Contact
Mitt will ‘stick’ in NM… stick it to the middle class
Suzanne Prescott
What’s at stake in this election is a choice between an economy built from the top down or an economy that thrives on the middle class’ ability to work, earn and provide for their families.
In her recent post on NMPolitics.net, blogger Sarah Lenti claims that Mitt Romney will “stick” in New Mexico and do well here in November. She cites his record as governor of Massachusetts and the aid of Governor Martinez.
I agree that Governor Romney will “stick” in our home state – stick it to New Mexico’s middle class, that is.
Ms. Lenti claims that “this election is all about the economy.” Again, I agree. What she fails to point out, however, is that the policies Mitt Romney supported as governor of Massachusetts hurt the middle class the most.
Romney vowed to cut taxes when he ran for governor of Massachusetts. He didn’t. He did cut taxes for millionaires like him, but raised more than 1,000 taxes and fees on small businesses and middle-class families. Massachusetts residents under Governor Romney paid 30 percent more in taxes. He also raised fees on everything from milk to nursing homes, from school bus rides to poultry inspections, and even for blind people and electricians. As president, he’d do the same thing, raising taxes on hundreds of thousands of middle-class New Mexicans while giving millionaires like himself a 25 percent tax cut.
Massachusetts was second in per-capita debt before Romney took office. While in office, Romney took the state to the number one spot, increasing per-capita debt by 41 percent (from $7,551 to $10,612) from the previous administration. This isn’t the kind of leadership we need in New Mexico – or the White House.
Romney claims that his experience in the private sector gives him the knowledge and ability to create jobs nationwide, so surely Massachusetts experienced job growth under Romney, right? Wrong. Under Romney’s leadership, Massachusetts had one of the worst job creation rates in the nation, ranking 47th out of 50. Do we really want to repeat that record here in New Mexico and across the country?
Romney also has a long record of shipping American jobs overseas. A recent Washington Post investigation demonstrates that Mitt Romney’s corporate-buyout firm was an outsourcing pioneer. On the campaign trail, he claims to support American jobs. But, as a corporate raider, he made a fortune helping companies outsource jobs to countries like China and India. Now he’s rooting for economic failure, putting his own political gains ahead of economic growth. Romney doesn’t care about keeping jobs in New Mexico – his record proves it.
Two fundamentally different visions
Romney Economics didn’t work then and New Mexicans know it won’t work now. We tried Romney’s failed formula for most of the last decade. It benefitted a few, but crashed our economy and hurt the middle class. It didn’t grow our economy, create good jobs or pay down our debt – it caused the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
In contrast, President Obama believes that we have to reclaim the security the middle class has lost by restoring the basic values that made our country great. America prospers when we’re all in it together or when hard work and responsibility are rewarded. A sustainable economy now and for future generations is one where everyone, from Main Street to Wall Street, does their fair share and plays by the same rules.
Endless budget cuts lead us away from prosperity not toward it. To create true middle class security, we must out-innovate, out-educate and out-build the world. New Mexico needs an economy that creates jobs of the future and makes things the rest of the world buys ― not one built on outsourcing, loopholes, risky financial deals and foolish investment vehicles.
This November, New Mexicans can break the stalemate between two fundamentally different visions of how to grow the economy, create middle-class jobs and pay down the debt. We will decide which path we take as a nation – not just in the next four years, but for generations to come.
That’s what’s at stake in this election. It’s a choice between an economy built from the top down or an economy that thrives on the middle class’ ability to work, earn and provide for their families. We can choose either to move backward with Mitt Romney, or move forward with President Obama.
Suzanne Prescott, PhD, is a former field representative for the American Federation of Teachers, a production assistant at Jones Intercable, executive producers of the Insight New Mexico radio show, and a professor emerita at Governors State University in Illinois.
