Since Romney on Sunday's Meet the Press-not for the first time-suggested that he would keep parts of ObamaCare-the popular parts regarding preexisting conditions and children saying on their parents plan until they're 26-he's, though it would have seemed impossible, even further muddied his position on healthcare-in the same interview he also muddies his position on taxes by claiming that he won't cut taxes for the rich
In classic muddy fashion we have to presume Romney means to confuse: he has promised to cut taxes by 20% on every income group. So how can he claim he won't raise them for the top rates? By claiming-without proof-that eliminating certain deductions will give them no net decrease in taxes.
Healthcare it's getting beyond belief. And the funny thing is that he gets it every way by doing this. As the Wall Street Journal noted this morning he exposes himself to multiple attacks at once by doing this-by the Right, ,Center, and Left.
C'mon, Ted Kennedy told us who he was 18 years ago-he's Multiple Choice Mitt. It's not that he lacks any coherent position, it's that he has too many coherent positions.
"When Mitt Romney ventures into health care, political trouble usually follows. So it went this weekend, as the GOP standard-bearer made his own policy sound worse than it is."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444100404577643521720749982.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Now I'm not sure about the part about making his own policy sound worst than it is: which one is that? However, outside of this, WSJ nails it:
"When pressed, Mr. Romney said that "I'm not getting rid of all of health-care reform. (That would be the liberal euphemism for ObamaCare.) Of course, there are a number of things that I like in health-care reform that I'm going to put in place. One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage."
"Whether or not this rhetorical gambit was driven by polling, it did confuse political reporters who think that the only two "health-care reform" choices are ObamaCare and the pre-2010 status quo. They were soon filing stories about a Romney "move to the middle." Meanwhile, certain quarters on the right—equally unversed in policy—went bonkers, while liberals gloated about a flip flop."
Exactly-he got it from every side. As to Romney's real position not being as bad as he makes it sound, the WSJ thinks this is what he means:
"Based on our reading of Mr. Romney's policies, he should have said something like this: "I support President Obama's goal of making sure sick people can get insurance. But the wrong way to solve this problem is a new entitlement we can't afford, a vast increase in government control over medicine, and drastic health-care changes for the other 300 million Americans."
"Mr. Romney could then explain that he wants the market for individual insurance to work better by imitating the current system for large businesses. People who are covered by their employers are already protected from price shocks or losing their insurance if they become ill. As long as they maintain continuous coverage, even if they change jobs, they are protected by "guaranteed renewability." Mr. Romney sensibly wants to extend this guarantee to the 7% of adults under 65 who buy coverage directly."
I have no idea how Mitt is going to get the market to do this. It's unlikely to work as well as the WSJ makes it sound. But what makes them think this is what he really means?
I think there's something to the idea of Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo that Romney's problem is that in his heart of hearts, he loves ObamaCare-and why shouldn't he? It worked very well in Massachusetts. He's in this bizzaro world where his only chance at winning is predicated in denying, repudiating and indeed, repealing, his own most signature public achievement.
In Zizkean terms, we could argue that the reason Romney is such a poor candidate is ti's based wholly on living this lie about OhamaCare, where Romney can only win by "denying the Truth of his own Desire."
Interestingly, Eric Convey, a long time Massachusetts former journalist and businessman who has followed Romney speculated in another WSJ piece today about what a Mitt Romney Presidency might really be like.
He argues that Romney probably wouldn't repeal ObamaCare:
"What does Mr. Romney's Massachusetts experience suggest about how he'd run things from the Oval Office? It's a safe bet that defenders of government spending from both parties will have to bolster their data with well-founded economic arguments if they want him to stay his hand."
"There's a good chance his champions in corporate America and on Wall Street will find themselves disappointed—even severely disappointed—if he makes good on his promise to rein in business-tax loopholes and other government pandering to companies."
"And it's more likely that Mr. Romney will try to reform ObamaCare than make good on his vow to repeal it. For one thing, he won't have the votes for repeal unless the Republicans win the Senate. But he also seems not to have entirely given up the belief that getting people to buy health insurance is a fundamental financial necessity—that's one reason he will not disavow the near-universal coverage he helped bring to Massachusetts. Then again, if Congress moves to defund ObamaCare and the public rejoices, he may find it beneficial to his brand to get on board."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444273704577637564025257348.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Overall, Convey seems to buy into the idea that Romney would be the first true Ceo-President. He argues that it helped him in working with Massachusetts Democrats and achieving ObamaCare.
He admits though that Romney was very poor at fostering personal relationships with lawmakers-I've heard taht Romney couldn't name many of the lawmakers he worked with.
I think his last sentence is nails it. He will do whatever benefits his brand. If we assume-reasonably-that a Romney President would have the coattails for a Republican Senate, I have a hard time imagining that he would veto the Congressional bill that repeals ObamaCare. Not if that's the direction that is politically beneficial to him.
In a liberal state like Massachusetts he supported ACA as that was where the political winds blew him.
I find this overall a curious article for WSJ. They very seldom publish anything that isn't clearly meant to benefit Romney. I wonder if this post wasn't part of an effort to make him look more Centrist for some readers-while in the other piece quoted above they expressed their confidence that he's totally against any government intervention in the health insurance market.
Perhaps the goal is to make some wonder if Who knows maybe he will go back to the Center once in office.
However, this touches on the most important reason to vote against Mitt Romney. His lack of transparency. Whether you are on the Right, the Center, or the Left, do you really have anymore than a guess where he might govern?
Isn't this a problem? Isn't this fundamentally the undemocratic aspect of his whole candidacy that's most objectionable? We'll tell you after the election. Paul Ryan again on Sunday said he wanted to talk about the question of what loopholes to close "in the light of day" so for that reason he refused to answer.
What exactly does he think "in the light of day" means?
Romney would certainly be much more Right wing as President than he had been in Massachusetts. Going by his actual platform-what he says he will do-he is the most Right wing candidate in over 100 years.
With a conservative House and Senate, my guess he would be pretty conservative. He'd be that Republican "with working digits" Grover Norquist dreams about.
But I wonder if even those who plan to vote for him are a bit disquieted by just how much he is all over the map.
No comments:
Post a Comment