Today’s Mitt.
Mitt Romney has finally turned up in Iowa, ahead of tonight’s debate and this week’s straw poll, and by most accounts he was animated and engaged in some events.
But I think this exchange during the Q-and-A portion of an event today may come back to bite him, in so many ways:
“We have to make sure that the promises we make in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are promises we can keep, and there are various ways of doing that,” Mr. Romney said. “One is we can raise taxes on people.”
“Corporations!” the protesters shouted, suggesting that Mr. Romney, as president, should raise taxes on large businesses. “Corporations!”
“Corporations are people, my friend,” Mr. Romney responded, as the hecklers shouted back, “No they’re not!”
“Of course they are,” Mr. Romney said, chuckling slightly. “Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where to do you think it goes?”
When someone in the front row angrily suggested that “it goes in their pockets,” Mr. Romney, becoming increasingly animated, asked: “Whose pockets? People’s pockets!”
Apart from the potential appeal to pro-lifers of Mitt’s expansive view of personhood, it seems that Romney has both endorsed raising taxes — Grover Norquist will be calling — and endorsed doing so on people, not corporations. Not to mention his trickle-down view of corporate profits…
[Late addition from GG:]
Considering the number of Americans with 401K plans, and large pension plans invested in stocks, he’s not far off the mark, actually, however inartfully he said it. Of course I’m sure team “Hope and Change” will keep to the high road!
‘Corporations as people’.. Where are all the Catholic theologians. philosophers. hierarchs… when we could USE them, to say those damn corps have no soul, can’t be baptized, married, confirmed, ordained… but they can only be given last rites and therefore are not persons?. Aside [they, the corps, are holding 2 trillion cash overseas waiting for the GOP to let them bring it back tax free [repatriated, nice word?].
I say let them bring it back NOW, for US job growth only, no bonuses, no dividends, no stock buy backs, buy outs of other corps.. the market evaporated 2 trillion in the last two weeks.
“Aside [they, the corps, are holding 2 trillion cash overseas waiting for the GOP to let them bring it back tax free [repatriated, nice word?].”
You do realize that Bill Clinton has argued publicly for repatriation of corporate profits?
And that repatriation doesn’t mean they would pay no tax?
And that Pres. Obama has argued for a lowering of the corporate tax rate?
Jeff… yeah but they are not me.. I say bring it back with HOOKS. as above. Your faith in corps doing the right patriotic Christian thing with profits is neither admired or possible as they have no damn soul.. You and Romney should Re-read Genesis 1:27
“Your faith in corps doing the right patriotic Christian thing with profits is neither admired or possible as they have no damn soul.. You and Romney should Re-read Genesis 1:27″
I only (politely) pointed out what Democrats believe, contra your assertion that “the GOP” wants to bring it back “tax free.” With respect, you don’t know what I believe.
Latest example of why Mitt Romney will be hard put to make it out of the Republican primaries.
As Ann Richards would say: “Poor [Mitt], he was born with a silver foot in his mouth.”
“Considering the number of Americans with 401K plans, and large pension plans invested in stocks, he’s not far off the mark, actually, however in-artfully he said it. Of course I’m sure team “Hope and Change” will keep to the high road!”
“And everyone has a share” said Milo Minderbinder.
When it comes to campaign contributions, as far as the law is concerned, Romney seems to be right about corporations being people. So why not for tax purposes too? This seems like a perfectly sensible thing to say. So, the real question is: Why are we hearing it from a republican and not Obama?
Only the far left could think that pointing out that corporations are people could come back to bite someone. Sure, 10% of the people will be very upset, but 10% of the people will be very upset about anything.
Mark (8/11 7:49 pm)
Yep. People – liberals, progressives, and socialists included – own stocks and bonds in great quantities. We’re all capitalists, and we’ve been enjoying the luxuries and leisure that affords us for half a century. That cudgel against the evil rich no longer works. Gotta find another.