19 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Indeed, I missed that issue of National Geographic. So, if I understand what you’re saying, this is what you mean:
1, National Geographic says that ‘Earth’s population in 2045 is expected to be 9 billion…global overpopulation equals strain on natural resources, food and water supply’
2. Therefore people like me want to use ‘population control as a means to thin the ranks of the economically disadvantaged…now and in the future’
I’m sorry, I just don’t see any way to logically connect those two statements.
I notice, however, that you haven’t denied that you often drown kittens because you enjoy watching them die. I can only conclude that people like you support things far, far worse than that.
“new” direction:
Are you seriously paying so little attention to the conversation that you can’t tell the difference between several long and well-documented comments made by Mr. Schneider and a single very brief (and admittedly snarky) comment made by myself? For that matter, are you seriously inventing a conclusion for the National Geographic article (or rather year-long series of articles) that was never made? I can only assume that you just take everyone who disagrees with you and ascribe a single universal set of simplistic viewpoints to all of them so that you don’t have to think too much…
“Accusing liberals of supporting eugenics is so very late 20th century”
“Is anyone else amused by “new” direction’s insistence on going in directions so old that we would have to repeal and reverse through the entire twentieth century just to find the road he wants to take us on?”
Michael and IP:
“So very late 20th Century”….Really? Well, you guys must’ve opted not to renew your subscription to National Geographic. For shame.
The January 2011 COVER STORY was Population 7 Billion: How YOUR World Will Change. Oh, you missed it? Well, I’ll sum it up for you…Earth’s population in 2045 is expected to be 9 billion…global overpopulation equals strain on natural resources, food and water supply….there’s even some nice Malthusian quotes for you, IP.
Evidently, the editorial board at Nat. Geo. doesn’t agree with your respective conclusions that this topic is soooo late 20th Century.
Why do you enjoy drowning kittens?
I know many lefty enviros support population control as a means to save the planet’s natural resources. I’m sure they also support M. Schneider’s anti-corporate/wealthy rant. Logically, then, they should also support population control as a means to thin the ranks of the economically disadvantaged…now and in the future
I know many righty conservatives support personal liberty. I’m sure that they also support the right to hold property, including kittens. Logically, they must also support people who put kittens into bags with rocks and throw them into the river.
I mean, could you at least find some reason to argue with something I’ve actually said, rather than putting positions into my mouth? Accusing liberals of supporting eugenics is so very late 20th century. Can’t we move on to something that’s at least in nodding acquaintance with reality?
It’s true that involuntary sterilization statutes were passed in such liberal enclaves as Oklahoma (1) and Virginia (2), but as is said of Ms Buck, that was in another country, and besides, the wench is dead (3)
(1) Skinner v Oklahoma
(2) Buck v Bell
(3) Poetic allusions you have to figure out yourself.
Here is Mitt Romney’s video — “The Promise of America”!!!!!!! It is video heralding a “white” America. The video challenges the viewer to find one person of color in the video. This video is an insult.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mjplRC2Gew
Talk about a video that sticks it to all blacks and Hispanics.
IP, if you want context, see Andy’s speech:
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/aj7/speeches/ajson6.htm
And more specifically: ”Among these principles, from our past experience, it can not be doubted that simplicity in the character of the Federal Government and a rigid economy in its administration should be regarded as fundamental and sacred. All must be sensible that the existence of the public debt, by rendering taxation necessary for its extinguishment, has increased the difficulties which are inseparable from every exercise of the taxing power, and that it was in this respect a remote agent in producing those disturbing questions which grew out of the discussions relating to the tariff. If such has been the tendency of a debt incurred in the acquisition and maintenance of our national rights and liberties, the obligations of which all portions of the Union cheerfully acknowledged, it must be obvious that what ever is calculated to increase the burdens of Government without necessity must be fatal to all our hopes of preserving its true character.
