After watching interviews of Governor Romney and the debates, both Presidential and VP, I’m starting to fully get my arms around how Governor Romney works and the details of his tax plan.
Governor Romney is a successful financier. He is an amazing deal maker. When he has control of a situation, he knows exactly how to get things done. He knows exactly what he wants to do and he knows exactly the process he needs to take to get there. He is incredibly confident in his ability.
I see some of me in him. When it comes to my companies, I know what i want to do and I have complete confidence that I will get to where i need to go. I might not always get there, but I tend to only get into businesses and battles where I am extremely confident I can come out ahead. My failures have never stopped me from having absolute confidence in how I approach business. I have the feeling that Governor Romney has this trait to a far greater degree than even I do. No failure will ever slow down Governor Romney’s confidence.
That confidence is exactly the foundation of his tax plan. This is how I see his plan:
– He will work to create bipartisan agreement to reduce federal spending as a share of GDP to 20 percent – its pre-crisis average – by2016.
– He will work to create bipartisan agreement to simplify the Tax Code
– That the rich will continue to pay the same share of taxes as they pay now.
– He believes that income and corporate tax cuts across the board will increase economic growth which will offset the impact of any tax cuts that he is able create in a revenue neutral manner
– He intends to first negotiate a bipartisan agreement to eliminate corporate and individual deductions other than mortgage interest deductions, health care deductions and several other tax deductions that he feels are important to the middle class
– Once he has negotiated a bipartisan agreement to eliminate corporate and individual deductions he will be able to access the impact on revenues and determine what tax cuts that can be reasonably made. His goal and hope is that those tax cuts will be 20pct across the board for individuals and to 25pct for corporations. But he has been clear that it is not absolutely certain that these will be the exact numbers.
Well I’m going to fill in those details in a second. But first I want to provide a little more detail on my perception of Governor Romney. As I said at the beginning of this post Governor Romney is a deal maker who has extreme confidence in his ability to get his deals done.
Agree or not, I am certain that Governor Romney firmly believes the following – at Bain he created a company that was built on his ability alone to close deals to buy or invest in companies. He knew that he took people’s money and he was relentless in getting profitable deals done to make them money. He was hired to fix the Olympics. and he did. He was hired to fix the state of Massachusetts and he feels certain that he did. Add all this together and I believe that Governor Romney firmly believes that he is as good a negotiator and dealmaker as there is.
If you put a problem in front of him, he knows in his mind that given enough time, resources and control he can solve the problem.
Which is the exact detail of the Romney Tax Plan that makes all the numbers add up. Governor Romney is the detail
. He will take all the unsolved variables in the algorithm that is our desire to reduce the budget deficit , increase economic growth and thereby increase employment and negotiate them into the outcome that will solve this country’s financial problem.
Can he do it ? I don’t know. What I do know is that in order for him to have a rational negotiation on all of these variables it requires the politicians he will be negotiating with to negotiate in the best interests of the country rather than for their own personal interests and for the projections of the economists advising him to be accurate. Those are both high risk factors that will be difficult to overcome. I don’t know that anyone can over come them, including Governor Romney. I think it will be difficult for anyone to walk in to the office and get to a compromise that solves the algorithm. But I know Governor Romney has no doubt in his mind that he is more than up to the challenge. Which leads to the next algorithm, what happens if he gets elected and can’t get bipartisan agreements ? That has to be part of the equation as well.
So what does all this mean ? It means this is how I was thinking and I wanted to get it out there to let people comment on it. Thats the beauty of a blog, it can create discussion on topics i am interested in.
I’m not saying you should or should not vote for either of the candidates. That is up to you. Nor am i saying that economic issues should be the only factor in who you should vote for. Everyone needs to make their own decisions. Just as I will make my own decision on Nov 6th.
Thanks for reading this far. I hope you jump in on the comments
298 thoughts on “My Opinion on the Governor Romney Tax Plan”
Among other details Mark glaringly omitted (too many to detail here) come in the claim that Romney ‘saved’ the Olympics is this fact: Had the Government (I know, horror of horrors) NOT stepped-in in a huge way, Romney would not have ‘saved’ the Olympics. So, when it’s convenient, apparently Govt intervention is a good thing.
Oh, and one more thing, many of Romney’s friends/associates benefited handsomely because of it —land purchases or new roads pushed the property of friends. One more thingPt2, I’m pretty sure none of them would be considered anything close to middle class.
Comment by Tony Potts -
Hey Potts, you won. Go get your free stuff. They’ll take some money from Mr. Cuban to pay for whatever you’re grubbing for. I see the market went down over 300 points the day after the election. Only down 50 so far today. Nice.
Comment by dcangelo -
Actually wind turbines produce very little, especially considering the amount of materials it takes to create them. Each 40-story windmill produces at most 2 megawatts, generates unpredictably, and only 30% of the time. Yeah, a real viable option there.
Whether you like it or not, fossil fuels are all we’ve got that are worth a damn. Sure, we can spend all we’ve got putting solar panels and wind turbines onto every home, and they will still suck energy from a coal/nuclear plant. Real progress, as we all go into (deeper) debt, but at least we’ll feel better about ourselves, because we saved the planet, right? The same planet that will still keep on spinning in space, even if it’s just barren rock and we are long, long gone.
Comment by nuzzyfipples -
Now combine both wind and solar at the same location. The argument can be made that it either being windy or sunny are probably 50% more likely than what either one alone would be. Many locations should not focus on just one or the other. Plus enough of the suns rays needed to generate solar energy is probably also generating enough heat that could be used as radiant energy as well.
And why are we comparing renewables with what petroleum can do? The point is, over time, renewables become a better deal once they are in place and working.
As for nuclear energy, we don’t even know the ultimate damage from the Kyoto Nuclear meltdown. http://enenews.com/japan-expert-longer-clean-safe-food-after-fukushima-radiation-spread-around-planet-people-advanced-nuclear-power-be-made-eat-extremely-contaminated-food-video
Plus, Uranium is not unlimited, and of course must be mined. (I believe lithium for batteries needs to be mined as well). As for the intermittency of wind, there are ways to store that energy and then tap it when necessary. I heard that the 911 towers had accidentaly built in wind tunnel effects because of the elevator shafts. There may be all types of ways to actually build in wind pressure differences into tall buildings and then tap that as well.
I don’t get the straw hat argument that it costs a gallon of petroleum to produce a gallon of ethanol. How about solar energy producing the energy needed to produce ethanol? A lot of petroleum is wasted in all kinds of ways.
For those interested here is a list of how much petroleum each country in the world uses. We of course use the most, we use three times as much as China.
Amazingly, our military apparently only uses about 1.5 to 2% of the total U.S. consumption. But if we add in the petroleum needed to build all the components that the U.S. Military uses, that number would most likely double. I’m not saying we don’t need a military, but we might actually need less of a military if we didn’t need all the oil that we do need and instead of making more and more military might, we could much more effectively use the steel in one tank to make wind energy, and instead of then feeding the tank beast both to transport it and then use it to destroy things, that hunk of steel could be kept local and as a renewable energy resource and suddenly generating energy.
The difference in the energy needed for all phases of a tank’s life vs making a few windmill that actually then creates energy is profound.
This all relates to Romney because Romney’s goal is to crank up the oil usage and the military presence, sending us in the wrong direction for energy self sufficiency.
Comment by dailypuma -
The value of money is directly tied into the availability of petroleum. However, to assume that there may be no actual affect to our planet as oil continues to be taken out of the earth’s continental shelf may be foolish.
We really don’t know if underground oil reserves minimally assists in how our planet earth spins, orbits, creates magnetic fields, even the angle it orbits at around the sun.
I’d rather not rely on finding more and more and more oil reserves and escalating oil production year after year to meet demand with the implied directive that there will always be more and more to find.
That just seems like the wrong approach.
Therefore, the value of money can change overnight based on how stable our energy reserves are. The best way to stabilize our energy reserves is by actually growing energy, not necessarily bio fuel either. I think solar and the wind can produce a lot more energy than they are being credited with being able to produce, as can the oceans.
Comment by dailypuma -
I think you speak for most anyone, that the deeper one thinks about solving the +/- outcome of the Romney tax plan, the more they yearn to get those min/hrs/days of their lives back. It’s similar to predicting this season’s NBA champion. As much as you may have an algorithm that predicts the Mavs becoming league champs again, the beta is still pretty large considering all the variables that effect a team.. crazy things happen (eg GSW’s victory in 6 games over the Mavs in ’07.. did you have an algorithm for that??), same applies to predicting the future a candidates ability to implement their proposed ‘plan’.. most the time those plans are dramatically changed and redesigned once they get to office, just look at Obama’s pre/post presidency scheme.. almost nothing went as planned.
I’m much more interested in the candidate that can remove the most government spending while in office. Both democrat and republic candidates/parties unfortunately seem to lack understanding for this philosophy.
Btw, heard you say you want higher taxes on Piers Morgan.. that surprised me. Considering how smart you’ve been with your money, I would think you and the country are far better off with you dictating where its invested/donated/spent than a third party that would spend >40% of it in admin.
Comment by Nate West (@nate222) -
dailypuma, although I am more optimistic than you, I do agree that the sky is rather cloudy. Singing in the rain indeed requires a good tap dancer, dare I say.
A presidential dance contest would be fun to watch.
Comment by gilcatt -
To Greg Burton and Brian Benton, about Petroleum and the cost of Hybrids.
Hybrids make more sense if people actually can own some type of energy creation device that trickle charges their car when the car is home. The key to hybrids working well are lowering the overall weight, (without making them lift off in high winds) and also having the car surface absorb the suns rays and convert them to trickle charge electricity as well.
We may even see the day when very small, affordable hybrids are sold in packs of two so each car gets a full 24 hour to 48 hour trick charge time, every bit of consumer generated power would go a long way towards reducing the consumption of resources that should be lasting thousands of years, not less than a hundred more.
As for petroleum and business investments, there was a huge united effort to get petroleum rocking and rolling a hundred years ago by both the government which also included the creation of the Fed.
The first auto assembly lines were building cars that the people working on the assembly lines could not afford to buy, unless they were given credit. One could call this a huge infusion of capital into private business for the express purpose of helping get petroleum exploration off the ground by creating more demand for petroleum.
Horses, mules and human brute force helped create the infrastructure for petroleum powered steel cars to thrive, now it’s time for petroleum to give an assist to the most logical predecessor out there, renewable energy in small doses wherever it can be put and I just don’t think it matters where the money comes from.
Comment by dailypuma -
Dailypuma you are absolutely incorrect about oil imports and exports. We import about 5 X what we export. I refer to the EIA numbers here:
That being said I am 100% in agreement with all intelligent, pragmatic people, that we should get off of fossil fuels as much as, and as soon as possible, assuming that the move really represents a lowering of oil consumption, while pursuing the maximization of our use of our own fossil fuel reserves, keeping our prices (and the world’s prices) down as low as possible. Please see my post about how Bush’s increase in our own capabilities in June 2008 immediately resulted in a drastic drop in oil prices, way before the world realized that we were heading into an economic crisis.
If we are charging our car batteries with electricity gotten from coal or oil power plants, there is little benefit. If we replace oil in our gas cars with corn-derived ethanol, it’s plain stupid. The distillation of that ethanol takes AT LEAST as much fossil fuel as the ethanol produced, gallon for gallon. One gallon of fossil fuel in, one gallon of ethanol out. Further, each barrel of ethanol requires 32 bushels or corn.
So with oil, diesel, gas, etc. going up in price, it’s like a triple whammy:
We lose almost a whole barrel of oil for every barrel of ethanol we get.
It costs money to put the ethanol in the gas.
We increase demand on our own corn by 32 bushels per barrel of ethanol.
That in turn increases the cost of the ethanol.
We have shortages right now for corn, which has increased the cost of our food, and anything that uses corn products.
We cannot deliver corn overseas to countries drastically in need of food.
The corn lobby is very powerful.
We do need ways to harness and create much more natural, reusable, free energy. Our world has so much energy, it’s crazy that we can’t do it yet. My suggestions:
Tide generators and water current generators along the coasts.
More nuclear. (We can find places to put the spent fuel, and it’s pretty safe these days.)
Much more solar wherever practical.
Geothermal heating/cooling where possible.
(Radical) Attach generators to the bikes in spin classes around the country!! Tax breaks should be used to retrofit the bikes.
Capture the methane from Obama when he gives speeches.
I agree also that a portion of the taxes the oil companies already pay should go to research for oil replacements.
I also think that the government should get in the research business much more heavily, but smartly. We should allow oil companies and other companies to do all the research they want for energy progress, and allow them to use the costs against future profits, in a 5 or 10 year writeoff program. Also if someone makes a massive advance, they should be able to get a double or a triple write-off, they should be able to use the technology if they sell it to consumers, and the technology should be leased to other players in the industry, to make sure there is competition to keep the price down.
Anyway, that’s my input for a Thursday afternoon. Back to work.
Comment by Greg Burton -
I love the double standard that the “ultra” conservatives are taking over the party, causing panic in the streets and striking fear into the hearts of little liberals. Such tales presume the fact that the left is one big happy family, singing “Kumbayah”.
Comment by nuzzyfipples -
nuzzyfipples, I totally agree with you, the democrat party is actually worse off than the republicans evagenlical issue because the democrat progressives, who actually make up a smaller percentage of the democrat party (between 20 to 30%) than evangelicals do in the republican party have total control of the democrat party right now.
I don’t like Barack Obama and think Hillary Clinton would have done a much better job on the local front dealing with the foreclosure issue and also some very sketchy credit card company practices that have extended the economic malaise in this country.
If I vote democrat, it will be because of the consumer protection financial bureau, and their acknowledgement that every drop of energy produced by energy consumers (we the people), goes a long way towards staving off the day when there is just not enough energy to go around.
Comment by dailypuma -
The price of petroleum is based on a number of factors, not just availability and location. We (the US) sell most of the oil we produce, and we use oil we buy from Canada, OPEC and others. There’s also the speculators, who add considerably more to the cost of a barrel of oil. It’s easy to blame oil companies for being greedy, because they make profits, but that’s because the price of oil keeps going up, and it gets cheaper and cheaper to produce. Most oil companies actually do invest in alternative methods of energy, and cleaner/cheaper methods of extracting oil/gas. We are actually have a surplus right now with natural gas, though winter is coming, so that could change.
Cost efficiency will determine where we will go with energy sources. Without massive subsidies, renewable will never be cost effective. Repubs are generally against subsidizing things that do not have proven track records in efficiency. There have been electric cars for as long as automobiles have existed, yet how many people own one? How much do they pay a month on their electric bill in recharging? How much do those replacement batteries cost, because they will eventually fail?. Where are you going to get those batteries in the future, when the manufacturers keep filing for bankruptcy (A123 Systems being the most recent, another “green” company we the taxpayers subsidized). Even with the rising prices, oil and coal are too energy dense and cheap to produce to be replaced anytime in the foreseeable future. If the Middle East explodes, which is more than likely to happen in our lifetimes, we will just use more domestically produced oil. It won’t be the harbinger of solar panels, wind turbines, and Chevy Volts in every home, that greenies are hoping for. That might be the only hope for Chevy to actually sell them.
Nuclear is a very clean and viable option, but there are far too many NIMBYs to allow that to happen currently. If the day should ever come, that oil is $500+ a barrel (which by that point, the US$ will be worthless anyway), no renewable source will be economically viable and nuclear might be seen much more favorably.
If some scientist somewhere can turn landfills into a fuel source that is more energy dense than gasoline/diesel, while not conveniently forgetting to factor in the amount of energy it actually takes to make (as ethanol proponents do), then you’ll have an argument. There will never a point where there will be enough new renewables made from using old renewables. There is a law of diminishing returns you’re forgetting. There will never be enough “old” renewables to sustain such an idea.
You speak with such certainty that renewable sources are the inevitable way of the future, and that oil will be written as a footnote in history books. If only I had such abilities of foresight, I’d use them for personal gain. If there is a way to do it, the market will find it. It has provided nearly everything you use today, so it stands to reason that it’ll provide for the future as well.
Comment by nuzzyfipples -
After watching all three debates, I have come to the conclusion that Gov. Romney is a sociopath. Anyone claiming anything to the contrary is just trying to convince others of their position, or is so gullible as to believe anything anyone in a suit, no matter how empty, says.
Comment by dxkraus -
Regarding fears about Romney’s social agenda: a few thoughts on why I think it is not an issue – quite the contrary.
Remember the republican primaries. Romney was considered an evil moderate by the ultra conservatives. Another socialist in disguise, almost.
Romney knew from the start that in order to win he would have to handle a tricky issue: the GOP’s growing far right fringe, which has evolved over the years to represent something like 20% of republican voters.
As a matter of fact, in a multi party system, the USA would now have a strong far right party. We can thank our current party system for sparing us this shame.
The divisive nature of the GOP’s current composition is certainly why Romney’s campaign started to the right, shifting to the center during the last mile.
It doesn’t mean he’s a flip flopper. Romnesia has nothing to do with it.
In business as in politics your “friends” are often your worst enemies: when brokering a deal you have to take care of them first.
In other words he achieved what John McCain did not: he brokered a moral deal in his favor, reducing the risk of abstention from ultra conservatives without scaring moderate voters.
He squared the circle, revealing no details while being hard pressed to do so. Brilliant.
No matter what he says now, 99% of the far right will back him. No mean feat from a man they once loved to hate. He did make a symbolic concession, picking Ryan as a veep. So what? Veeps have never played a major role in US politics. And Ryan is no Palin. Extremely conservative, yes, but no fool.
We all know the last mile is about getting the votes of the so called “undecided voters” and they are, by definition, at the center. Catching Obama off guard during the first debate was another brilliant move. Advocating moderate views rallied the moderates, smashing the President who expected him on a different ground got him praises from the ultra conservatives again. Impressive.
I don’t know if Romney plays poker, but he certainly showed some talent.
Fantastic end game, considering the cards.
I had some doubts, to be honest. I am now confident he’s the kind of fox that could handle a senate lock-up better than Obama did – the President’s biggest failure, really: you can’t keep on blaming the other players for loosing, can you ?
So far so good but what about social issues, will you say ?
Judging from Romney’s political past I find it hard to believe that once elected Romney would abandon his moderate views to please 20% of the country – the very ones who needed to hear the 47% story to show up massively on election day, by the way, which the Dems delivered for him.
Actually, another reason why I would like to see Romney elected is the fact he has proved during this campaign that he is one of the very few moderate Republicans that might be able to neutralize the ultra conservative fringe, revamping the GOP in the process, which is vital for a healthy democratic future in such troubled times. Wishfull thinking, maybe. But another term for Obama would only worsen the current situation.
Comment by gilcatt -
gilcatt, clarification on how the republican party is made up percentage wise. Apparently it’s around 42% to 44% of all republicans consider themselves evangelicals. Does being an evangelical mean being far right, probably most of the time. So we’re probably looking at 35% to 40% of the republican party being far right versus the 20% you are estimating.
Which means Romney probably has to do some severe tap dancing within his own party.
Comment by dailypuma -
This is my first time here, and I probably won’t be a regular, but I’ve read through many of these comments and I felt compelled to throw in my $.02, even if someone has said the exact same (I can’t be bothered to read 200+ comments, some of which seem longer than the original post).
I see people (probably Obama supporters) using the leftist meme of Bain Capital was cannibalizing companies. Firstly, that was not the purpose of Bain Capital. Secondly, the sole purpose of a business is not to create jobs for people (the purpose of a business is to make a profit), but the Bain Capital record, while Romney was at the helm, is a net positive on jobs created. Thirdly, before you repeat a meme, learn what an asset and management firm is. They don’t descend from on high on a struggling company, like a vulture on a dying animal in the desert. They are typically sought out by a struggling company, or they come in to buy you out.
This is America. Not every business succeeds, and nor should it. It’s a big risk. It always has been, and it always will (or at least it should) be.
In regard to this comment “dailypuma — October 17, 2012 @ 1:44 pm”, Republicans are not, and never have been, against renewable energy. We are against subsidizing that with taxpayer (read: our) money. As it stands now, it is much too expensive to operate and produce, with the amount of output that you get. If a private company feels it’s worth the investment, and with some geniuses on staff that can develop it, and it finds a way to make solar panels, or car batteries, or wind turbines cheap enough, that is something every Republican would support. Our objection is that taxpayer funding of said projects means that the cost is not on the company, who reaps all the rewards (assuming they don’t go out of business, as many have/are).
In regard to the comment by “hulkblog — October 23, 2012 @ 6:20 am”, Greece was in trouble long before joining the EU. They were on the currency on Jan. 1, 2001. Their current struggles didn’t start overnight, it’s the outcome of decades of entitlement spending that have ballooned with the very low retirement age in a country whose GDP consists mostly on tourism, merchant shipping, and olives. A lot less people go on vacations, and companies ship less, when in a recession, don’t they? You also mention that every state balances it’s budget. If that were true, how is the budget deficit of California expected to top $28B this year, with a state debt of nearly $618B? Their current solution is to just raise taxes, particularly on the successful. I’ll let you in on a secret that most people can’t be bothered to look up since it’s history and therefore boring and clearly not applicable to today’s ills, but every time taxes go up on the wealthy, revenues go down. When taxes are lowered, revenues go up. Even Democrats have figured it out, like JFK and Woodrow Wilson. Why, even John Maynard Keynes knew this, and conservatives are no fan of his. California is not alone (NY is 2nd in list of states in trouble), but it is the epitome of “bread and circuses” style of politics. Children can even get welfare checks when their parents are no longer eligible. 1/8th the nation’s population, 1/3rd the nation’s welfare recipients. Keep on balancing that.
Comment by nuzzyfipples -
nuzzyfipples, I think your explanation about renewable energy and republican theology is flawed. If renewable energy is too expensive right now in part because petroleum is so much more inexpensive (a debatable point when we add the price of two wars in the past decade to protect our oil interest in those two regions), then when the price of petroleum goes up it will just become even more expensive to use petroleum to develop non renewable and we never reach the point where non renewable energy can create more non-renewable energy.
There is a threshold point with renewable energy where if enough already exists, then more renewable’s can be created primarily from existing renewables. We are nowhere near that point, and as the price of petroleum goes up, we will never get there as people will not stand for gas that could have gone in their tank going for research and development of renewable energy.
Petroleum would better serve the planet as a transitional energy source that allows for an infrastructure of renewable energy to be created so that less coal, nuclear and petroleum are necessary to meet our energy needs.
Comment by dailypuma -
Puma: I will vote to insure that this is decided in the marketplace and not the dopey faculty lounge. I’ve had enough of politicians social engineering and now they want to stick their nose into business and the free markets? You do understand that most liberal politicians who have these “great ideas” have never run even a lemonade stand, right? Look at the record—–the sitting President was a “community organizer” (i.e. rabble rouser) and junior senator. He knows nothing about profit and loss—-how things really work in the corporate world and how the economy works.
Comment by dcangelo -
Sorry Mark, a fan of your blog but think you’re off the “mark” here (no pun intended). Gov. Romney’s past success is without question, but at the same time realize that running a business and running a country are not one and the same. If you’re not happy with the people you are doing business with, you can simply get rid of them. As a politician, you can’t. As Governor of Massachussetts, Romney’s record was fairly mediocre, his state was 47th in job growth. He also, quite unfortunately, threw almost half the country under the bus when he stated in a private dinner conversation that these were individuals were “victims” dependent on the government. That was a bit incredulous.
It’s interesting to read your hypothesis of what his tax plan will be, but to suggest that the magic sauce, at the end, will be Romney himself, leaves me discouraged. If I were starting a business, I would love to have Romney as an investor or sitting on my board.
But not as my President.
Comment by Parjit Sehdev -
Romney’s knowledge of basic economics is shockingly bad. For example, he compares the USA to Greece, but our situations are completely different. We have our OWN currency, we choose what we want to do with USD. Greece uses the Euro and is forced to work with the other EU nations.
Then he goes on talking about how everything the federal government pays for is paid by China. That doesn’t make any sense at all, since China has been a huge SELLER of US debt for the past year. They’re selling nearly as much US treasuries as WE have been doing and as a result they only own about 6% of US debt.
Finally, he claims that he balanced budgets as a governor. Newsflash–so have 50 US state governors, every year. Since states can’t simply print money (like the federal government can), by definition they MUST balance their budgets!
Romney has less of a clue about economics than YOU do. That’s the real sad part of this election.
How can someone with this little knowledge of basic economics work with a bunch of bipartisan morons to put together a good economic plan? It’s not happening. Your algorithm is GIGO, Mark.
Comment by hulkblog -
The billionaire 1%’er wants everyone to vote for another billionaire 1%’er with the vague tax plan that won’t help anyone but billionaire 1%’ers. Shocker.
I expected better out of you Mark.
Comment by Adam James -
Hey Adam, I’m sure you expected more out of him. If you’re for Obama, you probably expected him to buy you a house or something. It doesn’t surprise me in the least that he made a comment about the business skills of one of the people running for President. Did he come out and say he is voting for Romney? Did he say that you should? Is he allowed to have an opinion if it doesn’t match yours? Again, what do you want, someone to pay your bills? Then go ahead and vote liberal. They’ll take some of Mr. Cuban’s money and help you with your mortgage. Congratulations.