Jim Jenkins, I think Romney is still the favorite, even in the primaries, and will be the last (wo)man standing. And he’d be much more viable in the general election. At least, that’s my bet. No money down, of course…
I think it’s pretty clear that Mitt meant that corporations are made up of boards, employees, and investors, all of whom are people who benefit from what corporations make.
Jumping all over Mitt’s very inarticulate responses about corporations being people, however, merely distracts from the fact that Mitt failed or refused to directly answer the crowd’s main concern: Does he support any type of revenue increase, whether through taxing wealthier beneficiaries of corporations and other enterprises or by closing tax loopholes, especially as people in the crowd seemed to be mostly middle-aged and older people who are watching modest investments and small businesses fail.
There is, I think, a valid concern about the viability of small business in Our Great Nation, particularly as the trend in all sorts of industry is toward conglomeration. Five or six companies now own most of the mass communication outlets in the nation. Four or five companies now own 90 percent of the beef industry. And on and on.
Jean (8/11 9:34 pm), there have been anti-trust laws on the books for ages.
Ha. Romney is about as much as a conservative as is David Brooks. But, of course, that does not stop those who lack even the faintest clue about conservatives from wasting their time attacking him as a conservative.
Romney has exactly ZERO chance of getting the GOP nomination. The only way that he could get it is the way McCain got delegates, by Dems crossing over in the primaries to vote for him (only to abandon him in the general). And if he did force his way to a nomination, conservatives would stay home on election day and Obama would be relected in a landslide.
Romney might be the favorite of establishment-types, but every conservative knows he is a weasal. From RomneyCare to taxes to flip-flopping to untrustworthiness on life issues, he has absolutely no chance.
Bender –
I just read the Wikipedia article on Friedrich Hayek, the current patron saint of contemporary “conservatives”. It seems that Hayek called himself a liberal and was quite critical of “conservativism”. HE even said that “Conservatism is only as good as what it conserved”, and, being one to appreciate free markets, he saw conservatisim as a restraint on that freedom.
Hmm. Obviously we have a semantic problem of gigantic proportions here. Just what IS a “conservative” according to those who call themselves that? I suspect that there are some very, very different answers.
Maybe Romney is one of the Hayek kind of conservatives (i.e., he’s an old-fashioned “liberal”). Or not.
By the way, the usual opposition between Hayek and Keynes doesn’t really hold. Both of their systems recognized that at times their “basic principles” needed qualification depending on circumsances. In fact, they admired each others’ work, though they disagreed about some basics.
Complexity, complexity.
Bender, I love the categorical certainty on Mitt’s chances (zero). He is enough of a peculiar fellow (not going down Politico’s weirdly “weird” campaign story path) that I don’t know what he might do — excel or gaffe himself to death.
But he seems consistently strong:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148664/Romney-Leads-Field-Announced-GOP-Candidates.aspx
And I’m not sure who is really able to take over. The rest all seem to wither under scrutiny. Can Perry really make it? Or win in 2012?
Who is your pick?
Yes, anti-trust laws are great, but in this period of conglomeration, agribiz shoves out small farmers, chains put local pharmacies out of business, Dollar Stores swallow up local variety stores, McDonald’s replaces the local cafes. And that’s just what’s happened in my town of 1,700 people. Instead of a relatively self-supporting little village, we are now a bedroom community for the bigger town 10 miles away.
Anyhow, the folks in Ioway were trying to get Mitt to answer some fairly straightforward questions about his stand on the fairness of the current tax structure, and he was ducking that question in ways that aren’t going to win him any friends among those who like straight talk.
Moreover, the tax code (separate from raising taxes) needs revision to ensure that everybody pays his fair share. Over on Mitt’s official vote for me page, his stated policy is merely cut and repeal.
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/fiscal-responsibility.
“And if he did force his way to a nomination, conservatives would stay home on election day and Obama would be relected in a landslide.”
I agree. I believe McCain’s 2008 electoral performance would outstrip a Romney 2012 candidacy.