While we are felicitating ourselves, therefore, upon the extinguishment of the national debt and the prosperous state of our finances, let us not be tempted to depart from those sound maxims of public policy which enjoin a just adaptation of the revenue to the expenditures that are consistent with a rigid economy and an entire abstinence from all topics of legislation that are not clearly within the constitutional powers of the Government and suggested by the wants of the country. Properly regarded under such a policy, every diminution of the public burdens arising from taxation gives to individual enterprise increased power and furnishes to all the members of our happy Confederacy new motives for patriotic affection and support. But above all, its most important effect will be found in its influence upon the character of the Government by confining its action to those objects which will be sure to secure to it the attachment and support of our fellow citizens.”
Hm, two Andrew Jackson quotes on one page; mind you, the latter is lacking context and the former was never said by him, but other than that…
Is anyone else amused by “new” direction’s insistence on going in directions so old that we would have to repeal and reverse through the entire twentieth century just to find the road he wants to take us on?
Andrew Jackson also said: ”Every diminution of the public burdens arising from taxation gives to individual enterprise increased power and furnishes to all the members of our happy confederacy new motives for patriotic affection and support.”
“The rest of the country will continue to suffer as the Republicans will see America rot in hell before lifting a finger to help because some single mother somewhere in urban L.A. might just own a $200 purse and have an EBT card stashed inside.
Otis:
I’ve heard the single welfare mother argument ad nauseum. Why do single mothers continue to have children (in many cases from different fathers) when they do not have the financial means to support them? Because somewhere, somehow the irresponsible notion was hardwired in their minds that, no matter their economic plight, the government will always take care of them. This nanny state, cradle to grave philosophy that has been passed down from generation to generation since FDR.
I know many lefty enviros support population control as a means to save the planet’s natural resources. I’m sure they also support M. Schneider’s anti-corporate/wealthy rant. Logically, then, they should also support population control as a means to thin the ranks of the economically disadvantaged…now and in the future
Andrew Jackson also said government would screw up a one-horse parade….
The issue is jobs, jobs, jobs
Right right right. The current unemployment rate is a national disaster which will continue making us poorer for many decades.
Jobs are created by businesses large and small when there is demand for their product or service. No business goes out and borrows money or needs it when there is no demand.
Right right right. Nobody will hire people to produce things when they can’t sell the product. Even if taxes were zero, unsold product isn’t income.
So if we label investors “top”, then it seems to me growth has to be from the top down
Wrong wrong wrong. We’ve been lowering taxes on the wealthy for three decades or so. We’ve been lowering taxes because we’ve been told “lower taxes pay for themselves in higher revenues from increased economic activity.” We’ve been told that “if we leave more money in the hands of rich people they’ll invest more and we’ll all benefit.” Those are all lies (2).
Right now corporate profits are way high(4). That’s because a lot of corporations have cut expenses by firing people(1). Business investment is doing pretty well(3). But until businesses start selling more they won’t expand – and the funny thing is, businesses can’t possibly sell more unless and until people start buying more.
(1) http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/02/its-obvious-where-profits-have-come-from.html
(2) http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/budget_deficit/
(3) figure 6 from http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/09/understanding-the-lesser-depression-231-the-great-moderation-the-global-savings-glut-and-the-housing-boom-the-housing-bo.html
(4) http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/09/mark-thoma-sends-us-to-gary-burtless-on-how-it-is-not-regulatory-and-tax-uncertainty-that-has-depressed-the-economy.html
Andrew Jackson summed up what this campaign should be about: ” We believe in equal opportunity for all, and special privileges for none.”
Jobs are created by businesses large and small when there is demand for their product or service. No business goes out and borrows money or needs it when there is no demand. Right now there is no demand for goods and services that is large enough to sustain growth at a rate needed. So with the private sector not creating demand by buying the only, o-n-l-y, other sector to begin stimulating that demand is the government sector. Republicans represent a “we got ours” mentality that will not spend enough government funds to stimulate the economy. The private sector will not either. So we will continue to tread water. As the economy stalls or stumbles the Republicans will continue to point the finger, whine about taxes being too high, and do nothing to help America writ large. Those who have benefited and have large accumulations of wealth will do just fine. The rest of the country will continue to suffer as the Republicans will see America rot in hell before lifting a finger to help because some single mother somewhere in urban L.A. might just own a $200 purse and have an EBT card stashed inside. The continued fear and hate industry that serves the Republicans so well will continue to grind this country down until we truly do collapse.