Comment by dcangelo -
In addition, the economy is nothing more than a measure of people’s confidence in spending. If his confidence catches on, like I think it will for business owners, how great would that be? Confidence breeds confidence and we need that right now!
Comment by Scott Smeester (@scottsmeester) -
Quote from Scott “In addition, the economy is nothing more than a measure of people’s confidence in spending”. end quote
The other purpose of spending is to acquire things so that at some point, a person then requires less, spending. This view that the economy must continue to grow, and people must continue to go further into debt, is banking nonsense and it is destroying local economies as more and more debt payments go to national banks, and less and less is available to spend locally.
And the national banks take those perpetual debt payments and come up with games rich people invest in, if the investment works, they make money, if they do poorly, they are bailed out, all at the expense of main street.
Comment by alexlogic -
Yeah, it’s a kooky thing, isn’t it? What’s the alternative though? We go back to caves and gather our own food? How will Main Street survive if you choke the businesses that hire the folks who live on Main Street? Successful people and businesses develop the things we want and need—-but many times WANT more than need. That can be bigger and better cable TV packages, new computer games and software, fancy low profile tires for your 93 Corolla, a cell phone that opens and closes your garage door—-whatever. I do understand your post, but what do you suggest we do instead of consume?
Comment by dcangelo -
I have been most critical of the Obama administration here. I would like to clarify, if not “walk back” some of my comments. I strongly disagree with what I perceive to be the President’s ideas on taxation, role of government, redistribution of wealth, etc. I believe the President was mentored throughout his life by many people who I don’t believe even LIKE the United States. I think that shows through in some of his comments and also how he has governed. All of that said—–not once have I wanted this to be personal against the man. Yes, I called him a “failure” but I should have been more specific that he has failed, in my opinion, at being the President. He is far from a failure as a man. He is an intelligent, driven person—-otherwise he couldn’t have been elected to this office. He has a beautiful family and from what I can tell, he is a great father to his children and a loyal husband. I believe he’s sincere about wanting to help people who don’t have enough—-to get what they need. We differ on how that should be accomplished. My point is that I think it is perfectly normal and acceptable to separate my respect for President Obama from my disdain for the terrible job I feel he has done.
Comment by dcangelo -
That was a helpful summary, thanks. I haven’t seen anyone describe the essence of Romney that way before, and it makes sense. I’d also add this – despite his wealth I think Romney has a Puritan’s ethic toward spending/saving, combined with a highly sophisticated appreciation for the future significance of our growing debt and unfavorable demographic shifts (ratio of retirees to workers). I suspect he chose Paul Ryan for his zealous aversion to deficit spending, rather than for his right-of-Romney social positions. Why is that important? Because while many politicians are aware of the problem Romney wants to solve with his tax plan, nearly all of them are more willing to kick the can down the road in the interest of nearer term issues. George W and congress together kicked the can down the road (and made it bigger) via deficit spending for his overriding priority – security from terrorism. I don’t think Obama is committed to debt reduction because of two reasons – 1) he doesn’t appreciate the significance of the burden it will become to both the US and the entire world (the world can’t bail out the US like Europe is attempting for Spain/Greece), and 2) he views the debt as a fair wealth transfer…he may think that those who will be directly responsible for it are the top quartile who have virtually all the wealth and pay virtually all the taxes…thus deficit spending can transfer benefits to the underprivileged at the expense of the historically privileged, which is something he wants to do — to give a hand up to people in the middle class and aspiring to enter the middle class. However he doesn’t appreciate that the burden will fall on the entire economy and everyone, like an over leveraged company with major liabilities that aren’t connected to current productivity (eg GM and AA) or an over leveraged country (Greece/Spain). Romney understands bankruptcy at the corporate and country levels, and he fears the compounding nature of our debt+deficits+current liabilities. Perhaps the most telling statement he made from the first debate is his compass on spending – he will strive to cut anything that isn’t worth borrowing from China to fund. For those of us raising young children and focusing on their future, the debt is an important priority relative to the safety and comfort of today’s adult Americans. It’s too bad that Romney’s religion is somewhat of a political liability for him, because he is deeply committed to a set of values – what I called Puritan values of industry, thrift and saving – that are very timely for navigating the economic challenges of the next eight years.
Comment by Don Bell -
Obama has done such a wonderful job fixing the awful country he “inherited,” I feel we need to save his second term for when we need his energy, wisdom and towering intellect in the future. Can’t you all see? He’s fixed everything. All is good now. The world is at peace, the economy is steaming along, people are finding amazing jobs they never dreamed of—-in short, President Obama has been magnificent. Why should we waste his second term now? We need to let him go back to private life and enjoy himself—-relax after all the hard work he has done. Now he has time to golf, fly to NY to have dinner with the Mrs., go to the Final Four—-things he hasn’t been able to do while rolling his sleeves up to fix the country. When things slide backwards again, we can give him the second term and he can rescue us again. Please, vote for Romney. Let’s save that second Obama term for sometime in the future.
Comment by dcangelo -
Congress’s priorities have become so distorted by politics that ‘Mitt the Negotiator’ would have to be ‘Mitt the Wizard’ to get that level of cooperation. Americans, with their short memories and ‘fast food’ mentality, seem to have expected Barack Obama to possess a magic wand that would fix 8 years of pillage with the snap of the wrist.
Right now today, it’s a miracle we’re not digging ourselves out of the “Greatest Great Depression” ever; yet in 3 years we’ve pulled back from the brink of collapse, (a man made collapse at that) and we’re starting to recover. Obama has dealt with the most extraordinary circumstances ever experienced by an American President all while stopping America’s slide into financial ruin.
I’ll stick with the guy who now has Presidential experience, who has a clear vision for America and who’s ethics don’t shift from one audience to the next. I’ll stick with the guy who rarely gets rattled, and who’s made life and death decisions with clarity. I’ll stick with the guy who listens to multiple points of view; and who makes bold decisions even when they are unpopular. I’ll stick with the guy who has no more races to run, who has nothing more to prove and absolutely nothing to lose. That’s the guy ready to move America forward.
(PS – I’ll see you in Shark Tank when my prototype is done, LoL.)
Comment by visiontele2012 -
He was opposed to gay marriage until the general election kicked off—-when he decided to support it. He mooches for votes with the best of them. His “experience” means nothing. He has failed miserably as President—-worst since Carter and perhaps worse THAN Carter, which is something I didn’t think possible. Reagan inehrited a mess and instead of blaming Carter, he rolled his sleeves up, took responsibility and fixed things—-largest peacetime economic expansion in world history. Obama bellaches about what he “inherited.” He asked for the damn job. He needed to shut up when he was inaugurated and fix the economy. Instead, he took a wrecking ball to it. He needs to be fired.
Comment by dcangelo -
Hey Puma, thank for you sharing your energy idea. I do believe we need to invest more in renewable resources. However, I do not agree we need another mandate from the Federal government. I would be for a tax incentive available to companies that invest private capital in renewable energy. The private sector abides by the fundamental economic concepts of scarcity and market forces. There is only a finite amount of resources in terms of capital, raw materials, human capital and etc available to develop a product. The private sector due to market forces will attempt to develop a product with scarce resources as efficiently as possible that generates a profit.
Comment by Brian Benton -
This will be my final post. Mark, thanks for your take on Romney’s plan. @ David Krause, I respect your opinion. It seems you and I differ on the role of government. To me the fact that he says no 700 times doesn’t make him bad at bipartisanship, it tells me that he is trying to cut through the chaff to get to the stuff that really matters. To me, 800 bills/propositions stinks of big government. Granted, I don’t believe all of his intentions were purely for the benefit of the system/people, he postures just like any other politician.
To the other point, your horse-jumping analogy, I feel compelled to respond.
You asserted that taking into consideration how long each candidate’s maximum potential for office occupancy is when voting was like “changing horses in mid-stream.” I apologize if I interpreted you incorrectly, but I will answer that to the best of my understanding.
If the horse is lame and the water is rapidly rising, you bet I’m going to switch horses. Furthermore, the “horse” we’re on wasn’t my choice to ride in the first place. So, yes, you bet I’ll choose another option if I don’t think the job is done best by a candidate I never chose in the first place.
Finally, I must clarify something. My last post appeared as thought I’m tooting the Mitt Romney horn for everyone to ride that train. However, I don’t necessarily think he is the end-all-be-all… he still has to convince me to vote for him. There are other people running who match my ideals more closely, but I also have to consider how much that will account for in the end. Also, my opinions count for me, not anybody else. I don’t claim to know what all independents think/want/hope. I just suggest things that help me decide when choosing a candidate.
Comment by Shiloe Mecham (@ShiloeMecham) -
Just a heads up for anyone who immediately labels Obama as a failure, communist, unAmerican, etc., your comments immediately get discredited, ignored, and put into a bin labeled “waste” by anyone with a healthy head on their shoulders. There are phrases for being one sided such as “speaking to the base” or “sticking to your guns” but if you stop to think for a moment, being one sided is like driving your car or truck into a brick wall.
I just want to put that out there for people to read. If you want to grab your pitchforks and yell in the woods about the failure of a communist who wasn’t born in our country, you are free to do so. Just don’t expect anyone outside of the woods to hear what you are yelling to the trees except for the other wildlife.
Comment by Raymond Duke (@RaymondDuke) -
In my mind the choice is clear who to vote for. This Administration is unable to run on it’s record because of poor performance. We have listened to this Administration for four years blame the previous administration instead of taking accountability and demonstrating leadership. I’ve listened to all three debates and visited the President’s website and do not see a plan. All I’ve heard is it’s Bush’s fault, the rich need to pay more, we are for the middle class, invest in education, we killed Bin Laden, we believe everyone deserves a fair shot. President Obama’s record is clear: he traveled the world to apologize for America, he added one trillion per year in deficit spending, he failed to deliver on the promises of the stimulus, he failed to work across party lines to reduce deficit spending, he failed to close Gitmo, he failed to reduce unemployment to 5.4% – 23 million Americans are without work, number of Americans on food stamps has increased to 47 million, and etc. Under his administration, the value of the dollar has decreased while energy cost and food cost have increased. We are spending 2 plus more dollars on gas per gallon since President Obama took office. How has the President helped the middle class?
If President Obama and Governor Romney where competing for a CEO position with a large corporation who do you think would get the position based on their resume? The choice is clear: Mitt Romney has a proven track record of balancing budgets, turning around organizations, generating jobs, creating wealth which are all essential to running a successful business. At this time in history we need someone with a business background that can turn around our economy and reduce our deficit. Governor Romney offers a plan on his website. He has been successful creating jobs and generating wealth in the private sector. He balanced budgets for four years as Governor. We need a change in leadership that will take accountability on day 1 and move us forward on a new path.
Comment by Brian Benton -
Regardless of all the other stuff that is being talked about, as an independent voter, one of the things I key in on is: how much bang for my buck? That is, how much can they get done to help us out in the time allotted to them? Obama has 4 more years maximum. How much can he get done during that time? Admittedly this is pure speculation, but I’d venture a guess that, in light of historical performance, he is going to spend a considerable amount of that time fighting through the same jams he’s been in for a while now. Assuming that the current administration decides to flip some switch and start compromising more, repairing relationships and cultivating bipartisan teamwork will take him considerable time (and that’s best case scenario). His policies, already controversial and unpopular with many won’t have time to settle in the stomachs of the masses that currently don’t want them. I don’t see a lot getting done by an Obama administration that won’t simply get changed or done away with come next POTUS. Romney has a maximum POTENTIAL of 8 years (assuming election and re-election) to try and get things settled: repair legislative relationships, create teamwork, build bipartisan policies that a larger majority of the people support. To me it seems that he has potentially twice as long and touts a track record of being able to get bipartisanship to work. But, as you said, Mark, even he may not be able to do it considering the state of things…
Comment by Shiloe Mecham (@ShiloeMecham) -
@ShiloeMecham says ” To me it seems that he has potentially twice as long and touts a track record of being able to get bipartisanship to work.”
Or, we can keep changing horses in mid-stream, right? Because, using your logic, every challenger to an incumbent has 8 years, rather than the 4 years left to an incumbent.
Here’s something to consider about Romney’s “track record” of bipartisanship. He vetoed over 800 bills as governor of Massachusetts. Over 700 of those vetoes were overturned.
He came into office with a mid-50’s approval rating. He left office with a mid-30’s approval rating. He didn’t run again because he was going to lose the election, and he immediately started running for President.
As an independent voter myself, I think we are asserting ourselves as people who don’t buy into the rhetoric offered by either party. We check facts to the extent possible. No one has needed a fact-checker more than Romney. His facts don’t hold up.
As to his bold new 5 point plan he’s offering as a solution. A fact check reveals it is identical to one Bush offered in ’04 in his re-election campaign; reiterated in his ’06 State of the Union address; and, is also identical to McCain’s plan laid out in the ’08 election.
As we know, if you have 8 years of potential, and you want to do the same things that have repeatedly failed on a grand scale, that means you have 8 years to wreak havoc on the economy. No thank you.
Comment by David Krause -
Good point Brian. We already know that Obama is a FAIL. He had 3 1/2 years, and all he has to show for it are gas prices tripled, almost 50% more people on food stamps, crippling regulations across all industries, almost $2 trillion of borrowed money wasted or given to Obama’s special interest groups, Trillions of debt added and more trillions in debt already anticipated for (God forbid!) the rest of Obama’s potential stay in the White House (as predicted by the CBO). And, according to the open mic when he was talking to Putin, he’s going to give away our nuclear superiority to China and Russia, and according to Biden, he’s not even worried about Iran’s growing stockpiles of weapons grade nuclear material. Frankly it scares the crud out of me to think how vulnerable we will be, because we will be begging OPEC for oil, because we won’t be supplying enough of our own, because we will have ceded nuclear superiority to our enemies, and because we will have 3X or 4X more debt to China, who can just put those notes back to us, and kill our economy.
So, David, to your point, yes, Obama is a known entity. One that anyone who is pragmatic and intelligent, and who is not starstruck by Obama’s flashy smile and rhetoric, given the FAIL of the past 4 years, and the threats he seems oblivious to, would scramble up a 100 foot cliff to escape. All we have to do to escape the coming disaster of historic proportions is to vote Obama out.
David, if you want to go factchecking, it requires facts, not one-sided rhetoric, reports from self-admitted unqualified divisions of Obama’s administration, and qualified “pinocchios” by biased divisions of the most biased of publications. You use that term like you really care about facts. We all know who you’re toting the water for…or should I say the Kool Aid.
Comment by Greg Burton -
hey Greg, Obama nor Romney are the answers, they are just the choices. I can’t believe anybody would be against the rapid deployment of whatever renewable energy sources that we can muster, but the republicans are.
I’d love to see a mandate that every city in the country figure out a way to produce their own energy, start at 1% for the first year, and increase it 1% every year thereafter.
It’s ridiculous to think that being the strongest militarily so we can get our energy addictions met is “the plan”. I’d love to be able to purchase a small energy creation device to stick in my backyard, even if just generated a few percent of the energy I used every month, at least it would be a start.
Comment by dailypuma -
Great point Puma! It was made by both sides last night. We do need to diversify the sources of our energy. I think it would be silly to take any source of energy off the table. Unfortunately, as we learned last night, Obama has CUT production of oil and gas from government-owned lands by 13% and 9%. His concept of swaying opinion and activity toward renewable sources is by smacking us with higher costs for gas, oil, electricity and even food, until we succumb to his green energy ideology, even when those new renewable sources are not yet fully developed or available without significant investment on our part. For example, it costs more than 2 X more to fill our gas tanks, but it’s going to cost us upwards of $30,000 to buy a new (reasonably sized) hybrid car, that still needs some gas. (Also, what do you think is going to happen to your electric bills when you plug your car in overnight? YIKES!)
I would buy a hybrid car (in fact we already have one in our family) when my current car needs to be replaced, assuming one is available that will be cheaper in the long run (including replacement batteries, and the fuel we still will need) and big enough to handle my teenagers and myself. I would gladly put geothermal heat in our house, when we build a house, but here in NY, solar panels on the roof really don’t pay for themselves yet. They still need to get more efficient.
My point is that it’s all on the table personally, but in the MEANTIME, I’m paying over double for the energy I need right now, which is making it harder for me to save for my future energy efficient purchases, or today’s food, or my kids’ education, etc.
I have said this before: Obama would make a much better dictator than a chief executive.
Conversely, Romney is already a world-class executive and negotiator who has already proven that he could work and negotiate across the aisle with the Democrats, something Obama has failed to do.
Comment by Greg Burton -
When you are the CEO of a company, you raise money by having a product or a service that people want, need, or you make them think they need it. When you make a decision to change the direction of your company, you put out a memo. You may have a board of directors that you have to run it by. The government has nothing that we want to buy and has to raise money with taxes. The president has to get their polices passed through the house and the senate. Just because you can run a company successfully does not mean you run one of the largest budgets in the world. I like to look at the scoreboard. Look at the US economy by president. See what presidents raised the debt the most, and who created the most jobs. You cant argue with the facts, that is unless you are a republican, then facts don’t matter so the united state treasury statistics must have been written by the “liberal media”.
Comment by Tom Glass -
First off, I love the post and the ensuing dialog that it creates. Say for example Obama wins and retains the White House. Then why not try and appoint Romney as a member of his cabinet. Then Romney can use his skill sets to help with economic issues directly, and that would greatly help him achieve a lot of their goals in a bipartisan manner. He could take on quite a few posts within the cabinet and really carry out his ideals while working directly with the POTUS. He could hold one of many cabinet positions: Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Treasury. He could also be a strong contributor as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, or even Chairman of Council of Economic Advisers. I agree with you that Romney is a very successful businessman, and if he doesn’t win the election, wouldn’t it be a no-brainer to get him directly involved at the cabinet level to actually try and make some of his initiatives happen. I agree with you that the main factor to get his measures to work, well, it’s him. And the only way to see if he can pull it off is to elect him, but if he doesn’t win, why not try and get him involved at a cabinet level? He could still be a major contributor and have a much better chance at helping fix our economic problems in a bipartisan manner. Even though I seriously doubt that Romney would accept a cabinet position from a sitting Democratic president.
Comment by Andrew (@aeaycock) -
Mark, I enjoy your views here and agree with you this could be Romney’s plan.
Comment by Benjamin Liles -
I agree…I watched you on Piers Morgan….you were great. I don’t care much for Piers, and I don’t think I could have been as courteous as you were. I find it hard to understand why the mainstream news and “Hollywood” is so pro Obama. I’m glad to see you have made your decision. The debate tonight will be interesting. I assume President Obama will start each answer with a sincere “I understand” approach. I like the fact that Gov. Romney is steadfast, and I hope he will not take that same approach. I prefer the answer, I don’t need you wasting time…answer the question and move on…We’ll see. Regards, shoesmcnally
Comment by Rhonda (@shoesmcnally) -
Finally there is published proof of Rmoneys tax plan…
Comment by Jeff Hopkins -
If they plan to cut taxes and then reduce deductions to make up for it, how is any one any better off? It seems like an awful lot of effort to end up with the same amount of revenue. Basically shuffling the deck chairs.
You know the tax cuts will get approved, but no one wants to cut their constituents benefits.
I would suggest that they cut the deductions and leave the tax rates where they are. That way we get MORE revenue and can start to reduce the deficits.
Comment by imarunner2012 -
I think you could say anyone that’s been elected or is even running for office is a reasonably good deal maker. You have to have some of those skills to get to that level.
The question is does it really matter? I’m not sure it does given the current political climate. It doesn’t matter how good he is at his craft if the person on the other side of the table isn’t willing to make a deal before the discussion starts. The process is so handcuffed by partisan wrangling that it’s at best grossly inefficient and at worst inept.
Comment by David Hall -
Greg: I voted for obama not because he was cool. I voted for him because among all the other candidates, he was the only one who made sense. All the others spoke BS.
During his term, he has done several good things for the nation which would have been impossible from a republican govt. Leaving Iraq would be a dream and we would be spending trillions on that.
Talking about the deficit.. who brought that on us? Not obama. the spending on wars that he did not start. The fiscal meltdown that he did not trigger. Bush did.
Among all the politicians that I see today, Obama is the only one with some shred of integrity. Romney sold all his for money and power. Would you like a morally bankrupt president? Face the facts. Romney is.
Comment by am8ul -
Four counter points:
1) Anywhere that Romney is going to work with Congress to get bipartisan support is as wishful thinking as “Change” was in 2008 without him laying out ideas that will help fix those problems. Congress needs a starting point to negotiate because if there was an idea that they agree on, there wouldn’t be a problem. America needs a leader with ideas, not a flip flopper that will go along with whatever anyone else says. Mitt Romney doesn’t have any ideas… hell, he hardly has positions on the issues.
2) Mark Cuban claims that Romney will work with Congress to identify deductions and then reduce taxes, but we all know Congress can’t and won’t agree on what to cut (see past two years of deficit negotiations). However, Romney has already decided how much he is going to cut Corporate and Individual tax rates. My guess is that he will do what Republicans have been doing for 30 years – cut taxes and not cut spending – meaning that the debt and deficit will continue to grow.
3) Cutting taxes has never been, and never will be offset by the increase in economic activity created by the lower taxes. Republicans, like George H W Bush, call this “Voodoo Economics” because it is fake magic that will never work in reality. If Romney expects for his tax cuts to be revenue neutral, as you propose, based on the economic activity generated, we will be in a worse fiscal situation than we are now. He needs to be clear about how he will pay for those tax cuts before he implements them, not begin negotiating later.
4) Mark Cuban says that Romney won’t cut “mortgage interest deductions, health care deductions,” etc., but Romney has NEVER said that. Those deductions are absolutely on the table. Mark Cuban is misinformed. Also, Barack Obama is saying that he wants to remove deductions in order to cut taxes as well. The only difference is that he is actually naming deductions that he will cut (Oil subsidies, private jet subsidies, etc.).
Comment by Rory Partalis -
Sad tired misleading cliches from the probama parrots – how predictable – for one FX Rojas yesterday tried to do a mirror image of the Cuban article re Obama and was hyperventilating so badly over the expiration of the bush tax cuts he forgot that this expiration will result in the exact opposite of lowering taxes for the middle class – it will raise their taxes not lower them – which is why there is all of this talk about a qualified extension in the name of fairness – it is not fair for the hardworking who pay too much already and it is not fair for the working mom who LOSES her job because of this ridiculous idea – upping taxes with a 1.3 % growth in gdp – thats exonomic suicide – come on dems stop regurgitating BS and do your homework – this guy in office now is unusually destructive by any standard – R or D.
Comment by Tom Leytham -
well written mark. From what I read, you are basing your argument on belief on the candidate. I do not know how anybody can believe someone who does not believe in himself and keep shifting his position on virtually every topic he encounters depending on what he thinks people want to hear. That is not the man of integrity you are wanting to believe.
You had a very big disclaimer when you said that he will need politicians to work with him for better of the country. Republicans’ only proclaimed goal had been to beat Obama. What do you have to say to that? It is a miracle that he was able to achieve what he did. He has proven himself much more than he needed to show that he can get things done even under severely adverse situations. the republican candidate cannot boast of that. He even does not want to talk about his stint as governor.. because he knows that he failed the leadership test there.
Comment by am8ul -
am8ul, What led you to believe that Obama had any ability at all, before you voted for him? Any? He certainly had no job experience, we couldn’t see his school records, he hadn’t actually done anything except for give some nice speeches, and he had barely showed up for work at the Senate, for which the Illinois people were paying him. Oh sure he looked pretty and he sounded so smooth and authoritative, but there was NOTHING. So you voted for him because it was so cool, so chic, so hope and changey. Has he gotten wiser, smarter, more worldly, more in touch with the situation confronting us in this country in this day and age? No. Has he taken any steps to get your gas, oil, energy and food prices back in control? NO. But yet you’d rather have more of that?
Conversely, with Romney, we see a guy who has worked hard all his life, made himself and many others a ton of money, has been a part of the development of amazing companies, has paid payrolls, has balanced budgets, and has done great things in Massachusetts, by reaching across the aisle to the Democrats, who outnumbered Republicans by 15 to 1. And conversely to how badly received Obamacare was when it was slammed down the Republicans’ throats, Romney came to his legislature and said “Here’s my idea: Let’s put something together…together.”
Difference: Obama has the skill set of a dictator. Romney has the skill set of a businessman and a negotiator, and the knowledge garnered over 30 years in business. He has my vote.
Comment by Greg Burton -
Greg Burton said “Has he taken any steps to get your gas, oil, energy and food prices back in control? NO. But yet you’d rather have more of that?”
Greg, since you’re clearly a guy who needs to be fact-checked on a regular basis, I just thought I’d follow up on this particular misrepresentation. It is very common in Republican bubbles, and a distortion.
Gas prices (U.S. national average) reached their historical high in late June – early July 2008. The average price of gas at that time was about $4.12/gallon. They plummeted at the end of August – early September as the effects of the economic collapse were beginning to hit home, and reached their bottom around 12/30/08.
