional in 2008 and 2009. There were attempts made by a variety of people to find strategic alliances with other car makers on a global scale and the government stepped in, as the actor of last resort. It had to do it because the consequences would have been just too large to deal with.’” [Boston Globe, 6/3/11]  

The Economist Said That Without The Auto Rescue “It Is More Likely GM Would Have Been Liquidated, Sending A Cascade Of Destruction Through The Supply Chain…” “Had the government not stepped in, GM might have restructured under normal bankruptcy procedures, without putting public money at risk. Many observers think this unlikely, however. Given the panic that gripped private purse-strings last year, it is more likely that GM would have been liquidated, sending a cascade of destruction through the supply chain on which its rivals, too, depended.” [The Economist, 8/19/2010]  

The Center For Automotive Research Said “Loans And Other Financial Assistance Provided To General Motors And Chrysler…Averted Certain Economic Catastrophe Had The Companies Been Allowed To Fail.” “Across the globe, federal, state and provincial governments stepped in to provide aid to the Detroit-based automakers with operations in their countries. These loans and other financial assistance provided to General Motors and Chrysler by the U.S. and foreign governments averted certain economic catastrophe had the companies been allowed to fail.” [Center For Automotive Research, 12/17/2010]  

Center For Automotive Research: “Providing Government Assistance To General Motors And Chrysler Through Quick And Structured Bankruptcy Proceedings Avoided The Worst Case Scenario.” [Center For Automotive Research, 12/17/2010]   

The Center For Automotive Research: The Auto Industry Rescue Saved More Than 1.4 Million Jobs, Including 1.14 Million Jobs In 2009 And 314,400 Jobs In 2010. [Wall Street Journal, 11/17/10]  

The Center For Automotive Research Reported That If The Auto Industry Had Undergone An Unstructured, Disruptive Bankruptcy, Michigan Would Have Lost Over 337,000 Jobs Reliant On The Auto Industry In 2009 And 2010. [CAR Automaker Bankruptcies Report, 5/26/09]  

CNN: “Doing Nothing” For GM Chrysler “Could Have Cost More Than Twice As Much” As The Auto Rescue, Which Prevented More Than $28 Billion In Lost Tax Revenues And Assistance To The Unemployed. “Saying the U.S. taxpayer "lost money" is probably the wrong perspective, considering that spending no money at all likely would have meant a financial catastrophe for millions of Americans far in excess of a mere $14 billion. Had GM and Chrysler collapsed, it would have cost the federal government about $28.6 billion in lost tax revenues and assistance to the unemployed in just the first two years alone, according to the Michigan-based Center for Automotive Research. In other words, doing nothing could have cost more than twice as much the bailout.” [CNNMoney, 7/22/11]

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Read More

Please see below for a fact check of Minn. Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s comments during the Fox News Presidential debate tonight on his record handling the deficit as Governor of Minnesota.

PAWLENTY'S RHETORIC: “This idea that there's a deficit and I left it in Minnesota is not accurate.”

REALITY: PAWLENTY LEFT MINNESOTA WITH A PROJECTED $6.2 BILLION DEFICIT

When Pawlenty Left Office, Minnesota Faced A $6.2 Billion Deficit For The 2012-2013 Biennium.  [Minnesota Public Radio, 12/2/10]

• “Minnesota's Projected Budget Deficit Shrank By A Fifth To $5 Billion … State Economist Tom Stinson Attributed The Improvement To Federal Action That Helped The Economy, Including A Payroll Tax Cut And Delay In A Capital Gains Tax Hike.” [Associated Press, 2/28/11]
• Minnesota’s Budget “Deficit Is Nearly 13 Percent Of The State's General Fund.” [Associated Press, 2/28/11]

Star Tribune’s Lori Sturdevant: “No Other Governor In Minnesota's 152-Year History” Besides Pawlenty “Has Handed His Successor A $6.2 Billion Deficit Forecast.”  [Lori Sturdevant op-ed, Star Tribune, 12/4/10]

“Gov. Mark Dayton… Says He Inherited A ‘Horrendous Fiscal Mess’ And Poorly Managed State Agencies” From Pawlenty.” [Associated Press, 2/9/11]

REALITY: PAWLENTY ONLY PLUGGED MINNESOTA’S BUDGET HOLE WITH TEMPORARY FIXES

Under Pawlenty, Minnesota “Tried To Stop The Financial Bleeding With An Assortment Of Band-Aids, From Payment Delays To One-Time Federal Windfalls Of Cash. Now That Bag Of Tricks Is Just About Empty.” [Star Tribune, 1/5/11]

Rochester Post-Bulletin Editorial: “It's Absurd That Pawlenty Is Boasting About Leaving Minnesota With A Balanced Budget And ‘Money In The Bank.’ …The Fine Print Should Disclose This Surplus Wouldn't Exist Without Federal Stimulus Dollars And A $1.4 Billion Loan From Minnesota's Public Schools.”  [Rochester Post-Bulletin, 12/6/10]

MinnPost:  Minnesota Was Second Among States “That Relied On One-Time Fixes To Close Their Budget Gaps For This Fiscal Year” According To The National Conference of State Legislatures Because “Pawlenty… Relied On One-Time Solutions To Close 41 Percent Of The State’s Gap.” [MinnPost.com, 2/2/10]

REALITY: PAWLENTY USED STIMULUS MONEY TO BALANCE HIS BUDGETS

Pawlenty “Opposed The Stimulus But Accepted The Funding.” [Politico, 4/10/09]

Pawlenty On Stimulus Funding: “We’re Not Bashful About Accepting Our Share Of The Money… If You’re Paying The Tab For The Pizza, It’s Ok To Have A Slice Even If There Are Some Anchovies On It.’” [Washington Post, 2/23/09]

Read More