Here is another source for checking Prescott’s assertions, and hardly a conservative one.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/4-pinocchios-for-obamas-newest-anti-romney-ad/2012/06/20/gJQAGux6qV_blog.html
Try
http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-outsourcer-overreach/
for facts on Prescott’s post, re jobs.
The issue is jobs, jobs, jobs. The poor and the middle class need jobs. Jobs are provided by small businesses and large businesses. Business requires investors who want maximum return on their investment. Businessmen don’t just work 8 to 5 like the sacred “middle class”. I get so tired of hearing that “middle class” and “working families” BS. So if we label investors “top”, then it seems to me growth has to be from the top down….Sounds good that we need fairness but the investor doesn’t invest as a public service, i.e.,he or she wants to make a profit. Profit is a dirty word with the “fairness” crowd. It’s greedy. Greedy corporations are a favorite target. Never mind there is where growth comes from…..and pension money returns. The mentality that exists today and promoted by the left will not lead to growth of the economy……
WOW…frustratedvoter….what a terrific analogy! You’re better than the national pundits…maybe you are a national pundit.
At any rate, Ms. Prescott, Mitt Romney is running for POTUS not Governor of NM. So, comparing Romney’s record as governor of Massachusetts to how he would govern as president is comparing apples and oranges.
”We can choose either to move backward with Mitt Romney, or move forward with President Obama…” smacks of Obama campaign talking points that would most certainly resonate with a former teacher’s union field rep.
Ms. Prescott goes on to say, “As president, he’d do the same thing, raising taxes on hundreds of thousands of middle-class New Mexicans while giving millionaires like himself a 25 percent tax cut.” Speaking of millionaires, back on June 5 even President Clinton said that Congress would be best off agreeing, at least for the time being, to extend all the tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of the year, including the so-called Bush tax cuts named after Clinton’s successor, George W. Bush.
Clinton gets it…Obama doesn’t.
While I appreciated some of the points, it’s really hard to compare Mass to NM. It’s like comparing Germany to Greece. They’re exceptionally wealthy and we’re excpetionally poor, so our challenges and options are fundamentally different. While I aspire to the same prosperity, security and fiscal soundness as the author, I don’t believe we have great choices. Obama is disappointing and Romney is a little scary. Regardless of who wins, we’ll get more of the same partisan pandering, political self interest, and gridlock. Our parties these days are like viruses… they’ve invaded the host, don’t necessarily want to kill it, but are much more interested in replicating more viruses to carry on the “fight” than to benefit the host. The viruses thrive on divisiveness and don’t do well in the absence of strife, as a healthy host supports fewer viruses.
This article fails to mention the strategic bankruptcies engineered by Bain Capital. For instance, Mr. Mitt Romney led the purchase of Worldwide Grinding Systems. So what did he do to the company? He loaded the company with hundreds of millions of dollars of debt. Then Bain paid itself a $36 million dividend. Where new jobs created? No the company went bankrupt after being sucked dry of cash. The creditors lost a lot of money. The jobs of 750 workers were terminated, and the pension obligations of the company were shifted to the federal government. This is the modus opernadi of Bain Capital under the leadership of Mr. Romney – sad!
Now basically he wants to do the same thing in America. His mindset has no sympathy for the middle class and the poor. Romney wants to institutionalize his “Vulture Capitalism” or as he calls it “creative destruction.” Destroy the American economy and rebuild it.
By the way when are we going to see the tax returns of Bishop Romney? How is his Cayman Islands account doing?