They have never reached anywhere near the highs set in the Bush Administration. Further, although they certainly came down as a result of Bush Administration policies, I’m pretty sure an economic collapse was not what Bush and the Republicans thought would be a great tool to control gas prices.
Here’s what I find so interesting about all of the Republican rhetoric these days. There are legitimate differences between the policies of each party. Yet, for some reason, the Republicans repeatedly fail to provide valid arguments on any issues of national concern. They continue to lie and distort facts and misrepresent their own positions, and the sycophants that follow them pile on as though repeating a load of crap somehow makes it true.
Greg, might I make a suggestion? Stop criticizing others for their purported lack of awareness until you actually have a clue what you’re talking about. It just makes you look stupid.
Comment by David Krause -
David, David, David…poor David. If ignorance were indeed bliss, you’d be the happiest man on earth. The problem is that it isn’t, so you’re both misguided and grouchy.
The supply demand equation along with attacks on Iraq’s oil facilities created increasing prices of crude, and Bush REACTED to the situation by taking action, increasing our capacity by opening up offshore drilling. Oil prices IMMEDIATELY began going down, literally within two weeks, as a direct result of Bush’s action. Conversely, Obama has been on a crusade to increase oil, gas and energy prices in general, and has succeeded. Gas prices are right back up to their highs, and Obama’s response? Let me quote: “I wouldn’t mind gas prices at about $6 a gallon, just not so quickly…” thanks Obama. He doesn’t care about you David. He doesn’t care that gas prices are back up to over $4.05 a gallon. He wants them higher. Oh, and he’s dragged our electric, airfare, and even our food prices up with them.
He used the oil rig disaster in the Gulf and shut down offshore production, and has just about denied any new leases or drilling plans anywhere off our coasts. He won’t allow the Keystone XL Pipeline into the US. Get it? He doesn’t care about you David. He cares about his green energy friends and his ideology more than you paying for your gas, electric or food.
And what has he done to the auto industry? He stole GM and Chrysler’s equity from your pension plan, with no compensation, in what looks more and more like a Marxist takeover of the means of production in the auto industry, and gave some of it to the union, and kept some of it for the government. So he also doesn’t care about your pension plan.
Does he care about the inner city kids stuck in failing schools? Will he bus them to better schools across town, or will he support the union teachers who can’t teach? Yep, he’d rather see the kids stuck in failing schools. Obama doesn’t care about them either. He cares about the teacher’s union because they vote and get out more voters.
You can try to support your dogma, and your failed president, and your stupid retorts to my obvious facts, but you just can’t. FAIL.
Sent from the road.
Comment by Greg Burton -
David Stockman, Regan’s budget director doesn’t see it like you do. Worth the read. This guy hasn’t done anything for job creation.
Comment by Jeff Hopkins -
its interesting looking at the comments to see how so many people have read this but fail to see the meaning in the statement Mark makes at the end and what he might is inferring.
“But I know Governor Romney has no doubt in his mind that he is more than up to the challenge. Which leads to the next algorithm, what happens if he gets elected and can’t get bipartisan agreements ? That has to be part of the equation as well.”
One other interesting thing is how “in his mind” is used through out the post.
Comment by Anthony Fregoso -
You do realize that this notion that Romney himself is the variable is eerily reminiscent of the 2008 election when then-Senator Obama himself was considered “the variable” that would make all the hacks in Washington work together for the good of the country, right? And we see how that turned out.
And I say that as a dedicated supporter of President Obama who carefully reviewed his legislative history before deciding to vote for him, and coming to that conclusion based on myriad evidence that nearly everything he touched was not only bi-partisan, but quite a lot of it was *contentious* before he started working on it. Not a soul wanted what ended up being landmark death penalty legislation in Illinois (in fact, his colleagues in the Senate passed it off to him because he was the new kid on the block and they wanted that loser off their desks). When it eventually passed, it not only had the support of Democrats *and* Republicans, but police and the Governor (who had previously said he would veto it), and passed both houses UNANIMOUSLY. Not a single vote against it.
He did the same with landmark ethics law in the U.S. Senate:
He worked with arguably *the* most conservative member, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, to pass new transparency in government laws that launched usaspending.gov. He partnered up with Dick Lugar on nuclear non-proliferation. And on and on it goes.
And as a result of these major successes in his POLITICAL career, Obama was “incredibly confident in his ability,” just as you envision Mr. Romney.
But you and I make and made the fatal mistake of underestimating the viciousness of the Republican Party and their complete unwillingness to work with Democrats on *anything*. Eight years of unfettered power gave them egos the size of Mount Rushmore (undeservedly so) and they expected to still be able to run the show, regardless how much damage they’d already done to the economy, or how much more damage they’d be inflicting by their obstructionism.
Democrats will not be making the same mistakes they’ve made in the past and allowing Bush III to run roughshod over our economy with further unnecessary tax cuts, let alone machinations with the deductions that an out-of-touch multi-millionaire like Romney thinks are expendable (for those 47 percent who are moochers when they use those legal deductions to end up with an effective federal income tax rate of zero [never mind that tens of thousands of millionaires end up in the same position, owing zero federal income taxes for the same reason]).
It is a dangerous mindset to pin your hopes of a beautiful tomorrow on your “impression” that Mitt Romney is “confident” he can be successful where (IMO) better men — those who have an actual history of TRUE bi-partisanship in the POLITICAL world — have failed.
Also? This statement is completely wrong: “It is this [lack of solving this abstract undefined algorithm] … that makes people believe that Governor Romney has not provided details for his tax plan.” It’s the lack of forthrightness. It’s the lack of having the courage of his convictions to stand up and tell people, “Hey, when I’m president you will no longer be able to write X off your taxes; you should be responsible for that expense yourself and not shove it off on the government.” Something like that would actually make his “conservative” credentials stronger. But he’s unwilling (or unable) to provide that kind of truth to the American public.
And that makes him unfit to be the president of the American people.
Thank you for your insight, though, and the opportunity to respond.
Comment by Winning Words (@WinningWordsPro) -
Romney has done nothing to articulate the approach he intends to take. First he is for tax cuts, then during the debate he said there would be no tax cuts if it increased the deficit, duh, so what is he really saying, will there or won’t there be tax cuts. You overrate his accomplishments as Governor of Massachusetts; the one memorable things that he did, Health Care Reform he sort of repudiates and then doesn’t. You assume that once he gets into office he will work smoothly with Democrats, but if they show the same level of cooperation that the Republicans have manifested with the current administration, the stalemate will continue. In addition you tacitly endorse his lack of specifics as a virtue; in fact he has no program, has no philosophy, has no record on any of the great issues of the day going back to the Senatorial election of 1994. On all of the social issues of the day, abortion, birth control, stem cell research, he has been for most of them before he was against them, depending upon ephemeral scope of his ambition at that particular time. He will set back the women’s movement 50 years by stacking the Supreme Court with aging adropausal anti-choice men. Does he really believe that 47% of the people are freeloader or was he just trying to appease the audience he was with. You claim that he will take all the unsolved variables and come up with a solution. Based on what, his impossible to scorecard and scrutinize record at Bain or his small potatoe Olympics rescue. Come on Marc, you’re a smart guy. Romney is the Emperor with no clothes on, he hasn’t articulated a single imaginative or substantive thing, rather he has obfuscated and demagogued his way through this whole thing playing on the inclinations of whichever audience he is addressing. Come on he is against Obamacare but is now for keeping its 2 most popular provisions regarding pre-existing conditions and keeping a child on a parents policy until he or she is 26. Now he wants to give a gift certificate to soon to be elderly people instead of Medicare He is moronic on foreign policy, the end result of which could be arming the Islamist and al Quaida forces opposing Assad or a premature attack on Iran. He has no record and no interest on foreign policy.
And it goes on and on. Facts to him are a fungible commodity. In addition he will bring with him the absolutist Ayatollah’s of the right, and by doing so will initiate a new kind of Civil War.
Comment by JeffreyBerlin (@JeffreyBerlin) -
I agree with your views about Gov. Romney’s confidence in his abilities and himself. When I see Obummer on tv, there isn’t a passionate, caring glow coming from his eyes. He acts disinterested in the job he has. He can’t even look people in the eye when talking to them. He likes the power, but hates the responsibilities that come with it and he’s in over his head. This past weekend Gov. Romney came into our area to campaign and I got to meet him and shake his hand. I took from the whole experience, that he is sincere in his desire to turn things around and it was an actual handshake with him looking me in the eye. Not a handshake like what Jay Leno does. Gov. Romney wants the challenge of turning things around so. I say give him the opportunity.
Comment by Randy Michel -
I really like mark Cuban
Sent from my iPhone
Comment by Monica Ortega -
Sounds like someone has a man-crush:-P
I see the elegance of Romney’s campaign. Leave out enough details that your fans can paint in any details that make them feel comfortable. You’ve created quite the fantasy world for him, where tax cuts bring down deficits. You’ve even provided a fall back strategy for when it fails; “the politicians he will be negotiating with (will be required) to negotiate in the best interests of the country rather than for their own personal interests.” Let’s make it their fault if the plan doesn’t work.
Maybe the reason you can’t completely flesh out the algorithm is lack of mathematical support for the underlying assumptions. The deficit will not decline unless revenues rise and/or spending declines. So the next president has to cut programs and/or raise revenues. Lots of tax cuts means either a) revenue decline or b) they weren’t really tax cuts in the first place, just a shifting of the tax burden. Cutting spending while increasing spending on the military means cutting entitlements, so those are the three largest parts of the budget.
This country just had an experience with financial models that lacked detail and were not understood by most people. This lead to the greatest financial disaster ever, loosing a quarter of the world’s wealth. I derive no confidence in a corporate banker telling me he’s going to bring me wealth and “I don’t need to hear the details”.
Comment by John Kennedy (@vmjfk) -
“This congress has gone further than any other within memory to replace debate and decision by delay and stultification. This is one of those moments when there is a reason to wonder whether the congressional system as it now operates is not a grave danger to the Republic.”
Walter Lippmann, 1963, The Passage of Power: The Years of Lyndon Johnson
By Robert A. Caro
Comment by Michael Malloy (@MikeMalloyPhoto) -
Mr. Cuban..great analysis. Everybody who is running for President of the USA or CEO or any leadership role should and need to have an ego and Confidence in his/her ability to solve the problems at hand. I recognize that. Mr. Romney as Mr. Obama in 2008 is doing just that. For this election, we have a bigger issue at hand that folks are not talking much about..it isn’t about medicare, social security etc..those will be taken care of..Its about the opportunity to elect the right Supreme Court Justice. Its about 2 big issues..abortion and Citizen United (unlimited superpac funds to politicians). 1) In my opinion abortion is a decision, between a woman, her doctor and her family…not by some law (based on religious beliefs of politicians). 2) its about getting rid of citizen united – we have to have a supreme court that abolishes this law..this is the root of evil in politics today – money$.
Now beyond this..Our republican friends state that Democratic party had total control of the senate and house for 2 yrs. That is correct – hence the recovery we see today – stock market has recovered (401K’s are back to pre 2009 levels); 5.2 million jobs created since the hemorrhaging of jobs at the end of bush’s term; manufacturing has continued to strengthen, things are looking up. The reason we have not progressed further is in the last 2 yrs (when the republican’s took the house and the senate did not have 60 senators for the democrats) – they have had nothing done. Senator McConnell stated soon after the repubs took the house, that their #1 goals is to defeat President Obama – instead of negotiating with Democrats on best path forward. In the Debt negotiating to increase the debt limit – they held the country hostage and i hear Paul Ryan stated that if the deal they had agreed to was approved – it will make certain, the election of President Obama in the second term – now – was he negotiating on fair terms for the People of the USA or was for personal gain – politically etc…that is the difference. it seems that when the democrats run the house they tend to compromise for the good of the country,but when the repubs run it…they only compromise if it benefits them. Bottom line is that i would not want to be living in country with only one party running the government we need to have bipartisanship which causes debate, from there good decisions are made..we have seen that here in the USA which have made us the envy of the world..and the longer i live here – i see no reason why we shouldn’t continue to be the envy of the world..to me…the politicians are in the way..
Comment by VDN27 (@xecor27) -
VDN27, your fictional recap of the first 2 years of the Obama debacle amazes me. In the first 2 years, we had Obamacare shoved through Congress without one single (real) Republican vote, without so much as a document for anyone to read before it was voted on!! When you say that the Democrats are all about reaching across the aisle, so much demagoguery and deceit that the Democrats have thrown around just in the past 4 years, and so many back-room machinations that the Democrats have pulled, come to mind, that I don’t even know where to begin.
Our economy has recovered because of the American people and their determination to progress. Obama only got in the way, every chance he got. He used disasters like Katrina to shut down offshore oil rigs, and to stop new offshore leases (except to China, Venezuela, etc.). Now he’s shutting down our coal industry!
He stole the equity of GM and Chrysler and gave it to the unions and took some for the US Government, and told the stockholders and debt holders to go fly a kite. That originally smelled like the takeover of an industry by a new Communist dictator, and now since Obama won’t sell it back to GM and Chrysler, it’s really smelling like a government takeover of industry!
Instead of paying down the mortgages of homeowners who were struggling with their mortgage payments, and were getting foreclosed upon, he gave money to union-controlled construction companies, gave more of it to his buddies at Solyndra and Fiskar.
First, all this proves that he thinks he can overrule our Constitution and our laws whenever he wants. Second, he has proven that he cares more about his buddies in the unions and the countries that are our enemies than he does about his citizens.
(How can he borrow billions of dollars from China, and then pay for wind generators in CHINA??) So he just borrowed money, and gave it back to the lender, for free, and our children will have to pay for it???
And let’s address the three big issues you brought up: There will be anywhere from one to three Supreme Court Justices chosen by the next President. Obama has already proven, and has said directly, that he has a litmus test that he is using to choose those Justices. They have to want to throw out our traditions, our Constitutional rights, our liberties, and they have to use the laws of other countries as their guide. I disagree with every one of those concepts. We need in this country a branch of the Government that is 100% committed to upholding the principles set up by our Founding Fathers, and that from that time till the present, we have been able to count on as the foundation on which our economy, our political system and our country are based. Obama is determined to destroy these founding principles. Obama wants us to cower at the feet of our sworn enemies, our rival superpowers and the unions here in our country. Obama has shown nothing but contempt for the principles that have made this country great.
Citizens United simply allows corporations to have their voice, just like other PACs have, like Citizens United, like the AFL-CIO, the AFT, and all the rest of the unions. Further, the Democrats continue to say that voter fraud isn’t a problem, when in a quarter of the states in the US (particularly the battleground states!!), there are more people registered to vote than there are people of voting age. How can that be, and why particularly in the battleground states???
What about funds coming into the Democratic Party? How is it that in both this election cycle and in the 2008 election cycle, millions of dollars have come in to the Democratic Party from gift cards and debit cards with no names attached? What if someone like…oh…George Soros, or the AFL/CIO, wanted to get more money than they wanted to show or was allowed by law into the Democratic Party, wouldn’t that be the way to do it?
I’m torn about abortion. I do believe that we should not allow partial birth late term abortion, except when the mother’s life is at stake, because those are real children they literally kill when they do that. Also, my sister had to wait for two years to adopt because she couldn’t have kids of her own. If there were fewer abortions, she might have had a child much earlier. That being said, I don’t think that the government has the right to get into the personal decisions of its citizens, about “normal” abortion decisions, or about what kind of light bulbs they should use. But likewise, I don’t think Romney will challenge Roe v. Wade, as he definitely believes in the autonomy and relative responsibilities of the three parts of our Government, and more so, in the power of the individual states to make their own laws.
Yes, VDN, they are politicians, but if you asked who I distrusted less, I would go with the ones who want to uphold our constitution, fight for our lawful system, protect our country with stronger armed forces, and who will not allow their own ideologies take precedence over their citizens.
Simple question: Before Obama came into office, gas was $1.50. Today it’s $4.00. If Obama cared about the low and middle class, knowing that much larger portions of our take home pay is spent on heat, lights and gas than the rich people, don’t you think that he would have allowed us to drill for our own damned oil and gas?
Comment by Greg Burton -
Gregg Burton states:
“In the first 2 years, we had Obamacare shoved through Congress without one single (real) Republican vote”
This is an interesting two-part assertion. First, you claim that Obamacare was shoved through Congress without one Republican vote. You then use the fact that no Republicans voted for it as evidence the Democrats were unwilling to work across the aisle.
However, I didn’t find any remarks from you about the January 2009 meeting at the Caucus Room in D.C. where 15 Republican leaders, including Eric Cantor, Jeb Hensarling, Pete Hoekstra, Dan Lungren, Kevin McCarthy, Paul Ryan, Pete Sessions, Tom Coburn, Bob Corker, Jim DeMint, John Ensign, Jon Kyl, Newt Gingrich and Frank Luntz met to discuss how to block everything President Obama tried to accomplish in order to limit him to one term.
There is ample evidence that is exactly what that group did. Let’s look at Obamacare…
What is most ironic about your partisan assertion is you imply Obamacare was some foreign concept that was abhorrent to Republicans. However, you failed to mention the origins of Obamacare were with the conservative American Heritage Foundation in their 1989 report “Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans”.
Nor did you mention that the Individual Mandate was introduced as legislation by Republicans as early as 1993. Interestingly, you failed to mention that, during the campaign of 2008, then Senator Obama discussed his opposition to an individual mandate. On February 28, 2008, in an interview on the Ellen Show, Senator Obama drew the following distinction with his ideas vs. Hillary Clinton’s – “She’d have the government force every individual to buy insurance and I don’t have such a mandate because I don’t think the problem is that people don’t want health insurance, it’s that they can’t afford it. So, I focus more on lowering costs.”
So, what can we conclude from this? First, President Obama accepted the Republican concept of an individual mandate, as first proposed in the Senate in 1993 by Don Nickles and 24 other Republicans, and enacted at the state level by Mitt Romney (yes, that Mitt Romney), even though it was not a concept the President agreed with initially.
What we do know is that he moved from his position to accept a model that was entirely Republican in origin, that he moved that direction to bring on Republican votes, and not one Republican voted for it. We also know about the meeting in January of 2009, and we know the substance of that meeting. We know that was the plan – to block everything and we know not one of the Republicans at the meeting have denied it. They have played it down, but not denied it took place.
You see, Gregg, it’s one thing to hear Republicans go on a Republican-sponsored “news” network and offer arguments where there is no ability to counter their assertions, and where the hosts leads them through the talking points. It’s quite another to be too lazy to do research yourself to gain a more full understanding of the issue, then go on a blog response thread and spew that same propaganda as though it were fact. In this forum, others can confront you with documented data. But, I do understand why you’re going to vote for Mitt Romney. You’re an empty suit, too, and you can relate to him. Perfectly understandable.
Now, I could go through the rest of your comment and destroy your arguments one by one, but you proved so vapid in your first paragraph, I don’t see the need.
Comment by David Krause -
Your point about a 15-person cabal against the President is the same as every losing party has done since there were parties. The fact was then, and is still, that this administration, from the top down, has not been interested in any discussion or negotiation. I don’t think we can name more than 10 bills of any substance that have been discussed, negotiated (without back-room shenanigans and deals (I’ll get to more of that in a minute!), voted on with adjustments from both parties, and passed in the Senate in the past 3 1/2 years. Moreover, I know of no bill brought to Reid for discussion on the Senate floor that actually was moved to the floor, discussed and voted on. I may be wrong, but I haven’t seen any. What I have seen from Reid is a blockade of Republican bills, a refusal by Reid to bring Republican amendments of Democratic bills to a vote on the Floor of the Senate, and a refusal by Reid to even propose discussion on a vote on a federal budget. This is a body that has been Democratic for the past 6 years, and 8 of the past 12 years. The blockade of an opposing party’s legislature certainly didn’t start with the 2009 discussion by a bunch of Republicans.
It’s funny how Democrats suddenly like the Heritage Foundation when they agree with its policy suggestions, i.e. the individual mandate, but in every other instance, they ignore and belittle their work. The mandate suggestion was accompanied by a number of other assumptions and suggestions that Obamacare expressly denied or ignored, like the purchase of healthcare across state lines, to prompt competitive bidding for healthcare. Without those other suggestions, which would never have been put into a Democratic bill, the individual mandate would never work.
The two concepts Romney said he liked in Obamacare are already being used in many states. The pre-existing health condition exemption is in place in almost all states already, and the ability to keep children on your health insurance past their 18th birthday is available nationwide, but varies from insurance company to insurance company.
In the House during the discussions for the healthcare bill, there were dozens of ideas bantered about, and many made sense, and many did not. Pelosi, after being fed up with it all, said “I’m not listening any more. I’m taking my buddies in the special interest groups I care about, our party’s donors and favorite lobbyists, let them sit in a room and come up with a plan.” We all remember Pelosi’s statement, ‘You won’t be able to read the bill you’ve all voted on it!” Even then, the vote in both houses on the bill was help up not by Republicans, but by Democratic congressmen who needed to be “greased” in the back offices of Congress. Most importantly, part of that “greasing’ was the granting of exemptions from the bill itself!!
One of the challenges to an individual mandate was whether it was a control of trade across state lines, which created a constitutionality issue. Within a state, like Massachusetts, that is not an issue. Also, states are allowed to tax people individually for their activities or inaction, like smoking, land use, tolls, etc., so charging someone for not having health insurance or auto insurance is legal.
There are some parts of Obamacare that are just abhorrent to Republicans:
The concept that if you lose your insurance, you are forced into the government-run healthcare system, with no way out of it back int private insurance, is wrong. It forces people who go through a single rough patch in their lives to be stuck with medicare for life.
The fact that there is no curb to malpractice awards is ridiculous, and forces private doctors’ malpractice insurance to skyrocket. This forces more doctors out of their own practices, especially when the government programs limit pay for their services. Obamacare will definitely (by the CBO and other government offices’ own estimates) lower the availability of healthcare to those on Medicare and Medicaid.
The price of pharmaceuticals is way too high here, first because the FDA is so strict with its approval process, secondly because the awards for drugs used improperly or whose side effects manifest over time, or don’t come out during the three phases of small-sample testing, are ridiculous.
Finally, the concept that health insurance companies can’t compete across state lines is not intelligent, if we are trying to keep prices down.
Let’s make some other observations here with Obama:
1: He didn’t accept the Republican concept of healthcare: He accepted the Canadian, British or Spanish version of healthcare, all of which do have individual mandates (just taxes, really), limits on healthcare, much higher premature birth mortality rates, much lower (or no) malpractice insurance in their systems, and significant waits for healthcare in general. Also, their doctors are paid much less, and many more medical problems are considered inoperable or not medically significant. For example, if you have a problem, like an infection, etc., in one eye in Britain, you have another one, so they aren’t going to bend over backwards over keeping that eye working. That would never fly here in the US. And moreover, in all other countries, there are private doctors that take care of the wealthy, simply because they know that private doctors will do a better job.
2: Obama has proven in everything he has done that he doesn’t understand how to govern, that he doesn’t understand economics, and he certainly doesn’t understand how to do his job as President.
Imagine, David, walking into a room knowing that you are the least experienced, least knowledgeable, least prepared person in the room. That’s where Obama is. And, unfortunately, from what I ascertain by your Kool-Aid-drinking remarks, that’s where you are too….sad. Otherwise, past your dogma and your ideologically driven drivel, you seem pretty smart.
Comment by Greg Burton -
Come on Mark. You are more intelligent than to believe this BS. Reading this post has made my level of respect for you go down a couple of notches.
Comment by Jeff Hopkins -
Like it or not, Romney was right about the 47%. I think he gained the respect of many people who realize the first step to solve your problems is to admit you have problems. Sure it wasn’t ‘nice’ to say (and as a Presidential candidate he most certainly shouldn’t have said it that way) but who here honestly openly, and without ever taking defense, accepts criticism?
Just like the person who wrote a confidential email to the news caster saying she was obese. Is she obese?
Sometimes calling the kettle black hurts your emotions, but American needs to dust itself off here people. If you haven’t yourself, ask anyone who has gone though major change…was it easy? Did you have to sacrifice things you were used to? Get out of your comfort zone?
We have got a lot of work to do. No one disagrees with the fact that we have tough decisions to make. Do you not think this will be painful? Can we wish upon a star and it will all work out? No.
America needs to make a pivot.
Comment by rkurhajetz -
I agree with you on the 47%, but I do think you’re comparing apples and oranges. The viewer who wrote to that news anchor might have been telling the truth about her weight, but who cares? I don’t think his comment to her served any purpose, other than to hurt her feelings. I don’t think she ever denied that she was overweight—-and that had nothing to do with her ability to read the news anyway. In Romney’s case, as a person running for the Presidency, he might have said it differently or said it better—-but his comment was spot-on. I respect that he told the truth, even if he should have crafted his words differently. I’m nowhere near the 1% based on my income, but I detest the animals who are “fighting” against wealth—-and against people who might have more than they do. And I have a real problem with a President and an administration who is encouraging their boorish behavior. “Give me more and make it free—-make the rich pay their fair share” doesn’t work here. It hasn’t worked anywhere. It’s policy driven by envy and divisiveness and it has to stop.