David G – I don’t have a pulse on Perry yet. He seems to have the ability to put together a pretty broad conservative coalition (to the extent that there is breadth in Conservativeland these days – Christian conservatives and establishment conservatives, and I think he wouldn’t be anathema to the Tea Party, either). If he can secure the nomination, I think his jobs story will resonate with the general electorate.
Jim, a good roundup of reax on the right — the upshot being that Mitt was a weak winner, and Rick can swoop in:
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/08/iowa-debate-reax-from-the-right.html
BTW, this was an astounding moment, via Conor Friedersdorf:
Another “priceless” from (far right?) Mark: “only the far left…”
And speaking of Rick, what is his idea of relihion in the public sqaure????
David G, thanks for that Andrew Sullivan link. Btw, how does he do it? I don’t think any single person can read, digest and post the sheer volume that he does. I’ve concluded that there is a borg-like collective known as “Andrew Sullivan”.
“Borg-like”! I like that…He has a team of very good “under-bloggers.”
“BTW, this was an astounding moment, via Conor Friedersdorf.”
Interested in why this seems astounding. It seems to me that the GOP has decided that the time is now ripe to dismantle entitlements. It seems entirely predictable to me:
Everybody’s hurting and the country’s credit rating is slipping. That can be leveraged into a story that entitlements, particularly Medicare/Medicaid, are the bogeyman, especially when GOP candidates have deficit hawks breathing down their necks. Of course they’re going to draw all kinds of brave lines in the sand a la “read my lips.”
I consider myself in the liberal camp most of the time, but I sure don’t run my personal finances in the red to the extent our government does. So, yes, I sympathize to some extent with the deficit hawks.
However, what I object to is the utter lack of imagination and sense of priority in the cut, cut, cut mantra.
When I strip things out of my budget, I don’t just cut across the board. I look first at what my kid needs and what my mother needs, and those expenses get taken off the table. I cut from what’s left.
I realize that comparing one’s household budget to our national budget is a somewhat facile comparison, but honestly, I have no faith in the GOP’s notion that if we just unfetter Big Business, and cut everything else, we’ll all be just dandy.
I can’t tell if the complete and unfair mischaracterization of these comments is the result of ignorance or mendaciousness.
He clearly wasn’t talking about coprrations AS people in some sort of existential sense. He was making the point, that liberal politicians always obscure because it undermines their class warfare, anti-business message, that when it comes down to it corporations are nothing more than a collection of human beings. Every dime that goes into them or comes out of them is spent by, produced, owned, and earned by people. He is trying to undermine the wreckless and dangerous myth perpetuated by liberals that corporations are some sort of cash cow that you can just milk without affecting people. People own, work for, and buy from corporations, and the idea that you can tax or regulate them without affecting the worker employed by them, the consumer who purchases from them, and the shareholder who owns them is irresponsible political flim-flam. It is easy to make claims about big this and big that paying more if you ignore the fact that it may result in your brother-in-law getting laid off, or the price of your products going up, or the return on your retirement accounts going down.
It is interesting to see the juxtaposition beween the “rasie you hands” moment at the debate and the “read my lips” pledge in the comments. The GOP experience with “read my lips” is exactly why they won’t compromise. I think the best answer to the “raise you hands question” would have been – “You may as well ask whether I would be willing to fuel automobiles with unicorn sweat and fairy dust if that was possible.” It was a stupid question.
Every time – and I mean every time – the grand compromise of tax increases in exchange for big spending reductions has been proposed to and accepted by consetrvatives there is never a quo for the the quid. In the case of Bush I, the dems made the offer and he did the apparent “wise” thing according to liberals and compromised, and then they used his words to show he was a flip-flopper! More’s the pity because they didn’t live up to their part of the tax and cut bargain, so he couldn’t even say he advanced the cause of fiscal responsibility. Just like liberals now love to point out Reagan’s tax increases as support for their position when, at the time, it was also part of a tax and cut deal where the cuts never happened.