Comment by dcangelo -
His business success strategies were utilized and successful from 13 to nearly 30 years ago but are no longer relevant. Too much of our manufacturing has gone off shore and will regrettably never return to what it was before. Many corporations no longer provide security nets for their employees. Short term employment is becoming common and many companies provide very meager benefits and some none at all. We have to find new ways to succeed, not the old ways of corporate greed.
Comment by Dennis Carpenter -
Nice, you know his plan can not work because politicians are greedy and this is the first step to a flat tax that will not work in the consumer based system this country has, be sure to let Bill Maher know about this the next time you are on his show……….
Comment by Roger Shipley -
Mark, Mark, Mark, Mark, Mark. Damn man. You used to be so smart. WTF. Get real. Romney’s a lying liar who will say anything (except details of his ‘plan’) to get in to office.
You’re just wrong on this. Oh well, I’ll enjoy it just a little more now when my Thunder whip up on your Mavs this season!!
Comment by Richard English -
Here is the fundamental problem with this piece – it takes the viewpoint that America is like a company. It’s not. It’s not simply a matter of balancing the budget or reaching spending levels capped at 20% of GDP. It’s about solving issues that are negatively affecting our country’s wealth and democracy.
I understand why Mark and other business leaders feel that is the path for returning our country to greatness. He lays it right out there – business acumen works to make them successful, why shouldn’t it work to build our country’s economic health? The difference lies in micro- and macro- economic solutions.
What actually will return our country to greatness is when those at the very top stop acting like them paying their fair share is a drag on the economy (history says that is not valid) and start doing great things to rebuild the country’s infrastructure, improve the education of our children, and show the same entrepreneurial energy towards things like developing renewable energy that they use in swinging government subsidies for their ballparks and pet projects (i.e. Salt Lake Olympics).
Comment by David Krause -
Hey Mark, please explain to me how a man can say he wants to keep jobs in America and make more jobs in America, yet can sit by and collect his paycheck that he is getting from shipping American jobs to China?? Mitt Romney is a bold faced liar or a very confused man, neither of which should hold the highest office in this country. This is merely one example of his duplicity, with your millions or billions, I am sure you could get more examples faster than I can.
Comment by Knite Wolf -
Bahaha you people don’t get it.
Comment by Joe Hazelwood -
i commented about this piece at our FB page called Progressive Centralists.
my audience thinks this post is satire. now i’m inclined to agree.
Comment by Martin N. Marin -
After reading this completely unbiased article, I am now convinced Romney is indeed the man of steel & savior our country has long been waiting for — John Galt revealed at last.
or perhaps more “M A L A R K E Y”
Comment by Joc -
If tax cuts are a panacea why aren’t we in economic Nirvana after all the tax cuts, including the Bush era tax cuts which are still on the books.
Comment by Brian Pinsker -
a fluff piece written by a billionaire 1%er, with even fewer details in it than Romney has released.
no on on the right, including Mr. Cuban, knows what the word ‘bipartisan’ even means. funny, then, that Romney’s entire platform is dependent upon it.
running on a ticket of zero details is not a display of leadership; it’s saying, “Hey, we’ll figure something out – trust us.”
i’m not investing in your product, Mr. Cuban. tell you what – take it back to the woodshed for four more years, learn how to actually be bipartisan, and then get back to us.
Comment by Martin N. Marin -
He has to release his taxes first. Maybe he wants bipartisan on that too?
Romney should have stated the algorithms in full running. He had time to have developed them in his lifetime of running for president. Mark, no disrespect, you are asking us to just believe that he has strong willpower and magical confidence that will drive him to get us a good deal of change. He suddenly wanted to buy GM and salvage it to the Chinese during the auto crisis. First, Romney doesn’t care about the underachievers and workers or the poor. This value is a measure of man and how he works with others to build a better world. He also failed in Massachusetts when he was governor. Did I say fail? Huum , he didn’t want to create jobs for the state because he believes everyone should make their own. Explain this to me, Massachusetts was 50th least employed state in the nation. Bravo Romney. Did Romney reform the tax code in Massachusetts ? Nope. Did he increase the GDP in Massachusetts? Nope. Ok. He had six years as governor and Obama had 3.5 years as president yet he has lowered unemployment to 7.8 if from 10 %.
Mark Cuban. Like my elderly patients always say when I ask them to eat – you eat it.
Comment by divinemafa -
Romney should have stated the algorithms in full running. He had time to have developed them in his lifetime of running for president. Mark, no disrespect, you are asking us to just believe that he has strong willpower and magical confidence that will drive him to get us a good deal of change. He suddenly wanted to buy GM and salvage it to the Chinese during the auto crisis. First, Romney doesn’t care about the underachievers and workers or the poor. This value is a measure of man and how he works with others to build a better world. He also failed in Massachusetts when he was governor. Did I say fail? Huum , he didn’t want to create jobs for the state because he believes everyone should make their own. Explain this to me, Massachusetts was 50th least employed state in the nation. Bravo Romney. Did Romney reform the tax code in Massachusetts ? Nope. Did he increase the GDP in Massachusetts? Nope. Ok. He had six years as governor and Obama had 3.5 years as president yet he has lowered unemployment to 7.8 if from 10 %.
Mark Cuban. Like my elderly patients always say when I ask them to eat – you eat it.
Comment by divinemafa -
Nice assessment Mark. I do see some problems, there are 535 members of congress who want to be reelected. If they were to forgo all the pork going back to their districts they would be out the next election. And wanting a bipartisan plan and getting it are two different things. Since the republicans took over they house two years ago, it has been there way or no way. Throw in the tea party, now you have three different parties to contend with. And you still have all the members who signed Grover Norquist’s “no tax increase ever” pledge, that pretty much leaves out any room for negotiation (closing a loop hole is a tax increase according to Grover, it would increase your tax)
You also stated
“ He intends to first negotiate a bipartisan agreement to eliminate corporate and individual deductions other than mortgage interest deductions, health care deductions and several other tax deductions that he feels are important to the middle class” .
He has never said this definitely
Comment by Mike Schubach -
Gov. Romney is a business man and President Obama is a social worker and author. The current regime is trying to “fix” America. I want America to dominate. Gov. Romney gives us a better chance.
Comment by Nick Sparagis (@Sparagi) -
Billionaires for Romney: SHOCKER!
Comment by uTobia (@uTobia) -
Did he say he was for Romney? I missed that part. If he’s supporting Romney, I wish he’d be more vocal about it. Romney can use the help. Anything we can get to fire the clowns in charge at the White House now is fine with me.
Comment by dcangelo -
What Obama has proven is that his skill set is more suited to a dictator of a third world country, where he can bully his opponents out of running, lie about them (Romney/Ryan), get his henchmen to make opponents disappear, hide his past records (all his school, career, etc.), close down whole industries when he can’t just take them over (Obamacare), take equity from people who paid for it (GM), lie about what he knew and when he knew it (i.e., Libya), divide his country. rich from poor, white from black, old from young, educated workers vs. uneducated workers, etc., and, oh yes, we mustn’t forget, fold to communist countries in terms of security. My kinda guy. Maybe Chavez is looking for a vice-Dictator.
Comment by Greg Burton -
This article is the best explanation of the Romney economic plan that I have read thus far. I think if Romney and Ryan said these words more often, it would explain their economic plan to the voters and help them get elected. It’s really not that complicated, yet Romney and Ryan don’t seem to want to take the time to say things like this to the average voter, many of which will still not understand this rationale.
Thanks for taking the time to write this Mark. I have been sharing it with my friends.
Comment by Carmen Thomas Christiano -
I haven’t seen where Gov Romney will NOT touch home mortgage interest deduction. He has been cagey about that and that is one of the foundations of the middle class American Dream. Gov Romney’s activities at Bain were ‘scorched earth economics’ I am voting for Pres Obama
Comment by Peter Bono (@PtwitB) -
Thank you for the post. My Comments
After watching the debate, I’m starting to fully get my arms around President Obama and his details to grow jobs for the middle class. President Obama has been a successful service provider and advocate for his community and country all of his life. He has shown amazing wisdom, control, restraint and strength in character; being tested with 2 major wars, financial disaster, and most importantly in a test to the spirit of the American people – tested by extreme ideology from both sides within. He has managed our country well and with his leadership we are moving in the right direction.
Even if you disagree with his policies, our President has endured and persevered more than any other leader in modern times. He is incredibly confident in his ability and is not afraid to take a stance against extreme ideology.
– In war, he kept America strong by fulfilling our commitments to the people struggling for freedom resisting extreme views that we should just walk away.
– In financial matters he adopted many republican ideas while standing firm for the middle class and against the extreme left and right.
– Finally, President Obama has walked a straight and tall path – he has not responded to the petty small weak extreme individuals who have disrespected the office of the President of the United States and the spirit of our constitution.
Here are the details as I understand President Obama’s approach.
– He will continue to work to create bipartisan agreement to a **BALANCED APPROACH** of the right revenue increases and right cuts in entitlements.
– He will continue to work to create bipartisan agreement that **THE BUSH TAX CUTS SHOULD EXPIRE** to level the tax burden on the middle class
– He will continue to work to create bipartisan agreement that the **growth of our economy (GDP) is tied to clear and direct investment in the middle class and small businesses**. This investment comes from a PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT. Neither can do it alone. Growth does not come from the rich or handouts but from a national sense of unity and fair regulation.
– He will continue to work to create bipartisan agreement to **CONTINUE TO INVEST IN RAISING THE QUALITY OF OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM**. To delivery of skills and re-training to help the middle class find jobs and get working immediately.
Finally, if you put a problem in front of PRESIDENT OBAMA, he knows and trusts in ALL of the American people – together we WILL solve it with a fair and balanced approach.
Comment by Francis X Rojas -
LMFAO. President Obama had four years, including the first two with a solid Democratic majority—-to solve the problems and create jobs. He failed almost as miserably as Jimmy Carter if not more so. He’s a front man—-a scam artist, a puppet with bad intentions. I hope enough people see that to boot him.
Comment by dcangelo -
I don’t understand why the comment I posted at Oct. 12, 2012, 2:55am went missing, however I am grateful that I somehow was able to retrieve it the next day and save it.
Is the topic of Consumer Debt off limits?
I think I recall reading a Time Magazine article about the magical federal spending levels of 20% of the GDP mark. (no pun intended Mr. Cuban).
Two things that would concern me, Romney took existing businesses and optimized them, which is a smart way to do business…however,
In the Seinfeld world, that would be called focusing on the “top of the muffin” and discarding the bottom of the muffin. But as we see in the Seinfeld muffin episode, getting rid of the bottom of the muffin is just not as easy as it would appear.
As president, Romney’s plans have to engage as many portions of society as possible whereas as a businessperson Romney doesn’t have to worry about the bottom of the muffin, he just avoids or it pulverizes it and moves on.
The second issue that is just not talked about enough is…. consumer debt. If Romney believes that economic growth will lower consumer debt, he is most likely mistaken.
Companies don’t want to expand their job base, they want to keep increasing the efficiency of the job base they presently have, and that is because there is too much consumer debt and therefore no reason to hire people to sell more of their products or services to people who already have too much debt.
Along with too much consumer debt, credit card companies continue to erode consumer cash flow by creating credit card adhesion contracts that judges refuse to see as adhesion contracts, which in turn makes them impervious to simple legal challenges in court.
The result is a purposely defective 2% monthly minimum payment credit card product that continues to erode consumer wealth and increase consumer debt loads. Credit cards should have never had a 2% monthly minimum payment requirement, the requirement should have been at least 5% of the total due every month, even as high as 10% to 15% of the total due.
As time has gone on, it is now too late to raise the monthly minimum payment level to where it should be. Even the federal reserve wanted the credit card minimum payment raised to 4% back in 2005, but gave up when they realized that too many consumers would default.
My own personal research has found that when a consumer has a legitimate reason to restructure their debts, there are at least 5 credit card defects that could result in a credit card customer’s interest rate charges, penaltiels and fees being suspended/altered by the courts rather than a verdict of a breach of contract, but only if credit cards were accurately seen as adhesion contracts instead of standard contracts.
This would instantly free people up to pay down their credit card debts without anymore interest rate charges.
In 2007, I created a website called http://www.credit-protector.com that condemned the Credit Card companies credit protection program. I then followed that up withhttp://www.credit-protector.blogspot.com
Five years later, aka the past 90 days, the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau has levied almost 1 billion dollars in penalties against the various credit card companies over their credit protection programs, and in turn, the credit card companies have ceased credit protector coverage for the time being. Even though my warnings five years ago have proved valid, the result is not the one I advocated.
The credit protector program was so overpriced that people could not afford it, and therefore had no way to protect themselves against future situations where they just needed their credit card debt SUSPENDED because of a family medical emergency, job loss, or being a crime victim, etc…
So even the billion dollars in penalties has done NOTHING to actually help the consumer get out of debt by protecting them when a true emergency creates a breach of contract scenario with the credit card companies.
As consumer unsecured debt resides around 2.7 trillion dollars (and we don’t know if this includes the debt that is written off and ends up in court as adjudicated defaults), and wages continue to drop, any economic reversal is unlikely because people just have too much debt. The powers that be refuse to acknowledge the concept of consumer debt suspension or debt neutrality so that consumers can pay down their existing debt without anymore penalties, fees or interest rate charges, even when a real life tragedy occurs.
“Companies don’t want to expand their job base, they want to keep increasing the efficiency of the job base they presently have, and that is because there is too much consumer debt.
Comment by alexlogic -
There is another option… he could be LYING HIS ASS OFF and will say anything to get elected. That is the one i choose to believe.
Comment by Mark Pettersson (@konop) -
Not buying it. I see what you’re saying, but, like Romney, there’s no substance to it. Just: I think Romney thinks he can do a better job, so, maybe he can do a better job… that’s what I’d think if it where me up there”.
That’s just bullshit. What I think you’re doing is writing something vague that sounds like it could be supporting Romney (if he wins) but can also be claimed ‘just a point of view on where he’s coming from’ if he loses.
Pick a side. Stop throwing out cover your ass bullshit Mark. We expect better from you.
Comment by APirate Monk -
The tax plan assessment sounds good, too bad that the right wing religious zealots are part of the republican package. Can’t get the financial conservatism without the bucket of crazy that comes with it. What a shame.
Comment by Chris Dagenais -
Pingback: My Opinion on the Governor Romney Tax Plan « blog maverick | Income Tax Guide
I think Romney is way too much of a deal maker/hustler. If he is really serious, why doesn’t he give us some insight into his thinking. What will he do to make sure everyone benefits OR that sacrifice is spread around? How are we going to Cut the budget, reduces taxes AND increase defense spending? Why does the most powerful country in the world need a massive increase in defense spending, particularly when our domestic situation is stretched?
Essentially, Romney appears to be playing Hide & Seek with the American people.
It is the wrong way to run an election campaign. My prediction is that he will not get away running for president on the basis of his very AIRY platform.
Comment by leedynamo -
Your argument is analogous to advice I was given when I first started in business, to “dress for success.” I was told that looking the part (along with cocky confidence) would become self fulfilling. As a former engineer, this made no sense to me… but it worked. It worked really well. I learned through many lessons in life that human nature can’t be figured out with analytic reasoning. I like your argument as to the true nature of Romney’s plan and agree it’s worth a shot. We really do have no alternative.
Comment by Stephen Lerner -
Mark, I think you’re an amazing businessman but a lousy politician – and I think Gov. Romney has the same problem. Your analysis of his tax plan is based on a number of assumptions that look pretty frail when juxtaposed to the political will of several hundred politicians and thousands of determined lobbyists (not to mention the fact you’re having to sort of divine Romney’s intentions from your own experience and nothing he as said explicitly). You seem to think Gov. Romney will have negotiation partners who want to do what is good for the country and corporate lobbyists who are willing to go along. Even if you solved the algorithm it would do you no good…algorithm’s work when you can control the environment – they don’t work so well in DC. Romney’s biggest problem will be his great skills at business precisely because he has so much confidence they make solving problems possible – they don’t. In fact, they will get in his way. Why? Because his essential flaw is he does not understand the American people. He understands the elite and truly has no clue how normal working people get through their day. You, Mark, would be a much better president than Romney because you do understand. Leadership is a lot more than business acumen – you certainly know this – and Romney can lead where the criteria is money. But where the criteria is a nations well being, a nation’s future, he will fail because he cannot understand that the people of the US are not his employees, he is theirs.
Comment by Michael Sherrod (@Beamus) -
Wow, reading your comment, I almost get the idea you feel B.H. Obama DOES understand average Americans. Wow, I hope you don’t really believe that. Lampooning Romney implies that you do. There hasn’t been a President more out of touch with Americans in the nation’s history than the current one is.
Comment by dcangelo -
Michael, what you are describing is a MODERATE politician. The media purposely has gone neo conservative or progressive liberal, thereby forcing the moderate majority into one of those two political fox holes.
If you want moderate, that would be Hillary Clinton, but George Soros, Arianna Huffington, Oprah Winfrey, Maria Shriver, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and MSNBC who PRE-DECIDED in 2008 who the democrat presidential candidate would be.
That is why Obama stronghold state of Illinois was allowed to move up their democrat primary from the end of March 2008, to the beginning of February, 2008, with no repercussions, while Florida’s and Michigan’s votes (Clinton strongholds), were suspended from counting when they moved up their voting dates.
Even with Florida and Michigan’s delegate votes not counting, Hillary Clinton actually won more primary delegates than Obama, it was in the caucus contests where the voting ritual is a joke, that Obama pulled off a 2-1 margin of victory even though in the polls taken just prior to these caucus contests, Hillary Clinton was ether leading or tied with Obama, certainly not down by a 2-1 margin.
Comment by dailypuma -
Your concerns or skepticism about whether of not Gov. Romney can do what he proposes is valid. Especially given the environment of D.C. based crony capitalism we have all been witnessing over the past four years.
But, the one thing I’m confident about , is in the belief that crony capitalism is not Mitt Romney’s driving force.
I declared some months ago how Mitt Romney truly looks potentially to be a second coming of Ronald Reagan. This belief is based on the fact Ronald Reagan led via turning to the people for assistance when people like Tip O’Neal began to stonewall the deal. I believe Mitt, much like Ronald Reagan, truly does believe in America, along with us real Americans,
Comment by Shirley Covington -
good analysis, while romney couldnt do worse than president clueless, whose response to our economics problems is to appear on the view, I think the more you look at his exceptional record, you can a truly able world-class executive who has devoted a large amount of his life and his money to helping others.
Comment by EaglePoint (@EaglePoint) -
Eagle Point: You make an interesting point: Whether or not we believe that Romney can do what he says he will—-what he intends to—-one thing we KNOW is that the current President is hapless, incompetent when it comes to the economy (and other domestic affairs and international affairs). In other words, we can’t do worse than the guy we have.
Comment by dcangelo -
All this tax stuff is for nothing if we become embroiled in another war…..(for all his saber rattling, let him send one of his 5 sons. I think he should pay his fair share in blood as well as in taxes)
Just like in Gladiator……Romney is not a moral man. He will do anything, say anything to become CEO of America. It’s damn scary. He wants it so bad…..
Comment by chemrt -
Yep and the other guy isn’t really all that interested in keeping it, is he? No desparation there, nosiree.
Comment by dcangelo -
R’s and D’s working together, dogs and cats living together, LOCUSTS, MaSS hysteria! Seriously Mark, I’ve been very listening carefully for more than four years. I could go on and on about the Olympics, JFK’s similar TAX policies, why the nation is MORE divided than four years ago, the effect of old laws on the housing bubble collapse (the REAL cause of the recession), foxes in charge of the henhouses, demagoguing instead of leading, Voting records of the three who were in the Senate or House, things Obama, Biden, Romney and Ryan have said (on and off mike), attitudes, manners, etc. Bottom line – you cannot attack ANY of our major economic or foreign policy problems without aggressively growing the economy – only one candidate has a chance of doing that – ROMNEY – and as for pulling the congress to together in a positive way – only one has a chance of that either – ROMNEY – Romney is an aggregator while Obama is and always will be an agitator. I can’t believe, as a Spurs fan, I am speaking up for a Maverick, but this is well thought out, well written and courageous – unlike some of the Spurs who appear to be supporting a candidate based on getting into cocktail parties or some other allegiance but certainly not by thinking and putting the country first.
Comment by Tom Leytham -
It doesn’t surprise me that a businessman thinks politics will be played best by a fellow businessman, applying business solutions to political problems. Ross Perot had the same idea. Politics isn’t a computer algorithm that, once solved, yields a wonderful brave new world.
All the above about his tax plan might be true, but it ignores his incessant pandering to the loony wing of his party. They are too far off the reality rails for me to vote for the guy.
Comment by comet52 -
“What I do know is that in order for him to have a rational negotiation on all of these variables it requires the politicians he will be negotiating with to negotiate in the best interests of the country rather than for their own personal interests”
and how did that work for the last four years…
“When Mitch McConnell said in October 2010 that his party’s primary goal in the next Congress was to make Obama a one-term president, it was treated as remarkably candid and deeply cynical. Had he said it publicly in January 2009, it would likely have caused an uproar.”
How was/is the Republican Party working for the good of the country?
Comment by Bert Katz -
Being obstructionist can indeed be good for the country—-if the idea is to prevent the party in power from centralizing power and taking some of our constitutional freedoms away from us. It can also be good to try to prevent more deficit spending that will cripple my kid and his kids.
Comment by dcangelo -
@dcangelo: “Being obstructionist can indeed be good for the country—-if the idea is to prevent the party in power from centralizing power and taking some of our constitutional freedoms away from us. It can also be good to try to prevent more deficit spending that will cripple my kid and his kids.”…
that assumes that you are logical about plans being offered…and having a discussion…but repeal Obama healthcare votes 33 (with no chance to pass…that was a good use of taxpayer money…then you complain about the deficit…
Jobs bill – no votes…but the republicans want to create jobs…right…
You are complaining about centralization of power to the party in power, yet what you are proposing is the centralization of power in the hands of the 1%…and then I suppose you will want democrats to work with mittens if he wins…and since the obstructionist agenda would have worked for the GOP…the democrats would want to support mittens because why?
Many of you guys are just conspiracy theorists and a bunch of hypocrites…you talk about constitutional freedoms…so it’s better for less government intervention in regulation, and the economy, but it’s totally ok for the GOP to governmentally mandate into the bedroom and into women’s vaginas…
Comment by Bert Katz -
Mark, I think you are a brilliant business man and I respect your opinion. However, I cannot vote for a man that I do not trust. He is a LiAR. One day he says one thing and the next day he says something completely different. Also, as a woman I cannot vote for a president who thinks he has the right to tell me what to do with my body.
Comment by Kat Wilson -
Here’s my favorite part: “it requires the politicians he will be negotiating with to negotiate in the best interests of the country rather than for their own personal interests”
Where were you for the last 4 years while republicans stonewalled EVERYTHING to score political points and destroy Obama’s presidency? You think that was a good thing? They deliberately did everything they could to extend the recession out of bitterness and spite that they lost an election.
As a liberal, I would hope that democrats would do the EXACT same thing to Romney. Just let the country burn to destroy him. But we know that democrats don’t do that. They’re not bitter economic terrorists like the republicans are.
Comment by dinocazzo -
Thanks for posting this. I agree with much of the analysis, and have blogged on it too; http://wp.me/prGoD-A . No question Romney thinks he can uniquely complete all the required tasks to meet his arithmetically astounding budget/tax objectives. The problem with the analysis is that President of the U.S. is not at all like being CEO — particularly not like being CEO of a deal-making hedge fund. The President is constantly suboptimizing to move things forward in an environment in which the decision has to be taken immediatley with imperfect information, the odds are usually 50/50 at best, and the politics (meaning those with vs. against your position) are 50/50 at best. It’s the nature of our political system, particularly since we’re structured to give the legislature the ‘tyranny of the minority’ with filibuster etc capabilities — and particularly when we have a highly politicized judiciary that routinely legislates from the bench. In that context, the mythical ‘just get it done’ CEO is essentially powerless. The effective President instead will constantly compromise — or nothing happens at all. And this essential nature of the role is what worries me in particular about Romney’s plan. He’s made clear he intends to use Executive Orders his first 90 days in office more than any President has ever (New Yorker profile in August). He’s also made clear that the one thing he will certainly do is cut taxes 20% across the board. My best guess is that this means he’ll use Executive Order authority to impose the tax cut, then run entirely out of steam because of his inability to understand President-as-compromiser … vs. CEO… as his role. We’ll be left with much more massive deficits, and no way out. There’s precedent — Administrations have often successfully cut taxes, and have very seldom cut spending, no less successfully addressed the more systemic cost problems (defense spending; medicare and medicaid; social security). Finally, I’m concerned that once Romney blows up the deficit he’ll immediately be in mid-term election mode — which certainly means Congressional Republicans will run from any cost cutting and, given Romney’s historic personal ambition above all else, will mean he’s likely too, as well. All this even if one agreed that cutting tax rates by 20% was the right thing to do; this report out today cited by Bloomberg suggested that even if we cut all deductions we could only afford a 4% reduction in rates; http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-12/repealing-deductions-pays-for-4-tax-cuts-study-says.html . Thanks for the conversation.
Comment by jbholston -
Thank you for taking the time to write this blog. I have a question…what about the double taxation that currently is happening? Employers paying on wages that workers pay on as well. No one ever addresses the double taxation issue that America has and the fact that it is against the constitution. We started double taxation after WWII and have never stopped. It was supposed to be a short term solution. Politicians can talk all they want to about tax ideas and this and that, but, what about the underlying problem? Thank you for your time.
Comment by leiarenee -
This is a good assessment of Romney and could’ve been an advantage if the government was working with the same principles of a private business. However, there are a few key issues do not have such a linear flow when the structure is government, therefore the business like approach not only doesn’t work but also causes financial frustration to the rest of the country.
Just to give a few examples;
• In any given business, there could never be a department tolerated if they are over paying a supplier by large margins for a product or service. In private industry every department has a “luxury” budget where they are allowed to pay a bit more than the market value if there is an added value to the required product or service. It’s like eating a nice steak and paying %30 more at a high end restaurant knowing the exact same steak is available %40 cheaper at a different restaurant. The ambiance of the high end one can be considered as an added value and tolerated. But it would never be tolerated to pay double the price at the same steak compare to the next table at the very same restaurant. However, just if you go to any hotel web site on their listed prices sometimes up to %70 higher if the payee is government, which wouldn’t have been tolerated at a private company, on office consumables same copier paper packs are %20 – %30 higher if the purchaser is government, more examples can be seen by just a small on-line research.
• Again like private companies, government departments have projected and allocated budgets, the difference is; after the second quarter if the government department forsees that they will end up with a surplus, they start spending the allocated funds with the fear of not being eligible for the same amount in the budget for the next fiscal year. In private industry, department employees that come up with surplus is financially rewarded so they always have an incentive to do sensible procuring and coming up with a surplus.
• I never owned a large corporation but I have 3 small businesses, the way I calculate a salary to pay the employees is, we assess the employees contribution based on his/her performance to the health, development and the operation of the company, convert the result to a dollar value based on the revenue generated due to this contribution, subtract fixed and operational expenses from this amount and give the remaining net’s certain percentage to the employee and consider that as a salary/bonus/benefit. However, for at least half of the government employees only criteria is attendance, not performance. As long as they show up they deserve salary. Just walk in to any government office, you will always see half of the employees working like bees and half of them have an attitude like they are doing a favor to civilians just by being there therefore they don’t need to work as hard as the other half. Which is not only illogical but also unfair to the hard working government employees, not to mention the cost to the taxpayers.
• Again in a private company if the purchasing department acts to the financial disadvantage of the company in their decisions, based on their personal relationships with the suppliers, it would be considered as a kickback, they are right away terminated. In government, it is called “lobbying” and it is very well accepted by both sides as business as usual.
I can keep going with these examples but my main point is; having a linear “private industry” way of thinking (which is attributed to Romney as the biggest plus) is not much of an advantage in governing because all the principles are different. I believe analytical thinking and solid methodology would be the key for a successful government and unfortunately as a party, if not the majority at least the half of the republicans seem to be far from being analytical or methodical.
Comment by Kaan Bozoglu -
Sent from my iPad
Comment by Richard Conti -
Seems to me, that’s what Mr./President Obama thought of himself 4 years ago.
Could Mr. Romney do better, doubtful. Seems too autocratic.
Washington sure seems like one fucked up island!
Comment by Doug D Chef (@DougDChef) -
It looks good Mark, and yes I can see where Willard beleives it will work and no doubt he is a good businessman. To me good businessmen should have good values along w/their business decisions; closing plants and outsourcing jobs not only affects and hurts those workers, their towns, but the country in the long run. The “bipartisan” part? People tend to forget that the people who held up bills and fillibustered the past 4 years w/o passing anything were the Republicans. But sorry, I’m not buying Willard’s tax plan and have a thought you’re not buying it either Mark.
Comment by Kelly McSorley -
After reading all of these posts, I am left wondering where all of these people were when Obama was running in 2008 with no actual plans for his “hope and change”. The problem in Washington for the last 4 years is no leadership and Romney would bring that to the table. The POTUS has spent a lot of time on the golf course, TV and in California with his buddies instead of buckling down to business with the elected Senate and Congress. He let his Dem buddies run with the healthcare idea and all of them signed off on it WITHOUT even reading it. That was the biggest addition to our current debt. Now we are finding out that this healthcare law will allow the government access to all of our banking info and the death panels will consist of people that do not practice medicine. Over the course of the last few weeks we are finding out just how easy it is for the current administration to lie about what is going on with foreign affairs. It wasn’t enough that their “fast & furious” debacle got hundreds killed, including our own border patrol agents but now the blood of 4 Americans, including an ambassador, are on their hands. Just these events of the current administration make me totally unwilling to give them another 4 years. We know much more about Romney today than we did Obama in 2008 plus this election may also get rid of some of the career politicians in DC now. What we need are term limits on all of them, so none of them can get rich in DC at the people’s expense. Which reminds me, Obama is rich too so why do people think he can relate to the poor?
Comment by Carol Baker -
Why is your opinion even here? You are just like Romney, no facts, no substance. Just because you like what he purports to stand for, you support him? I for one have personal experience with Romney and his ideas of what if worthwhile and what is not. His business at Bain was all about making money….for him and his buddies. He has no regard for the working man what so ever. His tax plan has no hope of success. You cannot cut taxes and erase the deficit. Not possible, remember Bush’s tax cuts? We still have them, and no jobs. Further cuts will only make things worse.
Comment by Charles Cornell -
Mark: You usually don’t pussyfoot around like this in any other aspect of your life. Why now? You have gone to great lengths to make a point here…and then you pretend that you haven’t come to some sort of conclusion?
Let me finish what you won’t. For any of Mitt Romney’s BS claims to EVER come true…he would need the same fantasy-like surroundings that his religion lies within.
“The perfect Mormon storm,” if you will…
It will never happen. And even if it could, then what? He was 3rd worst at creating jobs in MA amongst all states. Is that the same “confidence”…..no DELUSION that we could expect from him on a National Level? You bet your Magic Underwear it is!
If you are going to blog…please include a full opinion and spell it out. At your level, you shouldn’t be trying to entice people into giving their opinion…you should be sharing YOURS! Get off of the fence that you are clearly pretending to sit or (maybe) lean on.
P.S. I like you on Shark Tank.
Comment by The Reasonists (@theReasonists) -
You can’t compare running a business to running a country.
Comment by Jake Buttikofer -
Mark, thanks for taking a position – a stand – based on your own opinion, reasoning, intelligence, and independent effort. Regardless of candidate chosen, this is far better than those who choose to base their comments on vilifying the opposition with assumptions, using factoids from the extremists on either side, and based on how a certain candidate makes them feel more politically correct with whatever group they want to impress. If Presidents were picked like basketball players, those with both proven skill and obvious potential would make the team; those who didn’t live up to their original assumed potential and/or didn’t play well with others would be released.
Comment by Verlin Youd -
In evaluating a business for investing, the idea is great but you should spend just as much time looking at the management team. That original idea will likely change over time as you learn more about the market needs. But do the principals have the tenacity to run the business, to push through challenges, to pivot to the voice of the market? Do they have the energy and will to succeed?
In line with your thoughts, I think this is why you pick Paul Ryan over Chris Christie as a running mate. Christie would likely have been a stronger campaigner and in my assessment would have performed better in a debate with Vice President Biden. You pick Ryan instead because you’re looking to build a management team; he’s professional, intelligent, precise and detailed, and inventive like you would want out of your executives.
Romney and Ryan strike me as the kind of guys that don’t let the decision by committee mentality of Washington strangle innovation.
Comment by Andy AndLisa -
The reverse idea of economic growth IS consumer debt reduction…
Comment by alexlogic -
Yep, Romney will be a regular ol Herbert Hoover and George W Bush rolled into one.
Sorry, I don’t buy the idol worship you’re getting here MC.
Business men don’t make good presidents (check the list). Running the country ain’t like running a business.
Comment by madhemingway -
Yes, ummm…coumunity organizers are much more qualified to run an economy and represent a country than businessmen are.
Comment by dcangelo -
The problem with a businessman in the White House is that when a CEO tells an associate to do something, he does it. When the President tells congress to do something, half or more in congress laugh and say what’s in it for me.
Comment by David Knopf -
Mark here’s the problem I see with their tax plan. Cut taxes across the board by 20%, eliminate cap gains and AMT, remove deductions, or cap deductions and supposedly we have enough to expand defense spending, eliminate Obamacare (a cost) which supposedly is revenue neutral (the math is extremely suspect). The only way this works is if the economy grows at the 4% that they say they are going to grow it. If it doesn’t (very possible) then it’s absolutely NOT revenue neutral (it probably wasn’t in the first place). Oh, and they won’t tell us what their plans are for budget cuts.
Comment by ryeattsjr -
ryeattsjr, excellent point about “growing the economy” by 4%. Growing the economy is codespeak for, “how do we keep most americans deeply in debt but working so the banking elite continue to amass most of the world’s wealth”.
The problem now is we can’t keep consuming more and more. The new age idea should be to use less resources to maintain what exists, otherwise a war machine budget increase is needed to keep massive amounts of resources outside of our borders flowing to us.
The reverse idea of economic growth consumer debt reduction, which eventually leads to less work by all to maintain what we have. Less work by all also means a relaxation of consumption, which is the single most important thing the planet can do to prevent uncontrollable events in the near future from occurring.
Comment by alexlogic -
We are part of that small business that Obama has spoken about, and as one I sure would like to know where the tax cuts are that we have supposedly gotten. Obama made promises for a change…I guess the change was a higher deficient and more time was spent on making himself a legacy “Obama Care” than getting the economy boosted and jobs. Our country was built on small businesses and if they fail so too will our country.
Comment by Debbie Stevens O'Reilley -
The fact that you had to write this long-winded post to clarify Romney’s positions is exactly the problem– if Romney has a plan, why isn’t he telling us about it? Why are is this post more detailed than anything the Romney camp has put forward? That’s troubling, to say the least.
Comment by Takeshi Young -
How specific can one be in two minutes, during a debate? Go to the website to read some specifics. And by the way, where were the specifics on Obamacare? You have to pass the bill to see what’s in it? That, uttered by a complete failure who thankfully is no longer Speaker of the House.
Comment by dcangelo -
The Republicans for four years have self-declared that they been dedicated to unilaterally blocking whatever Obama has proposed. To that end, the Republicans have rejected any bipartisan activity. Now Romney says he will work for bipartisan support. What are the chances the Democrats are going to say “turn around is fair play?” I think that no matter how good a negotiator Romney might be, the Democrats are going to have their field day. Ergo, no matter whom is elected, the public gets the shaft until both parties start thinking about the PEOPLE rather than their p****** contest…
Comment by Karen Cavanaugh Charest -
“That the rich will continue to pay the same share of taxes as they pay now.”
BS. Romney/Ryan want to reduce the top tax rate to 25%, not to mention they intend to totally eliminate the taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest, which — being their primary source of income — would definitely benefit the rich. They also want to kill the AMT. Another win for the rich.
Or to put it another way, Mitt Romney would have paid an effective tax rate of around 0.82 percent under the Ryan plan, rather than the 13.9 percent he actually paid.
Same share? Right.
Comment by Michael Long -
Mark, Wanted to share with you and your followers this editorial from Chris Graham, editor of the trade publication “The Counter Terrorist” – a journal for law enforcement, Intelligence & Special Operations Professionals.
Those of us who have taken the oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” as a condition of employment have grown accustomed to hearing a consistent assertion over the past four years. We have listened to our seniors and co-workers refer to President Barack Obama as a neo-socialist. Not an advocate of state ownership of the means of production where his administration would logically be held responsible for the inefficiency of central planning and inevitably oppressive bureaucracy, but a man on a quest for control of the means of production with little respect for privately owned property or individual liberty.
They say that he pursues a system by which free-market traits could be strangled through regulation with waivers and grants held out as incentives for organizations willing to publicly embrace his agenda; an arrangement that would permit the ability to claim credit for anything popular and shift blame to a no-longer existent free-market for anything not.
Just like you, I have no way of knowing if they are correct or not. Unfortunately, I cannot deny the concerning nature of many of this administration’s key policies. They have insinuated themselves into unprecedented direction of: medical, banking, energy, auto and housing sectors. Members of this administration have promoted anti-constitutional United Nations initiatives (e.g. Agenda 21, the Small Arms Treaty, Law of the Sea Treaty, etc.).
In June 2010, Mr. Obama’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Michael Mullen admitted that “The most significant threat to our national security is our debt.”1 Concurrently, Mr. Obama championed policies that have exploded the national debt to $16 trillion.2
Today, nothing backs the dollar but the reputation of the US government and on August 5, 2011 Standard and Poore’s unsurprisingly downgraded the US government’s credit rating.3 Rather than placing responsibility for a deteriorating credit rating on the incomprehensible volume of spending made possible by currency debasement and debt, Mr. Obama rebuked the agency itself.4 Even as wealth is poised to flee the European debt debacle, world markets have been incentivized to find alternatives to the dollar. Under the Obama administration, discussion of the country’s ability to repay this monstrous debt has been abandoned entirely and replaced by assessments of how long interest payments may be sustained. Mr. Obama has demonstrated severe confusion regarding what actually constitutes an investment rather than an expense.
In a matter of days we will choose between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney to serve as President of the United States. Of course fiscal negligence is not the only basis to make a choice. One must ask: which candidate is more likely to sue your state on behalf of a foreign nation?5 Which is more likely to sue your state to prevent checking identification to vote?6 Which went to war in Libya after mistakenly consulting the U.N. and E.U. rather than congress?7
It is also worth asking: who is more likely to allow the exploitation of domestic energy sources for the achievement of energy independence? Which has inhibited domestic resource use and instead thrown billions of tax-payer dollars at“green” companies that entirely fail to deliver? 8, 9
Mr. Obama’s political party controlled all branches of government for his first two years in office. They control two-thirds to this day. On the 6th of November I will cast my Independent vote against Barack Obama for President of the United States. If the Obama administration’s great leap forward is not the change you had hoped for you may wish to do the same.
2http://www.usdebtclock.org accessed 8/10/12.
3http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563 accessed 8/10/12.
4http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-dismisses-standard-poors-downgrade-sees-urgency-debt-talks/story?id=14255055 accessed on 8/10/2012.
5http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/06/AR2010070601928.htmlaccessed on 8/10/2012.
6http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-obama-justice-department-for-records-regarding-dojs-decision-to-block-south-carolinas-voter-id-law/accessed on 8/10/12.
7http://www.npr.org/2011/03/21/134730963/the-nation-in-libya-us-forgot-about-congressaccessed on 8/10/12.
8 http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/republicans-to/accessed on 8/10/2012.
Comment by Quad J (@10023feet) -
Romney’s plan is at the CEO level. Everyone is asking for the actuary data. Now think of how many decisions it takes to get from the first desk to that actuary.
Comment by David Landin (@icarusKiD) -
I think your summary is a fair evaluation of his plan, based on what I have read and heard from him. Can he do it? We won’t know unless he is elected. But I feel as though we need to give him the chance. Things aren’t good right now—-not with our domestic policies or economy, not with international affairs—-not with much of anything. My own opinion is that while I don’t think Romney is the perfect candidate, I think he’s at least average—-maybe even well above average—-and what we have now is a complete failure of leadership. I’m willing to take a chance on Romney and hope he can implement his plans.
Comment by dcangelo -
Politics. Assuming bi-partisianship co-operation will be a given is the variable that thwarts Romney’s whole tax plan. Politics. After all, how can you expect the Democrats to come on board and do some truly bi-partisan work when Mitch McConnell vowed to make Obama a one term candidate and turned the Republican party into the party of “No” Politics is the reason we can all not simply assume that Romney being a successful business man will be a successful president. I personally believe that had the Republicans not turned into the party of no to make president Obama a one term president we would be further along in the recovery and better off fiscally as a nation than we are now. Unless both parties stop electing far left and far right radicals I don’t think well see anything close to a productive congress or bipartisanship from our elected officials unless some thing drastically dramatic happens again to unite all Americans under a common cause. Politics.
Comment by Mark Mosley -
I like the analysis, but the main thing of all of this is that algorithms have variables. Depending on the variable, the algorithm may or may not work.
I do not trust Romney to make it work. I do not trust the Republicans to make anything work. I do not trust anything Romney has said. There are no specifics to his tax plan, so you say we go out on a limb, and trust he can make it work?
Republicans have made a decision of saying “NO” to everything over the past 4 years, so why should (if Romney wins), Democrats now cooperate with Republicans?
If not for actions taken by Democrats alone, our economy will be way worse than what it is, and now we give the drivers wheel to Romney and Republicans to take credit for a recovery they had no part in?
Comment by ASquaredG (@ASquaredG) -
Very good analyses Mark! To me Romney cares about the country very much and wants to do what is best for the country and not any particular group of people. I have been saying for 30 years that what is wrong with most cities, states and country is too many people in office that could not “manage a Dairy Queen” (For you Mark) Those are essentially big companies with the USA as one of the biggest companies in the world. We need people who know business and how to run a company in there. Too many Lawyers and politicians making big business decisions that do not have a clue. The biggest problem who ever wins is this. Either party could come up with the greatest plan in the history of the world and the other party would stonewall it as they do not want the other party to get credit!
Comment by Jaime McDaniel -
One of the best analyses I have seen to date. I believe the critical takeaway from your post is this: Irregardless of what the details are of his plan, or any candidates plan for that matter, in order to accomplish anything, it will take bi-partisan support. I believe Romney has demonstrated his ability to get things done in the business world, and to some extent in Massachusetts. I’d like to think those skills will translate to Washington. Our current national CEO has not demonstrated those skills.
Comment by tonylazz -
Tony “It takes two to tango”, the Republican Party in Washington has not demonstrated that ability for four years. What makes you think the other side of the isles would be any more cooperative with a change of admin?
Comment by SilverTill -
Mark – As you mentioned there are tons of variables that go into this, however I think one of the key things that really needs to be pointed out is that this is all based on Trickle down, which has proven to not work in an under-regulated market (post Glass-Steagal, advanced derivatives etc). These Tax reforms have to be combined with more/different market regulation (as you brought up in a previous post about how the market has been hijacked by high frequency traders, derivatives etc) and the proper incentives for people like you and the small businesses you support to reinvest in America (hiring, manufacturing, etc). If the regulation and incentives are not there, then it’s easier for the high net worth small businessmen to invest his excess profits in a big fund that does nothing to create wealth, instead it shifts wealth away from the middle class and to the rich.
Comment by danielb -
I have unquestioned respect for leadership (Churchill, Roosevelt, Reagan) and do believe in the potential of each separate individual to have a profound effect on their time and circumstances if willing to rise to the challenge (King, Lincoln, Douglass). But I’m concerned with the notion that one man “is the detail… to solve this country’s financial problem”. Canonizing prior to working miracles on the biggest stage is as foolhardy as walking onto the same stage with hope as your strategy.
Comment by Chris Gallagher (@chrisigallagher) -
Mr. Cuban, I have always had the greatest respect for you and your opinions..I hope you will respect my opinion that the Middle class are the job creators. Any wealthy people one can mention made their fortune off the Middle Class, directly or indirectly, and that includes you. If the Middle Class has money to spend, they will be spending it on your goods and services and sports events. Mr. Romney plans to continue the same ole trickle down…take care of the wealthy…system which has failed us for all these years. .I often quote you regarding the statement that paying taxes is Patriotic and the most Patriotic thing we could do would be to work our asses off and get rich so we can pay [our fair share of taxes.] Now it almost seems you’ve changed horses. The Republican party will never protect the Middle Class…never. They make no secret of the fact that they protect the wealthy, and you are one of them. I still admire you, but not for this op-ed. HOWEVER because I do want to trust you, I will keep it on file in case Romney wins, and I feel like jumping off a bridge.
Comment by Henrietta Lee Boggs Alves -
The problem here is that YOU’VE provided more details than Romney. If he expects us to believe in him, he needs to spell it out more. Without more details, voters will think his agenda on the tax issue favors people like him and you — the mega wealthy. If the plan is so great, then why won’t he provide more substance around the details? The “trust me” strategy will not work!
Comment by Paul Harris (@paulgharris) -
“He believes that income and corporate tax cuts across the board will increase economic growth which will offset the impact of any tax cuts that he is able create in a revenue neutral manner”
Plugging this into an algorithm is like dividing by zero. It looks legal when you’re lining up the operations, but you try and solve for it and you end up with something nonsensical.
Comment by Ryan Keshav Iyengar -
Unfortunatly it’s not all about the money, which was the focus of the recent debate. I am a married 55 year old woman. I recently switched to the Independent party because I was sick of all crap from both of them. I voted for Obama last election. I cannot and will not vote for Romney because he disrespects americans by not supporting equal rights in marriage or a women’s right to choose. It’s about SO much more than the economy. It’s about freedom.
Comment by shasta714 -
I agree that governor Romney will strive to work together for bipartisan support to achieve these goals. And I agree that if he were able to attain these goals, our country’s economy would be in a much better place.
The problem is, as President Obama has recently learned, is that there is very little bipartisan support for anything right now. Congress is as polar now as it has ever been in the history of American politics. The result being that on somewhat controversial and divisive topics (which are typically the most “important” issues in Congress), more often than not, meaningful progress and thus resolutions aren’t possible.
So my feeling is this, as Governor Romney is forced to move away from the far right in order to reach to the middle in hopes of getting something done, he will become abandoned by much of that Tea-Party base that has supported him thus far and has entrenched itself in the House. He will eventually be facing the same isolation and abandonment that all presidents encounter when they move into the middle in such a polar environment. So if he won’t in fact have the ability to make these changes as quickly as he promises, if at all, why not side with experience? All things being equal, why not go with someone who has been learning to be a president for four years?
Discounting a serious sexual scandal, presidents typically get their best and most lasting work that shapes their legacy during their second terms. They no longer have the Party base to somewhat appease in order to ensure renomination. They are free to unabashedly peruse their true goals, which we should all agree are the same: put Americans back to work and reducing the deficit while improving the economy, a tall order for anyone.
We all get better at what we do with time and experience. Being the President is one of the most difficult and demanding jobs there is, so we should never have expected this to be accomplished in four years. Far too much damage was already done. But I truly believe that things are getting better, albeit more slowly than we would like, but things are getting better. So keep the faith. Let’s keep working, keep improving ourselves and thus our country. And I will be voting that we allow President Obama to do the same.
Comment by Adrian Danger Doggrell -
Comment by Jerry Noonan (@ND35USC0) -
I wish you had commented on his intention to increase spending in defense. I see no algorithm solving that part of the grand plan. Follow-on: Do the Mavs use the triangle offense?
Comment by Andy Tsitouris -
The man flat out scares me. All his tax “plan” will do is allow the rich to get richer and further drive the middle class to extinction. And like the comment above, where is this bipartison support going to come from??? People can say all they want that Obama hasn’t done anything, but it has been congress that has blocked everything he has tried to do. I say vote everyone in congress out and find people that will do what’s best for the country instead of what’s best for the party.
Comment by William Brown -
This is nonsense Mark. you do not promise a 4% increase in Defense Spending while also promising to reduce total spending to 20% of GDP and reduce the 16 trillion dollar debt – 6 of it run up thanks to the mortgage debacle, and 7 of it thanks to Cheney’s unfunded wars – without adding a revenue source. I don’t care if it is legalized marijuana, a sales tax on EVERYTHING that sunsets once the deficit gets back to 2 trillion, elimination of Capital Gains special treatment, inclusion of 940 & 941 taxes on investment income or elimination of the asinine Bush Tax Cuts.
Perhaps you were too busy screaming at zebras to remember that the tax deal Clinton & Gingrich worked out in 1998 would have had us out of debt by 2015. Greenspan hated it because it would eliminate T Bonds as a rate benchmark, super rich hated it because they are simply greedy, Grover Norquist hated it because he is paid to hate it by the Koch Bros. Interest on the Federal Debt is the 4th largest expenditure in the Federal Budget. You have to earn your tax cuts, not sprinkle fairy dust on them politically.
So lets talk about tax reform in a meaningful way. Eliminate the 1040 completely and put everyone on the 1120. Eliminate the interest deduction on the 1120 and then eliminate every single credit that the 1040 enshrines. No more credits for anything, not for babysitting the kids or the grandparents, not for subsidizing below living wages through the Earned Income Tax Credit, not for subsidizing the housing industry through the Mortgage Interest Deduction, not for energy efficient anything, not for energy exploration. No more property and state tax deductions for anyone, corporations included. Just a straight Profit & Loss bottom line Income Tax.
A simple app on the cell phone can track all deductible expenditures – clothes, fuel, food, rent, insurance, the principle, but not interest, on car and mortgage payments, doctor visits and Schedule II ~ VI medications…., all non deductible expenditures – dining out, entertainment, vacation travel and lodging, Schedule I drugs purchases, sales taxes…, and all income – investment, earned (including the employers’ share of Social Security), inherited, black and gray market (determined by matching all expenditures against all claimed income and adding back the difference) and then have 2 floating rates based on the need for an annual balanced budget – one on the first 100K of taxable income, a second for everything above it. Same rate for corporations and human beings.
Otherwise, any loophole closings land directly on the Middle and Lower Classes, sapping their spending power. And if high powered tycoons such as yourself haven’t figured it out yet, that 90% of Americans are the ones you sell your stuff to.
Next time you look in the mirror, hold a sharp knife to your nose and imagine what your face would look like without it.
Romney is as phony as it gets. He was and is a one trick pony; he took rich peoples’ money, bought companies and raped them, destroying communities and their wealth, and is called a great capitalist. The only reason he was elected Gov of MA was because the Democrat Primary winner was Scott Harshbarger, an Attorney General who put corrupt politicians in jail. Since most politicians in MA are in the Democrat Party, the Party Machine sat on its hands and let Romney win. The only reason he was able to clean up the Salt Lake City Olympics was because he is a Mormon elder, and he came in to tell every other Mormon who had their hand in the till who was going to get how much, and how much they would then give back to the church.
After watching the Willard Romney Show for the last 6 years, the only thing I know about him that is real is that he thinks 47% of Americans, 47% of the people you sell your stuff to Mark, are freeloaders. They aren’t freeloaders Mark, they are real people who weren’t born into the DNA Club, they work hard every day, and they deserve a little respect, because without them, Mark, you are still selling disco lessons in college.
Comment by Hank Keiser -
Mark you are spot on as usual. As an executive head hunter my company searches for talent across the country and daily we look for people who have a track record of success. Not once like a blind squirrel, but multiple times. Our clients want a person that can rally hundreds if not thousands of employees and share holders to buy into their plan for turn around to save the company. Obama was able to rally the people 4 years ago, but for delivering a real recovery he has failed. There is no recovery without new jobs from existing small companies and or creation of new companies. Wages will only go up for the middle class when there is competition in the labor force and people have choices where to work. (See success in technology and oil/gas industries) That is one of the reasons Wal-Mart employees are unhappy and creating such a fuss currently. They have no where else to go. (also the union is behind it creating a false anger for the election)
How about this perspective. Let’s change the concept to sports. Something America can relate to. If Joe sixpack’s pro sports team (don’t care which sport just pick one) had 4 seasons like we currently have had in our economy, that coach would have been gone after season 3. Half of America wants to give the coach not 1 more season but 4 more??? The coaches won/loss record has shown his plan will not get the team to the playoffs and forget about a championship although the stat sheet looks 1-2% better than last year. Also there is a huge possibility he will leave the team in worse shape because he has traded away all our young players which are the building blocks for the future and our chance at championships to come.
I’ll end with this… My lemonade stand was failing, so I brought in a lawyer who said he knew what to do to fix it. He had this great plan and it was to bring all my Joe sixpacks a better healthcare plan because they would be happy and that would lead to better production. So I said OK, but I asked what about the original problem of decrease in revenue? That new healthcare cost could cause me to go bankrupt without any infusion of new revenue and I was already losing revenue monthly. He again talked about how great the healthcare plan is for all. I said OK and I waited and waited and waited, but he didn’t bring any new marketing concept and no new revenue for my business. My Joe sixpacks were really happy, but with no new revenue or even an increase in current revenue I had to close my lemonade stand file for bankruptcy and all those Joe sixpacks are now out of a job living on gov’t help at half of what I paid them.
Because I closed my doors and the city couldn’t collect revenue taxes from me any longer it caused the local elementary school to lay off 3 teachers, the fire dept let go 3 fireman one from each shift and the police dept had to cutback on cars and men as well. City sanitation cut back services and there was not enough money for the food bank programs. All because I closed my doors. Everyone was mad at me because they said I was greedy when really I lost everything because my lawyer didn’t deliver the new revenue he promised.
We may not completely know Romney’s plan for creating jobs and revenue and really we don’t need to because of his track record of success in the private sector as well as an elected official in a hostel environment similar to the sitting President. He has proven he is not a one trick pony. The one thing I do know for sure is I have seen the current sitting President’s plan for the past 4 years and I know we can’t have 4 more like it.
Mark, Thanks for the soapbox
Comment by Scott Tilley -
Wow…this is a very good assessment of the facts give or take and thank you for doing it…BUT…Are you out of your mind?
People we have done this before and history tells us repeatedly that it doesn’t work. Proof, you need proof…just go back and see the proof. If we go back it will destroy this country. However much I do not agree that this is the correct way to go, I do appreciate the time and patience in putting it into perspective as much as you could, because the facts are that you don’t know what he is going to definitively do because he hasn’t disclosed this, not to mention, he lies so much, it is hard to take him at his word with what he has disclosed. I don’t trust anything that he has said so far and don’t know all that he plans.
I was adamant in 2004 that Bush would destroy this Country and nobody listened…American followed like a bunch of lost sheep. We do not have time or capacity to be sheep anymore.
Get rid of the GOP in congress and don’t vote for Romney. Stick with a plan that has been working and will work faster and better when the obstructionists are gone. People who put their party first and the American people last. Don’t go back, MOVE FORWARD! Thanks again for the as honest as can be breakdown. We might not agree on how we should move forward, but I do respect the overview.
Comment by JoOnna Silberman -
In reading through this breakdown, a common phrase is “bipartisan support”. I don’t know that this is even possible any more. While I’m not a ardent follower/observer of all things political, there doesn’t appear to be any willingness from either party to “work toward the greater good”. What has Gov. Romney done in the past that makes you think he will be able to garner support for his programs/plans, and more importantly, do you think democrats in the House/Senate will be willing to go along with these plans? Maybe you are using “bipartisan support” as an out when invariably he is unable to gain this support if elected. Regardless, if you are counting on R’s and D’s to work together, I hope you aren’t surprised when it doesn’t come to fruition. And yes, I’m very disappointed/angry/sad that I feel this to be true.
Comment by J. Holliday (@hawkeyejaye) -
Tax changes (clandestine or not) require discussion, drafting, votes, passage. A President can’t unilaterally write the code and say: “here you go.” Specifics shouldn’t be given at this point because Romney actually understands the give and take element of governing, versus using sound bites to demagogue issues and create division.
Romney will bring people in and ‘splain it to them in ways they probably have never heard before. If they do not want to sit down, that will be explained, too. Romney will have an ultra-sharp cabinet that he will actually meet with on a regular basis, a room he will command and demand substance from those seated.
We need a broad thinker, a numbers guy, and a policy hawk that WANTS TO act beyond a news cycle. America’s heart hasn’t changed but it’s balance sheet certainly has and there’s NO URGENCY TO SOLVE IT NOW. We have too much debt, no cogent domestic energy policy, and if the crap slaps the fan in the middle east you’ll regard this recession as the USA Spring compared to what would come if certain, more likely than not, scenarios unfold.
Thanks for posting, Mark.
Comment by Jerry Noonan (@ND35USC0) -
Mark, I think your analysis is correct. The problem I have is that the government does not operate in the same way a business does. I see a government as needing to maximize the amount of “good” it can do for the country. What that actually means is up for debate depending on what your priorities and values are. As a result, this kind of algorithmic solution is not entirely clear. The compromises and negotiations required to take place are not purely monetary. It’s easy to compare two decisions when it’s a dollar to dollar comparison, but when you’re contemplating (just as an example) the potential safety of our troops vs. the overall health of a nation, I just feel that business savvy will only get you so far.
Comment by Andrew Kao (@andrewkao) -
Mark — How many times in your post did you use the word “bipartisan”? If you allowed Obama to draft a budget plan based on “bipartisan” support, Romney wouldn’t be able to claim this as his budget plan because Obama would have already done all these things.
Why is an assumption of “bipartisan” seen as legitimate when the serving president has seen THE EXACT OPPOSITE? It assumes that Romney has some secret weapon that he can use to create “bipartisan support” that Obama does not possess.
Please tell me what tool or secret Romney has that brings him bipartisan support when Congress is as divided as any time in its history. For where does this well-spring of bipartisan support suddenly start to flow?
Comment by Ashley Carlton (@checkoutmyash) -
To say that Gov. Romney is a job creator is an illusion. More jobs have been cut and shipped offshore by his corporate raiding, and more Americans have suffered because of his wonderful ‘deal making.’ I would only add that a true patriot does not hide their copious wealth in foreign banks to avoid U.S. taxes. The rules for Presidential eligibility ought to require zero foreign bank accounts, and a minimum of 10-years of tax returns.
Comment by PBS TV (@HippyGourmet) -
America can’t compete with China’s 31 cents an hour labor. Free Trade Doesn’t Work. If manufacturing made sense in America, Apple would invest some of it’s 75 billion dollars into it & they are not. The Romney plan will only get us 1/3 of the way to success if that. Fracking for gas will destroy America’s water & kill people.
What does NDHBA mean Mark? It’s a multi billion dollar idea right in front of you, the Mav’s, and others.
Comment by That Huston Guy (@ThatHustonGuy) -
A plan that hinges on bipartisan cooperation? Not a chance. Polarization ala WWE is today’s reality.
Comment by Marky P (@markplese) -
“That the rich will continue to pay the same share of taxes as they pay now.” – Romney completely contradicted himself in the 1st debate. For 18 months he has been saying “I will reduce the tax rates by 20% across the board including the top 1%” and then did a 180 and said “he will not reduce the burden paid by the wealthy.”
“He was hired to fix the Olympics. and he did.” – with the help of $1.4b in government subsidies.
“He was hired to fix the state of Massachusetts and he feels certain that he did.” – With pretty much the same results as he’s criticizing Obama for (http://tinyurl.com/cby8ks9) and passing a health care bill that is virtually the same as the ACA which he says he will repeal while at the same time taking credit for it.
Many of your other points are plain assertions of what he “will do” with no basis in Romney’s own ever-changing positions and statements.
He and Ryan have been asked repeatedly what loopholes they would close. Silence. Will he keep the Mortgage Interest Deduction for the middle class? Silence. Will he eliminate the carried interest and capital gains for the wealthy? Silence.
He is a shapeshifter that will tack hard right when he needs to win the tea party vote, will take up moderate positions when he is governor of Mass. and will completely invent new positions overnight to unveil in the debate.
Marc – I understand why a member of the 1% would vote for Romney. It is in your own best interest. (20% tax cut for everyone “including the top 1%” – Wowee!!). But, why would anyone else that is not in that vaunted elite category support Romney?
Comment by Zachary Hoffman -
“He believes that income and corporate tax cuts across the board will increase economic growth which will offset the impact of any tax cuts that he is able create in a revenue neutral manner”.
Hasn’t supply side economics been fully discredited already? And this is the crux of his revenue plan, a faith in trickle down?
Comment by ericpnyc -
Leaving room to negotiate is fine. Zero bounds for the start of that negotiation isn’t.
Biden asked if the plan could guarantee no reduction in the tax break for interest on home mortgages up to the first $100,000 in value. Is that an unreasonable bound to acknowledge early? If so, then set a lower one of your choosing. The first $70,000? The first $50,000? Pick a low number, and say the negotiation can only go up.
Showing no bounds whatsoever makes distinguishing this “plan” from vaporware impossible, and that’s a hard position to support. Giving rough ideas convinces people you’re worthy of their trust. You’re not just negotiating with Congress; you’re negotiating right now with voters. Right now, *they’re* your clients.
Comment by rufwork -
Wantied to leave a comment but your system is too complicated; ie., you already have my email address and name. I love what you wrote and how you think…a lot of clarity here, this is why I signed up for your blog a long time ago. Thank you for writing this.
Comment by Gary Pouch -
Mark-One of the main problems I have is that YOU have to try and lay out Mitt’s plan. He needs to do that for us, even if it’s complicated.
Comment by Mitchell Cohen (@iMitchm) -
Why does every solution have to be policy forever? Why can’t we have corrective action for two-three years of higher taxes and pains with a more reasonable plan going forward? If I need to get my personal finances together I stop eating out or going to Basketball games (sorry) for a few months to pay off the credit card bills during my irresponsible times. I don’t give up meat and fun forever.
Comment by Mark (@ademol2) -
As usual, I find your posts very interesting. As a psychiatrist, who is quite interested in human nature, your point about politicians being able to negotiate in good faith for the welfare of the country and not for themselves is certainly questionable. Even with Romney’s great skills, I have trouble believing that the immaturity and self serving attitude in Congress is not about to change. Thanks. Art Smukler http://artsmuklermd.com
Comment by artsmuklermd -
Those of us in business know from experience that having control in a business is much different than being the head of a government. Running a business allows one the advantage of making decisions and acting on them; not so in government, certainly not at the State and Federal level.
Consequently Marc, for your comments to be relevant to Romney as President we have to look at how he managed Massachusetts — why only one term, why will he most likely not win that state in this election?
Comment by Michael (@poetryvlog) -
Your blog post is a MISS- if someone came to you with a deal like that you would send them packing – no details at least none that he is willing to say. I’ll sit down with people because I was forced to in Mass.? He does know the details of this. The details are unpopular as are all details including the ones in all of Obamas plans that he was for and is now against but is for again. He will try to rely on the growth of the economy to pay for the increase % spending that he will do. He knows that he has pay for infrastructure and pay for defense – the only way to do this is to raise revenue. and now if cutting taxes is the way to do it you not only have to raise revenue by the difference in spending but you also have to make up for what you have reduced in taxes. Revenue neutral is moving around the money which means that some people will pay more and some less, tax break for some tax increase for others. Otherwise why make the changes at all. if the increase is to the rich as Ryan and Romney are saying today, in front of the american people at these debates, then they intend to raise more from the job creators. We keep talking about taxes as if raising and lowering are magic thresholds to boom or bust the economy, this is wrong. A fair rate for taxation is something. is it 30/40/50%? Do we give it away to everyone? or do we appropriately build our country and infrastructures ( eldercare,roads,education,healthcare, environment, energy). Romney is not selling anything but himself – that’s right Mark has that one down. But we have seen it multiple times – too many times – ‘I’m for everything even if it contradicts everything else I have said’. There is not a CEO that you would want to follow that way. His – ‘the other guy is bad but I’ll do the same things he did’ – speech should be getting old to folks.
Obama has done a spectacular job – yeah I’ll say it. The do nothing congress that is more interested in taking a way a woman’s right to choose, attacking the president on the job that they wanted done (healthCare) that he got done just the way they wanted it and are still complaining. I do not appologize for the quality and value in the work that obama has done to this point. I see oppurtunity laid out in front of us – that is the mark of a good job done.
Following bush where we had to act on saving the auto industry, housing, two wars, education that was solved -not, and taxation where we on all fronts have gotten to the point of no choice but to act.
Where we are currently going is better than the alternative – get Ryan and Romney to declare themselves in with actually growing the economy and following this leader when they lose the election and I will start to regain a shred of respect that I once had for the current party of Crazy and NO.
Comment by Jonathan Strickland -
Let me address seriousfun above.
1)There is NO direct correlation between past tax cuts, and the Financial Collapse. None.
2)As Mr Cuban pointed out, Romney’s plan seeks to return Government Revenues to below 20% of GDP. This occurred as a result of Reagan’s Tax Cut, and occurred again as a result of Bush’s Tax Cut. That spending has risen significantly as a share of GDP is the problem, and has no bearing on the amount of revenue derived from taxes.(except in that, when taxes rise, Legislature’s believe that they are greenlighted to spend.
3)As Mr Cuban will tell you, the Financial Collapse, while affecting everyone, affected the 1%(people with assets/investments) the hardest, as a percentage of their wealth. 1% wealth did NOT increase as a result of the collapse.
Comment by Earick Ward -
You pretty much cover the theory of it all and the practice (as in governing) which is open to a lot of skepticism — it hasn’t happened in Congress yet and it is highly unlikely that Romney can pull this off. For our nation to pull out of the debt spiral it will take “out of the box” thinking and not audacious tweaking of traditional ways of dealing with and in politics.
I just wish we would have a candidate with the courage to propose VAT — it is a consumption tax, it is fair (especially if essential items like food are excluded) and it is up to the consumer to decide to pay it by virtue of deciding on a purchase. The Europeans pay it — up to 20% now — on top of all the other taxes they pay including health care and social security. If the US wants to regain its financial footing globally and domestically, a VAT — however temporary — is needed. Eventually even Washington operatives will recognize this painful truth.
Comment by uschi52012 -
Thank you for the thoughtful and comprehensive blog on both Romney the man and his tax plan.
The concept of the algorithm reminded me of “dummy variables”. A dummy variable is a condition that is either present or not present, representing a value of 0 or 1. It is considered a “truth value” in that a dummy variable that does not exist reduces even the most robust algorithm to a value of 0.
A typical dummy variable is “war has not been declared” (value of 1), or “war has been declared” (value of 0).
In the case of the Romney tax plan, I believe the dummy variable is “intent to collaborate.” From what we have seen from the last few Presidents, this collaborative intent within Congress and the Senate is nearing 0. I will pay attention to both candidates to learn how exactly they will create the partisan environment that is required to drive either of their change agendas.
From MC> i like the dummy variable. You are exactly right.
Comment by Kevin Murnane (@kmurnia) -
Good article Marc. Much has been done the past 4 years despite what people say. There is absolutely no bipartisanship in Washington. And their won’t be for another 4 years no matter who wins the election. Washington is all about self interest. Neither political party has a real clear vision or plan for America moving forward.
Comment by Al (@AlplouisEA) -
Either way: a vote for him or a vote for Obama is simply a vote for Goldman Sachs.
We have to deal with the Federal Reserve and their reckless printing of fiat currency and the continued devaluation of the dollar before things can possibly get better.
Comment by Ryan Felton -
Great analysis of a tax plan that has been reported to the public in a myriad of ways both from the Dems and GOP. I will be sending this post to everyone I know regardless of political affiliation.
I agree that Gov Romney is a very confident man as I hope all Presidential nominees would be. The office of POTUS is the most difficult and trying position an individual can hold and I can not imagine the toll mentally and physically it takes on a President. If a nominee is not confident in his/her ability to lead the country through whatever challenging times are being faced than that nominee is not fit for the office of POTUS.
The Romney/Ryan rhetoric about bipartisan support is the same promise/dream sold to the American public by Obama/Biden in 2008. The only time a President really believes in bipartisan support and collaboration is when his/her party is not in non-filibuster blocking position in both House and Senate. President Obama promised bipartisan collaboration throughout his nomination and saw an opportunity too big to pass up when the Dems held complete majority in House and Senate. He used the majority to slam through his agenda during the first 2 years of his term and the subsequent backlash brought all of Washington DC to a halt since the mid-term elections. I believe Romney/Ryan is sincere when talking about bipartisan collaboration on tax cuts and deduction cuts. The real question is whether the type of bipartisan collaboration the ticket is touting will be sought out if/when the GOP hold POTUS plus majority in House and Senate.
The question of who to vote for is easy. If you believe the greatest threat to a strong America is the ecomomy, dollar valuation, debt, social security/medicare (which I do) then Romney/Ryan is the best avenue to change positive change. I do not fault the current administration for the position we are in and I believe they have done all they can to guide us thought but Gov Romney has a background far different from most career politicians which I believe is extremely important. If you believe foreign policy/National security is the greatest threat to a strong America than the current Administration is the answer. Although Obama didn’t have have a great foreign policy background, VP Biden did. The Romney/Ryan ticket does not bring the same foreign policy/National security background to the table.
Comment by Neal McSweeney (@Mcswen) -
Agreed, it is the other half of the algorithm that worries me. The non-bipartisanship scenario. And the odds of which algorithm actually plays out. So, in the absence of bipartisanship, which way do you go…..
Comment by Chip Harlow (@raharlow) -
Bottom line is that Bain Capital,under Romney’s direction destroyed middle class jobs. More than that he destroyed middle class families. Here’s how. He would buy a company and give employees the choice to move to New Hampshire. Those that didn’t or couldn’t move were forced on unemployment. Those that did move were transplanted and lost their jobs 6 months later. Actions always speak louder than words and Romney’s actions tell us that Wall Street is more important than jobs.
The trickle down theory that Romney/Ryan espouse has failed not once, but twice in our lifetimes. It is focused on short term profit over long term health.
Obama/Biden are planting trees that invest in the long term stability of the middle class. They might take a little while to grow, but ultimately what they are doing will give us a stronger, healthier middle class.
Comment by Kate Bourland (@katebourland) -
Great analysis. There is always so much to learn seeing how successful people think and analyze. Its why I love this blog and LOVE Shark-Tank. Best show in television. Thanks Mark, for not hoarding your knowledge and insight! Whether in regard to Wall Street or other, I really admire your willingness to tell it like it is.
Comment by wisconsincarry (@wisconsincarry) -
Great blog! Very interesting to hear the opinion of someone from with some real input as apposed to pointless commercials. First disclaimer, I am an entrepreneur and also fund many start-up companies like yourself. Second, am a Romney supporter.
I like to constantly play devil’s advocate with almost any issue I encounter, and I would love to know two things.
1. Personally, and business-wise, how have you or your businesses been affected by any of Obama’s politics. (Higher taxes, tougher to do business..etc..)
2. If Obama is re-elected, do you see a major change in the way we do business?
I personally have invested in many start-up companies and noticed that with Obama’s principal of “Spread the wealth”, it makes it hard to grow.
EX. when you are a small start-up, GREAT, your the underdog. And everyone loves to show you sympathy when your start-up fails and it’s also the “1%ers” fault that your company didn’t get funded. But God forbid your company shows any level of success, now you’re the bad guy because you make too much money and it’s because the Govt. helped you, not your own sweat equity and work. I think Romney having experience with funding companies etc.. understands what it is to build something and see it thru. He understands the American dream of working hard and being compensated for it.
So if Obama is re-elected, do you see this notion of “you didn’t build that” continuing. And after his “theoretical” term is over, do you think that notion will stick? Are American’s really that naive?
Comment by Matt Zeltser -
Your analysis reminds me of the best analogy I heard about both candidates.
Romney is the kid in college that spends overly studies. He is in the library in the morning and in the business club in the afternoon.He’s playing Capitalism 2 on the weekends. He can’t get laid, but knows how to get paid.
Obama is the kid that college that everyone loved. He studies but is down for a keg stand every now and than. He’s in the union during the day and at the frat house at night. He is doing community service and your girlfriend on the weekends.
Both have benefits and both have disadvantages. They’re different guys.
Comment by Omar Gonzalez -
I am not going to debate the points, but in the last 4 years Obama has proven he cannot get bipartisan support for much of anything. He hasn’t presented a budget that his own party has supported at all. Let’s move on!
Comment by michaelcjohnson -
Mark – I am worried about Romney’s ability to reach across the aisle. I acknowledge that his success speaks for itself. Congress has become increasingly polarized, and I doubt that there will be a lot of bipartisan agreements during a Romney presidency.
Comment by Caroline L (@LaMarEstaba) -
Well said Mark, spoken like a true problem solver. The issue at has is that there is never a turn-key, out of the box solution that fits every problem. As we progress through time our economy is driven and affected by changing variables, so assume that one knows the specific solution without talking to key stakeholders and getting there input is ludicrous. Romney has outlined the scope of his intentions, and has stated that he will work with a bipartisan congress (hopefully) to define the road map to reach the desired target state which satisfies that scope.
Comment by DI -
Mark – I once heard someone say that if you aim at high standards you may not hit them all the time, but if you aim at nothing, you will hit it every time. While hoping our elected officials will put aside their various vested interests may be aiming at high standards, I know that not extending a hand accros the aisle is aiming at nothing. Right now we need a strong leader, willing to stand tall, and like you I’m not sure who that is, however I know who that isn’t.
Enjoyed you on Squawk Box with Joe & Becky last week. Please do it again soon. Thanks
Comment by Joe (Mick) Fields (@jffmick) -
Excellent summery. Growing weary of sound bites like “where are the details of the plan”. What’s wrong with dreaming big and setting parameters then working together to reach them. Great post Mark!
Sent via BlackBerry
Comment by Angelo Marchese -
Great assessment Mark, BUT here’s my problem with the details. NOONE can come in and change Washington NOONE! It has become uglier than ever. Obama had great ideals when he was elected and failed to deliver a good majority because time ran out and our impatient country replaced a democrat dominated house with a bunch of thugs that will not compromise on ANYTHING. Their sole purpose was to block any bill sponsored by any democrat and to ensure Obama was a one term president. This was the Tea Party introduction to Washington.
Obama’s policies are actually quite to the center and somewhat to the right based on “old” Republican values. Much of Obamacare that Republicans are crying about are policies that Republicans negotiated during the Clinton administration when it couldn’t get passed. Obama’s approach was it was better than nothing and pushed it through. The Left have always had a weak record on defense, Obama has shown that a Democrat can be tough around the world as well.
So is the answer to put in a used car salesman into the White House or do we change congress and vote out the thugs who are preventing progress? Bachman, Boehner, Ryan, Cantor etc.. These thugs need to go, they are borderline treasonous individuals in Washington that DO NOT have our best interests at hand.
I could go on but I think you get the idea…
Comment by Charlie Scherker (@crs2265) -
I think you clearly articulated Romney’s strengths and laid it out in plain English for people to consider. Intended or not, this makes a strong case for Romney vs. the alternative. Thanks
Sent from my iPhone
Comment by David Brown -
While I don’t fault you for your reasoning – it’s at least more coherent than the vast number of people voting for Romney simply because he’s white, it’s not particularly compelling. The fact is most Republicans oppose all the things you talk about. When you get down to specifics Republicans oppose entitlement reform. They oppose specific budget cuts. The oppose specific tax reforms. Romney has shown in the primaries he has trouble leading his own party. I don’t understand why you have confidence he’ll be able to lead a bi-partisan Congress.
Comment by tthomas48 -
I own a management-focused executive search firm, for over 20 years we’ve always advised candidates during late interview stages to “NEVER REVEAL DETAILS OF YOUR PLAN” until “YOU ARE HIRED”. Some companies would have you produce a “plan”, then execute the plan without hiring you. Want the details of the plan? Then “hire me”. Its widely known among executive search consultants that proper protocol is to provide a plan outline, overview or general description, but why reveal details (especially during a political campaign which is the equivalent of revealing your plan to your direct competitor) when all that will do is help the other guy with ideas he’s lacking?
Comment by Frank Risalvato -
Thanks for taking the time to break down your thoughts in a rational, though out manner. I am tired of the partisan politics that currently run rampant throughout our country and is personified by loyal Fox News and MSNBC cronies. Nobody seems to have an original thought, so thank you.
That being said, I am not sure anyone can overcome so many variables. Either administration will continue to have a difficult challenge overcoming the partisan political situation in Washington, even if there were no other variables involved.
The way the system is set up is the fundamental problem. It seems that nobody any more makes a decision without their political career in mind. Re-election is what seems to guide our political decision makers…I wish we had leaders who stood before the people and plainly said “give me one term. That is all I want. Give me a chance to go into the office, and not be controlled by the interests of big business, partisan politics or religious extremism, but let me go into office with a clear perspective and a mission to do my part to make this country better.” Unfortunately, the way the system is set up, a person like that wouldn’t stand a chance financially…the only way to really get into office is to wine and dine big business and walk quietly within the dual party system…ultimately, things won’t change no matter who we elect if the system won’t allow it…maybe one day we can experience the real “hope” that the country longed for four years ago when we elected our current leadership…for now, I am stuck being worried about our future with a feeling of hopelessness regardless of who takes office. Hopefully we won’t hear any one saying publicly that their biggest goal is to ensure that our chosen, elected, leader of the free world does not get re-elected. It would be so refreshing to hear the leadership of this great nation stand up and say, “enough is enough, we will be committed to working across the isle for the sake of the people, the country…” Guess a guy can “hope”
Comment by L.J. Boothe (@Boothe4) -
Thank you for publicly stating an opinion from a business perspective! I own four small businesses and have had to consider what would happen if either candidate is elected. My options are either to grow or to downsize. I cannot maintain the status quo if the current “hatred of business” environment continues. I must agree with the letter that made national news written and sent by businessman, David Segal. I am sure you may of heard of this letter that was sent just a few days ago whereby he expressed his concern to his employees about the same future of his business. He took the time to pen it and send to every employee, letting them know his own background and reasons for what would happen if the current and planned policies of the current politicians continued for the next few years. This sparked a lot of discussion and controversy, even hatred. He stated his opinion, and has been severely chastised for it, but I think that courage has allowed more business owners with the same outlook to speak up. Too often I think that a majority of Americans vote based on their “feelings” of whom they like, rather than rationally looking at the possible outcome if their choice candidate takes office. Those who do speak out using logical explanations are often shut down or criticized by those of a differing opinion, and usually their anger is because they cannot logically argue their case. Kudos to you, Mark Cuban, for using both facts and your opinion and clearly presenting them to us!
Comment by Michelle Jones (@Vinylinist) -
Hi, Mark! First, thanks, as always, for your willingness to live your life out loud – on Shark Tank, in this blog, and, apparently, in your life. Here are two thoughts that I have: (1) the possible flaw in the logic is that, if Romney was able to negotiate and create success with his energy “alone”, then we have a problem. He will not have control over this outdated bipartisan methodology that limits every President and governing body. You need to address his ability to use fractured teams to unity and success, please. And, (2) the discussion around cutting the deductions, then accessing the “profit” (won’t that now decrease?), and then making adjustments sounds too much like “trust me”. I am a small business in Pensacola, Florida and I depend on my legal deductions that are required to promote and sustain my business in this environment. Without them, I cannot compete as successfully. There is a tightrope, with no safety net, for me, as an owner, and I cannot afford “trust me”. My solution is to not modify the tax code but to go to a flat tax so that I can manage what I buy and pay. I think this country needs more simplicity and efficiency. Anything that requires an outside professional to understand and provide tax returns and planning, based on a ridiculously complex tax code, is ridiculously outdated. Every paradigm in this country was founded on somewhat faulty logic and needs to be re-purposed….from education, to religion, to the tax code, to our concept of family, etc. THIS will help us this most. I think it is fear that causes us to stay locked into paradigms that no longer serve us or that serves to limit. We call that “economic sensibility”. I call it operating from faulty or outdated logic. That’s how I see it on this sunny, gorgeous day at the beach. Wanda
Comment by Wanda Taylor -
By this logic, wouldn’t Donald Trump make even a better president? It’d be interesting to elect a businessman as president, but it’s not like Romney left all of the companies his company invested in better than the situation he found them in. Romney made deals to benefit his company, not necessarily the companies he invested in.
Comment by SP (@mate01701) -
Finally someone is making sense. Thanks for sharing your ideas. I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately it all relies on politicians actually doing their jobs as the founding fathers intended them to. America as a country needs to vet each politician each and every day. That means paying attention to what they are doing and holding them accountable. If the American people can act in a bi-partisan fashion and hold pols feet to the flame we have a chance. But blindly following anyone based on their party affiliation is not the way to go. We have to act as though we have no such affiliations and honestly assess each decision made by the pols based on the effect it will have on the nation as a whole. I believe that most politicians rely on the apathy of the nation to allow them to serve whichever lobby or special interest group they choose. If we the people band together and treat the pols as the public servants they are meant to be instead of as the demigods they desire to be we can force them to serve us better. Thanks Mr.Cuban.
Comment by Ed Gruber -
Glad you will be enjoying your tax breaks, Mark, but you lost me. Romney’s great at harvesting company, sucking their net worth out and paying it to himself and his buddies. That takes no talent, just money. He’s not unlike Rick Scott here in Florida who is in the process of dividing our $6.2B of insurance premiums among his insurance friends. I’m not disappointed. I thought you were different. Bye Mark
Comment by J Gonzalez (@JavelinTravelin) -
Mark, the president could also accomplish his goals in improving the economy if he was dealing with a full Congress that is willing to work with him. This is the one advantage Romney has over Obama–he knows Democrats are far more willing to put the country’s interests ahead of the party’s own, compared to Republicans, who we have seen are willing to drag this country down to harm a Democrat president’s chances in the next election.
So set the economy aside and look at what else you have to consider–Romney has written a lot of checks in his lifelong desire to be president. All the rich billionaires who have bankrolled his campaigns would naturally expect to be running the country. If they want to control it so bad, they should have run for president themselves, like Ross Perot in 1992.
On top of that, you have to also consider the enormous social damage a rubber stamp president like Romney would cause with a Republican congress: women, gays, minorities, immigrants, the poor and lower middle class would all be devastated. A woman’s right to control her own body–gone. Equal rights and access for gays and minorities–gone. Social underpinnings meant to give the poor a chance to move into the middle class–all gone.
Romney has already clearly demonstrated he won’t stand up to his party, so until the Republican Party as a whole comes back from the edges of extreme ideology, these people should not be allowed full control of the government again. We’ve already seen that play out in President Bush’s first term, and it was a disaster which we’re still reeling from today.
Comment by Dan (@danimal99) -
Dan, Obama really did steal the 2008 democrat presidential nomination from Hillary Clinton. So once that pattern was established, if the republicans don’t want to work with a standing president whose modus operandi is to heavily grease anyone who supported Obama in 2008, than it’s really just par for the course.
I am concerned about Romney spending too much on the military and not enough on green energy development. I still think Hillary Clinton was the best choice in 2008 and would still be in 2012 if it were possible.
Comment by dailypuma -
kinda weird how much boldfaced you used here, mark. lol. anyway, romney is a con, he won’t be able to make much of a meaningful reduction in deficit spending. anyone who wants to INCREASE military spending is threatening the economy by increasing the likelihood of economic warfare of real warfare, and more directly, is not serious about reducing deficit spending. war always results in deficit spending and inflation, and both warfare and welfare are vital to reducing government debt. but that is not what romney is interested in doing. he has the military and banking industries as his main financial backers, i.e. his customers, and like any businessperson who plans to stay in business he knows the importance of satisfying his customers.
Comment by kidmercury (@kidmercury) -
you listen to too much mainstream media. And if your point is the only way to accomplish equilibrium in a budget than neither candidate is for you as Obama wants to continue to increase spending in social platforms leading to a strong belief amongst most people of socialist intent/ideals (again not calling him a socialist or marxists). The issue with most Obama supports is you are willing to take the next step in thought for Obama but not for the GOP which is kind interesting because I think romney’s success in forethought and obama’s record on forethought are pretty evident. The whole election comes down to tax base. Not rate. If you can stimulate jobs by completing there 5 step plan you have 6-12 million new people working full time in the tax pool. Those people will pay taxes which allow for a higher “income” for the government which will also be helped by the Closing of loop holes for the wealthy… I think if you follow that through or the line of thought to the most logical place you’ll find it’s not only plausible but likely. Which takes you back to the man. Obama had free reign in congress and senate (everyone was democratic) for 2 years and didn’t get anything done for the financial livelihood of the government. Where as Romney has done nothing but improve businesses ( yes the sate and/or federal government, Olympics, and private sector can be looked as business models. I think you go on track record. Obama doesn’t have one. Period.
Comment by rhyn6060 -
Good luck with the demonizing smear merchants on the left, Mark. They are in hysterics over Romney’s math, yet seem just fine with the status quo. What a joke.
Comment by chuckbednarik -
A little too much mind-reading for my tastes, Mark. Given the recent shift to the center by the candidate, at least in words and tenor, if not action, I think it’s premature to be creating any ‘algorithms’ to parse any perceived fiscal perceptions.
In any event, regardless of his financial policies, his social stances and lack of connection to the average American still leave me cold. IMHO, Romney and his ilk are part of the problem, not the solution, so I’ll be doing my part to make sure the extreme right will be whining again in four years.
Comment by gregorit -
You’re sold and I guess that’s good. Undecided voters contribute to the awful tight races that expose the voter fraud both parties create. I actually believe Mitt could be a decent President but unfortunately the power that is paying for his campaign are so heavily rooted within the military that seeing the real Mitt will only be a pipe dream as he has to deliver what his financiers have paid for. I’ll never vote for the military complex again. It has only generated wealth for a select few and the results achieved are nothing short of lost lives and blood everywhere. Ryan’s budget is clearly the roadmap for more destruction. If nothing else, this campaign has exposed a few more warbirds that need voted out. They can all go live in Crawfordsville.
Comment by Knox Harrington -
Thanks for the insight, Mark. It gives people like me who are not familiar with advanced business practices confidence to hear that Romney’s plan can be done, according to another brilliant business mind. Sure, it’s a risk, but at this point what other options do we have? He definitely has my confidence and my vote.
Comment by benjbb114 -
Mr. Cuban as always you are thoughtful and intelligent in your response about the issues. I believe it is very difficult to make any changes in this country. When a president can get past the bipartisan war, our country can get on the right track. I hope who ever gets into office can do what can be done and no one gets in their way if it means progress at the end. Too bad you have not thought about politics. I believe Governor Romney needs to just tell like it is and be more specific about his plans. If and when he gets into office, I hope he is allowed by Congress to do his job which can be best for the country. This race can be hard to pick who will win this year. I am somewhat undecided. I am not either Republican or Democrat. I usually vote for the person’s policies on issues and who is the best candidate for the job.
Comment by Victor Tomas Ruiz -
I think you hit the nail on the head. I also believe it would serve Governor Romney to articulate his case exactly the way you have. At least he would not have to defend his lack of specifics any longer.
I also agree that he truly believes he did a great job as Governor of Massachusetts. The only problem is only 35% of the residents agree with him. This fact is the most compelling one of all for me. Thanks for the insight. ALL GOOD THINGS! Keith
Comment by keithrhodes3 -
I think you hit the nail on the head. It would serve Governor Romney to state his case just as you have so that he is not constantly defending his lack of specifics. You also appropriately state that he believes he did a good job is Massachusetts as Governor but unfortunately only 35% of the people in the state agree with him. To me that is the most telling statistic pertaining to his record or performance. Thanks for the insight! ALL GOOD THINGS! Keith
Sent from my iPhone
Comment by keithrhodes3 -
Mark Cuban, a political independent, superbly analyzes how Mitt Romney’s confidence and leadership style intersect with his tax policy. One of the most clear-eyed, objective and fresh perspectives I’ve seen.
Comment by Lee Spieckerman -
So a plan without a plan is a plan. Nice. Glad to hear the Romney will sort out all the math that doesn’t make sense once he’s in office. Seems to me this blog has been hacked.
Comment by Gus Boner (@gusTboner) -
Thanks for the great analysis. I think you’ve provided as good of an objective description as exists, but there’s something I’d like to add. And it seems this is a common flaw in the position on the left. It’s the concept of the zero-sum game. That there’s only a finite amount of wealth do be divided and distributed amongst the American people. But this is simply not the case.
There is unlimited opportunity to create wealth in this country, but it must come through innovation driven by the motivation to increase one’s own well being by serving an actual need or market desire. The incentive needs to be there. The market will prove it. Absent this motivation, there’s no reason to out perform one’s peers.
When you get a trophy for just playing soccer and no one keeps score, what’s the point?
As my father put it best… “Son, when you take away a person’s ability to fail, you remove his ability to succeed.”
Increase the incentive, which increases the risk, and grow the pie. The strong will survive an the others will learn. There will be more for everyone, and what works will work.
As business owners we all know, our best opportunities for growth are to increase sales volume, not margin. I’d rather take a 20% cut on my profit and exponentially increase my sales than increase my margin to 50% and sell only one widget.
The answer is clear.
Thanks for the opportunity to dialogue.
Keep up the good work you do.
Comment by Rob Stephenson -
There is no doubt that Romney has been successful in his life, but when I look at him, I do not see a successful person. He doesn’t have any of the features of a leader, or someone whom I would take advice from. I wonder if the “success” he has had in life are just the result of him being involved with Mormons that have power or being the son of a powerful businessman.
When I researched Romney, I found out more about his history. What he did with the creation of Staples was very impressive. To be specific, when he found Staples he saw that there was a way to supply office goods for business more efficiently and cheaper than they had been doing through shipping. This took ingenuity, sweat, and hard work as he, and his buddies, were the ones stocking the shelves.
But as time went on, Romney gained wealth simply by being in a position to gain wealth. He created a nice little business for himself that generated money without really doing anything. There was nothing really he “did” as a person, I feel like that is where he is at today. He is RUNNING FROM PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and he has not really done much with his life except ride his position on a downward slope, not an uphill effort, to success.
And yet, here we are. Romney got popular among the right by repeating what they told him to, and he won the debate last week by repeating what he was told to say, but in the end, when it comes down to actually doing something, I have little to no faith in him being capable of doing anything. Government is not a business, and his idea to make it into one will fundamentally change the way our country runs similar to how Super Pacs and capitalism has done.
To be fair, Obama did have a learning curve to go through when he first went into office; however, I personally believe we are in a better place today than we were, and with 4 more years we will be even better. I think it’s a poor argument to call Obama a failure and a letdown to the country when there is nothing he has specifically done that is connected to the not so great things happening in the country.
Comment by Raymond Duke -
I think you made a good analogy of him, as well as so, so many other wealthy people and politicians in the world. For the most part he seems to repeat what he is told and then responds to peoples reactions to it deciding whether it is popular or not. These people generally seem to lack the ingenuity or authenticity that got them started to begin with. Like many of us, they have become victims of their own environments and are simply allowing their own strings and thus, lives to be pullled. No where is this more apparent than with success. There then becomes too many donors, special interests, lobbyists, etc. to answer to. You no longer answer to your own self or can be true to any deeper truths, even if you want to.
Like many in these roles, I see and hear very little authenticity or the abilitlity to creatively think on ones own. As Robert Bly the poet once said, “9 out of 10 Americans are professional victims.” It took me a long time to see and understand what this means, especially in myself, but all one has to do, is look in the political world to see how these politicians and many of us, have become victims to the powers that be.
Romney doesnt speak for himself, he, probably like many of us, gave his soul away a long time ago. It is up to each one of us, him included, to take back our own power in a healthy way and stop being victims.
Comment by suttonsbaydoug -
The key tenet in Romney’s plan to mathematically working and not resulting in an increased tax or reduced government benefits to the middle class is that a reduction in the effective tax rate to 20% of GDP and reductions in regulations will spur economic growth at least 100bp more than current CBO projections. This is a risky bet as there is no definitive empirical economic data to support the increased growth assumption, only economic theories that have been funded and adopted by the republican party, with the papers supporting this view citing other paper’s theoretical work or a small slice of a favorable time of the natural economic cycle. If the increased growth does not pan out as the republican funded theories contend, the tax cuts and the rest of the budget moves (such as increased defense spending and cuts in government sponsored programs benefitting the middle class) will end up increasing the budget deficit. In addition, the tax cuts which likely would take effect sooner than budget cuts and presumed enhanced growth will definitely result in an initial increase in the deficit. Finally, even if these policies do indeed spur economic growth more than if the current tax rates and regulations would allow (which unfortunately we will never know for sure b/c only one experiment can be done at a time), reduced regulations will likely result in new and potentially even larger bubbles forming, creating what will be even more painful bust and boom cycles. My vote goes for staying the course and taking low growth in exchange for less volatility. That being said, there are regulations that have been put in place that are having unintended consequences, and thus those regulations need to be adjusted appropriately.
Comment by Nehal Chokshi (@nehalattir) -
The last I checked, he represents the same party that invaded Iraq under false pretenses, costing tens of thousands of lives and billions of dollar’s. A war they never paid for and veterans are still on waiting lists trying to get their benefts for, some with missing limbs.
This is the same party that left a horrific mess for Obama and the rest of us while creating fillibusters conveniantly placing the blame on the ideas of the new people coming in. This despite being invited to come up with constructive ideas and alternative plans of their own to help out. Instead they acted like spoiled children who couldn’t get their way, and had no ideas or character of their own, except to tear down anyone who had more power than they did.
One wouild think, after having four years to think about it, a republican candidate could come up with some kind of coherent plan that made sense. It is hard to forget the last republican though and his incoherentness.
Your right, economics isn’t the only issue here, if it was that simple many of our problems may not exist. What is troubling about Romney, is, he denies his own parties last tenure in the office and suddenly, is beginning to believe his own rhetoric. They maybe good ideas, and even realistic, but the reality is, the person who is running the country doesn’t have time to come up with great solutions that sound great because he is too busy cleaning up the mess we all help create…
We have enough problems at this point, do we really want to train another president? If we want to improve the economy, we can always start another war or stick our noses in other countries business again.
If you haven’t noticed, a good part of the world doesn’t like us, and it is not because of jealousy or wishing they had what we had. Its because we have a long history of oppressing counries or people who don’t conform to our own security inerests or ideals. The last republican president was inspired by his god to do what he believed was right and seemed to end up bordering on delusional thinking. This candidate strikes me as being delusional in a different way.
Its not where we are going that matters, its how we get there. In fact how we get there is the whole game because it ultimately decides where we end up.
Comment by suttonsbaydoug -
Too many moving parts for a dysfunctional government to implement fairly and effectively. I like to follow my vibes since the truth is made by who spins it best. We are just frail civilians not always able process the over-spin. Like trying to hit a knuckle ball.
Here are my vibes:
There will be no major changes in the economy for a while until we absorb the fact that we are an empire in decline. Read the Fall of the Roman Empire. We can’t start wars, nation build, have so many bases, Foreign Aid. Yet in weakness there is strength. We can be creative and unite for the real terrorist- our dull minds. Let’s get more innovative to build our own new house which made need structural changes we haven’t even thought of yet.
Let’s get on a budget and support each other at least. Maybe a Diet that is measured for the overall health of the country,
We cannot pretend that we don’t already have a class battle going on. Entitled and
Entitlers. Shame on you for not being successful in the promised land of opportunity, Its ok to need help.
America has been a social democracy since the last major economic downturn. Social programs are necessary. Business restraints are necessary. We are not all designed for making wealth at all times. Is Greed good?
We can’t sacrifice civil liberties because of a spooky economy. Ryan has a fuzzy world-view of separation of church and state. Do we really want to sacrifice women’s right to choose and foster ethnocentric behaviors, xenophobia, ageism, Start and maintain wars; For the non-guaranteed hope of a better economy? Been there done that.
Comment by saul holcman (@Saul2win) -
The GOP went out of its way to stranglehold Obama and his policies, declaring that they want to make him a one-term president pretty much from the get-go.
For that reason alone, I am not sure why any Democrat in Congress would cooperate with Romney and help him achieve this fantasy set of goals. All it would do is further weaken the Democrats and their ability to win more seats in the House and Senate.
Comment by UVAWahoos32 (@UVAWahoos32) -
So the billionaire likes the guy who will give billionaires a $250,000/year tax cut while raising taxes by $2,000/year on every middle class family. I’m a bit shocked.
Personally I can’t afford Mitt Romney. I’ve lost my house. I’ve lost an income. I have a kid I’m trying to feed. And I don’t want to give any more money to billionaires.
The sad truth is there’s already a class war going on in this country. But so far the poor haven’t caught on. The 1% have declared war on the rest of us, taking what little we have left, and if we don’t wake up and stop people like Mitt Romney we won’t have anything left by the time they’re done.
@Michael Hemphill: maybe another reason people don’t want to listen to Romney’s lies are because he clearly hates 47% of America–he said so himself. You know, all those freeloaders like the war veterans, retired people, the poor, etc. Those of us who are working day and night to feed our kids but need a little help from the government. People working their McJobs from companies that have record profits and give it all back to Wall St. instead of Main St. Yeah, let’s stop those people from ruining America.
I don’t know what universe Republicans are in, where we take from the poor and give to the rich, lie, cheat, and steal as much as we can, wage as many wars as we can, and hate everyone as openly as possible. What a joke.
Comment by arepublicant -
Don’t business function best when they have specific plans? It seems by leaving a 5-7 trillion hole in his budget Romney is inducing volatility into the stability of the debt market. I already know Eric Cantor and other Republicans have shorted our debt. Perhaps you have to? Romney was governor of a state that was 97% liberal and instead of working with them for great progress he set the record for vetos as Governor with only the healthcare compromise that he is now willing to throw under the bus.
How can America elect someone who made money off loading companies up with debt to shed their labor contracts in order to profit off them after removing the debt? How did you not see the similarities between our Medicare obligations and the pension contracts Bain capital shed in your analysis? Have you looked at the cost for prescription drugs under a government plan like the Veteran’s have and the privatized Medicare Part D plan? There is already a 10:1 savings in the government plan. These savings get larger.
You don’t own any private insurance right? So you must be ecstatic that their profits are limited because that means more money in people’s pockets every month to buy your products or services. Why do MRI’s in America cost $1000 and only $200 in France? Are our MRI’s five times better?
Privatizing Medicare will hurt your bottom line assuming you don’t own pharmaceuticals, private insurance, hospitals. And if you do own, consider turning them into nonprofits. Remember that without more focus prevention and nutrition which a national plan can do, there will be millions of unnecessary deaths every year due to heart disease, obesity, depression, whatever. If you want our healthcare system focused on things that impact old rich people like you then you need to get the system focused on solving the tough healthcare problems not regressing.
Children born after the year 2000 in America have a lower life expectancy than those born before.
Comment by Thomas Wanek (@thomasawanek) -
Past history is no guarantee of future returns, however, it’s really hard to be “lucky” that often. Gov. Romney is the glue that put the deals together, he as a better grasp on finance than maybe anyone who has ever been a major presidential candidate.
In my mind he is well prepared in the most needed area. He certainly will make mistakes, on many fronts, however I put the odds on success much higher with him than with Pres. Obama.
Left, or right aside I’m not sure you could pick a better executive to turn around this financial mess we are in. We don’t need a likable president, we need a competent president.
Comment by Michael Zimmerman -
Great analysis. You nail the key thing – The most critical factor, which would enable him to succeed or cause him to fail, is whether or not he can inspire people, from both sides, to work with and for him to solve the problem. I don’t believe that this will happen. He’s too much ‘the smartest guy in the room’. He has something inherently unlikeable about him and so I think that whilst he has the capability, he is not the man to get it done.
Comment by Ryan Lietaer (@RyanLietaer) -
I can’t vote for romney if for no other reason than I don’t want to see another right winger on the Supreme Court.
Comment by David Knopf -
The funny thing is that the people that do not want to listen to what he has to say is only because they are firmly staunched in being a Democrat. In reality all that should matter to any American is if the person will have ideas and will lead Congress for the people.
Comment by Michael Diamein Hemphill -
I believe Romney should release a frame work where we can see exactly what specific plan he is trying to negotiate. Speculating about what he might do to get the job done is not the same as having a specific plan and getting the job done. I believe he is too committed to his political party that he will say anything to get the vote. Besides the economic issues, electing him will give Romney the power to appoint Supreme Court Judges who will give the Republicans the power to put their views on abortion, healthcare, gay marriages..etc.
I believe Bush tax cuts should expire for the wealthy. Once the financial crisis is over and we see substantial growth, we should end the middle class bush tax cuts while creating a simplified tax code. We should keep the capital gains tax at 15% and 0% for families making less than $250,000. Ending loop holes and lowering the corporate tax rate seems to be favorable by both, but Romney isn’t saying what loop holes he will end.
I believe an elected Romney will start an increase in military spending which will add to the deficit when we should be condensing our military to make them more efficient. It seems as if everyone has focused on their own wealth and not on military spending. We need someone to negotiate peace with countries, not call out Russia saying that they are a threat. I believe if we elect Romney, we will be less diplomatic and risk creating a war we should have never been in which will spiral us to even more debt. As I look at the Clinton era, I believe cutting military spending is vital in balancing the budget.
In the end, I believe we should move out of an electoral college system so the people can vote directly for the President. Thanks!
Comment by imontemayor1 -
Well said and explained Mark. Why is it that they cant (The Republicans) do the same? Though im a democrat, they still need to let the people know their plan.
Comment by Wafus Deckard -
Your analysis of Mr. Romney is an interesting, plausible view into his psyche. However, it hinges on two key assumptions.
First, he governs as the centrist from the past week or so rather than the candidate he presented for the prior two years. Will his base that derisively refers to Republicans willing to compromise as RINOs allow this?
Second, the Congressional Democrats would have to choose not to behave in the same way Congressional Republicans have over the past two years; specifically, the on the record strategy of Republican leadership plainly stating they would oppose the President at every opportunity.
If both assumptions proved to be true, then a Romney presidency could be better than a second Obama term.
Comment by Tony Sarthou (@TonySarthou) -
Once again you are spot on. However, when I see so many variables with so vast a range of complications, I can’t help but think that more can go wrong than right
Comment by email@example.com -
When I hear rich people talk about the economy, I’m reminded of Joe Morgan talking about baseball. Being good at something doesn’t necessarily mean you actually know anything about it. I love that you believe Romney’s heavy reliance on bipartisanship would be workable, and that you somehow think Romney’s business acumen (a reputation built on profiting off the corpses of companies he helped kill) is in any way useful in determining his value as a leader, though. Appropriately simplistic analysis from someone who clearly doesn’t get that one of the big problems with Romney’s campaign is that he equates being President with being a CEO.
Comment by David Maurer (@dmau11) -
Thanks Mark for a great artical.
As a financial advisor and retirement planing and estate planing specialist the choice is clear for me. I am only 25 years old and when Ryan talked about people in my age group losing 4700 a year in social security I AM FINE WITH THAT I WAS NOT EXPECTING ANY AT ALL that is cause if the current plan stays in place my generation WILL NOT have SS.
No one ever brings up what will happen with estate tax. If Obama stays in office a 55% estate tax will go into effect! So much for passing assets to family.
You can only live on hopes and dreams for so long then comes REALITY!
Comment by Josh Fischer (@JFisch23) -
Obama was elected on the same notion of cross the aisle “negotiating” “bi-partisianship” putting “country before party”.
Too bad Republicans don’t subscribe to that idea if it involves compromise with Democrats or any “non Republican idea”.
That won’t change. Ever.
Ayn Rand, in talking about ideology said there can be “no compromise between food & poison”. That is EXACTLY the Republican worldview. To Republicans “Democrats” are the poison.
Republicans have gladly taken support from Democrats for THEIR ideas – but will not reciprocate.
If you are a person that believes only Republican ideas are the correct ones – you are part of the problem.
I vote for the continuation of what has been the Republican Party Plan A for the last 4 years – which is to let the whole thing burn in the name of ideological purity – as long as blame can be placed elsewhere. THAT is the new American Way.
When the Middle Class wakes up to this fact – and starts partaking of it themselves – THAT is when things will get interesting. No stupid strikes, no unions, no petty protests. But really behaves with the brinksmanship and every man for himself attitude we’ve seen from Republican leadership. Let Atlas Shrug. The lowest taxes they can pay is ZERO and many are already there. There’s NO MORE JOBS to be created from TAX cuts. The idea is exhausted.
Let’s fiddle bitches – let’s double down on destruction. Or are you a bunch of pussies?
Comment by Jeff Schmidt (@jeffschmidt) -
I am an IT consultant and a business consultant, and I was making a similar point to a colleague last week. I never go into a situation with a plan, because the plan needs to include data and input form people not yet at the table. Any plan put together in advance would be misleading, misguided and doomed to fail. Instead, I go in with a framework of what criteria will be used to weigh options and determine the most beneficial outcome. Following the same framework, those plans and actions must be constantly evaluated to see if they are having the intended affect. If not, then you analyze the new data, gather input and make calculated adjustments.
The framework drives success, not a plan drawn in advance without the input of key players and with data that will be stale and outdated long before the plan is put into play.
In basketball terms, it is like asking a coach to tell you what plays they intend to call during the game, without knowing where the play clock will be, who will have possession of the ball, what personnel will be on the court, what the score will be, etc. Not possible, and any attempt would either be foolish or just plain stupid. Instead, based on their knowledge of the game and familiarity with their players, a coach will leverage a playbook (the framework) to set direction and guide decisions throughout the game.
Comment by Mark Vaughn -
interesting and thoughtful analysis. however, I don’t believe in magical ingredients. Congress controls the purse, and unfortunately we have seen our representatives more interested in scoring political points than working together to get things done. In terms of legislation passed, this Congress has been the laziest (which I am sure your friend Dan Rather will agree.) It’s shameful and sad.
Oh, and my representative, Thad McCotter, quit.
Comment by Terry (@macgarp) -
I like your analysis of Romney being the negotiator that can hammer out the details. No doubt this is a skill he has acquired through out his life and one that Obama lacks – this is due to their life experiences not their level of intelligence. Romney believes and practices negotiation while Obama has only given it lip service, a sad truth that the ability to bring the sides together was one of his promises that convinced me to support him in ’08.
I think it is the level of control over domestic legislation that Romney will be able to have that will make the difference in him succeeding. I don’t think the president wields the command that most people think they do on domestic policy. When there are 535 elected officials who control domestic policy and each is more worried about re-election than they are about fixing a problem – they rarely go out on a limb. It is always easiest to do nothing and get re-elected than it is to try something, or work with someone different, take a chance of proposing something and have it not go as planned, and then try to get re-elected. When you put your self out there you are sure to get criticized.
I think Romney will work for deals, he wants serious turn around like he has experienced in the business world, but I don’t think that deals and big fixes are what politicians really want. They want talking points and to return to their voters and say “I didn’t do this because these few things were wrong with it” or “I support much of the bill, but I wasn’t comfortable with part x.” No one will swing for a home run in today’s political atmosphere. In order to push politicians to vote for a deal they have to turn to back room deals and make offers they cannot refuse. We saw this with Obama care in Nebraska, Montana and Louisiana.
However I am willing to take a chance on Romney. Obama’s last budget received no votes from anyone from any party, deficit spending is above a trillion a year, and if you think that unemployment is getting better then you haven’t just graduated from college and looked for a job that actually pays you enough to cover living and student loans (like I am currently doing). I don’t want to work for $12/hr for much longer, I can’t. This is why I can support Romney. It’s not a leap of faith, I already know what Obama can do for me, and I don’t want a government handout, I want a career, a house, to live debt free and raise a family. Obama economics will not get me there. I am tired of lip service, and foreign ass kissing, I want to live in an America that inspires people to work harder and reach further, like my Dad was able to.
I may have gotten off topic of tax policy, but it all relates to the discussion, I suppose.
Comment by Alex Iorg (@AlexIorg) -
When I hear statements like “he will work to create a bi-partison agreemeent”, it’s hard for me to put much weight on that. I’m a problem solver… My primary job duty.. and I’m also starting to think Romney is as well. However, Washington seems to stall even the best problem solvers. What happens if tax cuts don’t increase growth? I’m fearful if Romney policies fail, we’ll be stuck with worse debt, and an even larger gap between the ultra-rich vs. poor/middle class.
Comment by Bryan Hyatt (@Bhyatt111) -
I think the issue is his agenda. He says the right things when he sees the camera is rolling, and the scary reality comes out when he doesn’t think it’s running. Don’t be fooled.
Comment by Steven Cacciaroni (@SteveCacciaroni) -
No disrespect but i think a subject choice of Romney’s tax plan to me is a bit bias. It could be due to “That the rich will continue to pay the same share of taxes as they pay now.” or Romney’s tax plan math is so complicated for average Joe that you decided to go with that issue. However, I cant see it working without screwing the middle class. seems like “bipartisan” is the key word of your article but Romney can’t expect to solve these issues working with Democrats if you are not going to define what exactly it is. like Biden said ” What…would..my..friend.do.differently? he never says”
We can’t rely on ” i hope,he intends and i believe” if you are running for presidency
Comment by Mr Shark -
Mark, hand to heart, if he was on SharkTank would you invest in his “company” if he told you that he didn’t really have a business plan but he wanted the money from all five sharks and after he got the money, he’d tell you what his business was. Your assessments, while good intentioned, have too many variables, and Mr. Wonderful would throw a chair.
Comment by Nayan Padrai (@nayan1875) -
thats hilarious and cute. he hasnt relseased the details because he needs to involve the dems (who disagree with him fundamentally). what a joke
Comment by Anthony Thompson -
Don’t all politicians take office with the best of intentions, confident that their ideals will be accepted and effective? It could be argued that Obama was just as passionate about Healthcare and reformed it with the best of intentions. Or that the stimulus would have a greater impact. And wouldn’t more of his programs been more effective if he had more bi-partisan support and much less obstructionism for the sake of political gain? This history revisionism by the right that Obama is the one who refused to cooperate is both unfounded and unsustainable. His biggest problem is that he may have compromised to much and far too early.
Granted, Romney is a great businessman, but Democracy was never designed to be run like a business, or at a profit. The most worrisome part about Romney is that he does return a generous profit for his investors. Who benefits most from a Romney administration? Certainly not the middle class, they simply didn’t donate enough.
Comment by Snapper (@snap8487) -
Mark: I suspect that you do better research in business than you do in politics.
In a television ad for his presidential campaign, Romney asserts, ”I know how to veto. I like vetoes. I’ve vetoed hundreds of spending appropriations as governor.”
What he doesn’t say is the Legislature overrode those vetoes almost at will. When the House decided to challenge him, Romney was overridden 99.6 percent of the time: 775 to 3, according to the House minority leader’s office. In the Senate, Romney was overridden every time, often unanimously.
In more than 100 instances, Democrats did not contest Romney and the vetoes stood.
He won a few victories. In 2004, the Legislature let stand Romney’s veto of in-state tuition discounts at state colleges for illegal immigrants and sustained his veto of a one-year moratorium on publicly funded charter schools.
On budget line items, the vast majority of his vetoes, Romney’s success waned – in his first year, lawmakers let stand 21 percent of his cuts; in his last, they restored all of them. ”As the financial condition of the state improved, the Legislature was more inclined to override and spend more money,” Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney’s spokesman, said.
But DiMasi, the Democratic speaker, pointed to dwindling Republican support: ”You didn’t even have to debate ….. Even the Republicans voted against him.”
Of 283 budget veto overrides in 2006, Romney failed to attract a single Republican vote on 81 roll calls in the Senate and 60 in the House, records show.
That’s the kind of success Romney has as a politician.
Comment by Rootless El -
At first I was a bit surprised by your blog. Maybe I just figured you were too contemporary or too “Hollywood” and if I am wrong in that assessment, please allow me to genuinely apologize. I will say that I am going to revisit my position on your “marketing machine” approach to running a franchise and delve deeper into your DNA of business and economics. Good job Mark. Keep it up!
Comment by CrippledShark (@CrippledShark) -
The Romney ticket is making an incredible amount of promises to get elected, without an honest accounting of sacrifices equal to those promises. And that’s just to try and remain deficit neutral. Imagine adding to that any progress in paying down our 16T accumulated national debt or annual 1T deficits.
Here’s the truth:
“It doesnt matter if its a gov plan or private plan. The cost doesnt leave the system unless someone is willing to take less money ” – Mark Cuban
Comment by John McMillion (@johnmcmillion) -
I’m just wondering how many people will catch on to the fact that Mr. Cuban’s post is not exactly intended as praise for Mr. Romney…
Comment by Edgar Mendoza -
I think you are looking at the glass half full. I believe he doesnt want to make the “mistakes” he (and his father) made in the past. Which is give too much information because that would make him lose votes. I think he has a goal and he wont care how he will accomplished. (Just like a ceo would do with a company) the biggest two differences are: 1. The country is not a company, congress (and the gop) will pull him over to the right and will make him cut social programs (instead of racing taxes and cutting defense) and he wont stand up to them (based on what i have seen so far) 2. CEO can give “orders” and not to many people will have the cojones to say NO or tell him he is wrong (he wont be able to excercise that power in this political enviroment) maybe I am wrong and he does have the spine to do it but he hasnt show it yet. Its “easy” to do it against people you disagree with but real power is to stand up to our allyes. Being able to watch at your supporters into their eyes and tell them you are wrong. Clinton did it when he run and that made him succesfull he wasnt a slave of the lef (he transformed the left). Romney hasnt done it even once. The gop (and this country) need someone that will do the same to the right. Maybe it will happen in 4 years… Thanks for all your blogs i trully enjoy reading them (and i agree with you with all the patents problem, and admire that you are part of the solution and not the problem #sharktank)
Comment by oren (@orenstambouli) -
I’m curious how many people who cite Romney’s successful track record actually know what those successes and failures were. Feels like most cite those as a result of media regurgitation. Not arguing his past wins and losses, just questioning those who reiterate these statements. ericwormann and rootless make some interesting points above. would be interesting to hear more.
Comment by Matthew Falcinelli (@leftcoastmatt) -
He is accomplished businessman and he wants freedom in America. As long he’s for capitalism,not socialism,he’s the man for the job.His opposition talks like marksist or socialist.He want’s that we all be equal no there is no equality in capitalism and we don’t want to see that America would become like the rest of the world.It’s the land of opportunity that’s why people from all over the world come here.
Comment by Giedre Jones (@quenofdesserts) -
Interesting post Mark- either way the current path doesn’t work mathematically, particularly for young folks like myself. I mean honestly what percent of people under 30 are expecting Social Security to be there when we retire? I don’t think there will be an easy way to ‘compute’ the coefficients for the algorithm, but I appreciate Romney/Ryan not kicking the can. It seems like the American people appreciate being told the truth about having to make tough choices, despite Mitt’s talk about the 47%. Based off his business experience and problem solving past I have confidence he can make the tough choices, even if I may not agree with all of them.
Comment by Kurt Huegin (@khuegin) -
Mark, nice effort but this article is no better than Fox News or Huffington. Let’s face it the current debate format blows. Bring in the Shark Tank with real questions. Also T-Wolves are going to kick your ass this year. If not I’ll default to the Mavs as I’ve done since KG left. Peace. – Peter A.
Comment by Peter A. Petrulo -
Clever remark, Mark. The single most important detail that carries the confidence inherent in Romney’s approach is Romney himself. That said, you won’t be voting for Romney.
As an investor, which every voter is who participates in the democratic process, you would not invest in one guy with all the confidence in the world to provide you with a return on your investment unless he fully understood the market and had a team capable of delivering on the promises made.
In your explanation, you presented Romney as a character who has a false sense of the market, lacks understanding of the machinations of Congress, and has an over-inflated view of his own capacity to magically make all of the high-risk variables move in the direction he wants by brainwashing enough of his political opponents to support all of his measures without any compromise.
In short, you won’t invest your political capital (i.e. vote) in a GOP team that has failed to prove any substantive knowledge and understanding of the market and lacks any details, other than Romney’s personal magic, to control the course of the outcomes.
On the flip side of the coin, if you were to have invested in the Obama-Biden team in 2008, you would feel good about where they have moved the economic needle from the plummeting trajectory they inherited. And given another four years, you could see them surpass the breakeven point and move toward developing an expanding profit margin and exponential growth in the valuation of the investment.
I agree with you. I will stick with the current team, too. Thanks for the political insight from an investors perspective.
Comment by Mike Green (@amikegreen2) -
I don’t mean to be so pessimistic, but my feeling is that every businessman – anyone who is the ultimate decision maker, believes in his mind, that given the time, support and resources he can fix the problem. I think Obama felt the same way when he was running 4 years ago. But he ran into a buzz-saw. The reality is that you don’t get the support and resources – you get a congress full of the same politicians with various backgrounds who believe the same thing – Put MY plan into action and it will work. You end up with compromised solutions that don’t really ever work. You’ve got a 5 point plan? Good luck when two of the five pieces don’t get through that process.
In reality, the best form of government is a dictator – a person who has total control of those resources – But only If that dictator always is able to make the correct decisions. We have seen in Obama’s Presidency – even with a Democratically controlled congress, that you still don’t have complete control of those resources.
Our government is set up as a system of checks and balances designed to limit the power of an individual. If you are the owner of a business, you are the ultimate decision maker. If you are the President, you just aren’t. You are the lead strategic planner.
Comment by psmcgarrity -
Romney’s track record has been nothing short of amazing in regards to turnarounds. It’s clear he understands how to get things done. I’ve been really impressed with his accomplishments leading up to the election.
Side by side with Obama, it’s pretty embarrassing for Obama when you compare the two. I may not agree with Gov. Romney on every issue but I can’t deny him credit for everything he’s accomplished and his ability to lead and make things happen. We’ve already seen what the Obama administration has done. There’s just got to be a better way. Any level headed American can feel and knows that we cannot continue down this course of fiscal mismanagement and economic situation.
All my associates I’ve talked to also reiterate the confidence they have in Romney based on his business accomplishments. He understands business/small businesses unlink any other candidate for president we’ve had for a very long time.
Comment by systemlevel23 -
Governor Romney is born 3/21/1947(3+2+1+1+9+4+7=27 2+7=9) will be inaugurated on1/20/2013(1+2+0+2+0+1+3=9) as the 45th(4+5=9) President IT THAT SIMPLE
Comment by Gary the numbers guy (@Numerologynow) -
You hit on a very important factor in all of this-he is the detail. And then your next salient point is that he is going to take all of the unresolved variables- a projected deficit of $16 trillion (arguably), create 12 million jobs, and factor in a reduction of taxes for everyone across the board without creating any new revenue other than jobs and presto- everybody wins!!
Why hasn’t it been that easy before? One, name one President in the past 50 years who’s created 12 million jobs (not part time, but full time with decent wages private sector jobs). Its never been done. So for him to come out boldly and proclaim that he will be the first is ambitious and on some levels foolish. Let’s say he got perfect conditions where everyone worked together on the same page. Not even the great Ronald Reagan was able to create THAT many jobs, nor was Bill Clinton. So he’s already behind on that point.
Secondly, many leading economists agree that there cannot be deficit reduction without some sort of offset in revenue generation. Now if he were able to achieve the 12 million job level, that might help, but we’re assuming that the jobs he’s creating are going to pay above the $17k threshold which now makes them liable for federal income taxes. That income level would have someone earning $8.85 per hour for a 40 hour per week average. Assuming they take on a 2nd job to earn more, then their tax liability goes up, not down. With inflation and cost of living adjustments, it’s going to be an even tougher sell to the rest of the country that this is a prudent course of action to take. Strike 2 in my opinion.
Third, he’s going to lower the tax rate that people pay, which is the same as saying he’s going to lower taxes, because if you lower rates, in essence you’re lowering taxes. Again, no ties to revenue generation, so this ties directly to the argument in the previous paragraph, and yet we’re led to believe that this will in fact help lower the deficit.
I don’t doubt that he’s confident. I’m a small business owner of a waste management company, and I’m confident that if given any sort of investment in my company, I could create thousands of jobs in a 4 year span just off of demand. But when an investor asks me how I’m going to back up that claim, I’m going to have to provide more than a “trust me” type of approach. They’re going to ask for a business plan, hard data, and a track history of creating jobs on even a micro level before giving me access to capital/funding in order to prove myself worthy for that type of investment. I see you and the other sharks do it all the time on Shark Tank. However, he isn’t being put through that type of grilling process, and so therefore it smells fishy for the average American who has a working knowledge and keeps asking for the numbers to back it up. When we ask for said data, he just says, you’re going to have to trust me.
I watched you and the other sharks have a back and forth not once, but twice with the maker of Copa wines, because he overvalued his company, but the one thing he didn’t lack, and he somewhat reminds me of Mitt Romney in his dogged persistence that you simply had to trust his vision, is confidence. I give him his props because I recently saw his wine in a local gas station and my first thought was the battle royale you all had with him on two separate occasions and he was asking for at most, $ 5 million dollars to expand his brand.
Governor Romney is asking for the keys to the country without offering us, the American people, a business plan, hard data that we can consume, and the ability to ask questions. His vice presidential choice who has created an interesting budget has said on record that to explain the math would take too long. Well as a business owner, as an investor, and as a citizen, my most important asset is my time and yet they are both telling me that they don’t value my most treasured asset to explain to me what their ultimate long term vision for the country is.
Therefore it makes it hard for me to trust them, even though confidently, he keeps telling me to do so, past track history aside. And when I factor in that the very states that they both lead are tilting more in the incumbent’s favor (Massachusetts handily, Wisconsin with a smaller margin), that gives me even more pause. If you’re own home states or states you governed previously aren’t buying what you’re selling, why should I?
Comment by Palmer Johnson -
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. But your argument failed to factored in the craziest town in America called Washington, DC. If you truly believe that Romney can fly into town like a consultant, cut taxes, cut spending, negotiate bi-partisan bill to balance the budget while destroying programs that Democratic and Republican Parties cares about, then you don’t understand how DC works and I have a bridge to sell you in NYC.
Washington DC is an entrenched town with everybody fighting to protect their own interest. The idea that you can close all tax loopholes is in itself laughable. If you can’t tell the public which loopholes you would like to close now, what makes you think American people will agree with you when you actually make the cut?
It will be a political suicide to get rid of mortgage deduction, education tax credit, health care deduction and charitable contribution. Romney himself knows that his ideas on tax is unsalable to the American public. Even George Bush couldn’t get it done in 8 years despite MBA background. Being a deal maker works on Wall Street but don’t move a needle in Washington with so many advocacy groups.
Finally, as an observer of American politics for 11 years now, I can definitely say Washington is going to get worse if Romney win because it will mean “obstructionist to Presidential agenda” is a winning formula. That, my friend, is exactly what the Democrats will do for the next 4 years.
Comment by GO (@Gao2301) -
Thanks for providing a forum to discuss. Strip away the partisanship, and people on the right and the left should acknowledge that Romney is a winner. He has a knack for creating success.
That said, Obama is a once in a lifetime leader. He’s intelligent, affable, articulate, and somewhat athletic. He might not have yet delivered on his campaign’s promises over the first 4 years… but that responsibility lies with not just his cabinet, but with a Congress led by some lunatic right wing “leadership” that refuses to seek detentes/compromises.
A few tangential thoughts… with this degree of partisanship, the USA is an
immobile aircraft carrier stuck in a morass… with an economic hurricane fast approaching. The right might be correct that government is too unwieldy… but simply taking a wrecking ball without a long-term gameplan for improving the situation is at best naive, and at worst, catastrophic.
We need to create a more nimble government… still rich in debate, but able to make tough, visionary decisions. I’d propose that we shift away from a right vs left spectrum… and replace that with two new parties… the Carpe Diems and the Farmers. The new focus is on being more present oriented (spend today because tomorrow is a long ways away) vs more future oriented (plant more seeds today, so 10 – 20 years from now we maintain our position amongst nations).
ps How can I vote for making a new President’s first term last 6 years, instead of 4 years so that they have a few extra years to serve as onboarding? Then a second term would last the same 4 years.
Comment by MisterArcher.com (@MisterArcher) -
Interesting post as always Mr. Cuban however there are far more issues than the financial state of the union such as foreign policy and civil rights.
Comment by Eric Fader -
That’s a lot of bipartisan cooperation that you’re assuming he can broker. Too many If’s, is what it feels like. I just hope the Dems don’t stink-eye him like the Republicans did Obama the last couple years.
Comment by Matthew Falcinelli (@leftcoastmatt) -
This is definitely one of the smartest and most non-partisan posts on the topic out there. It would be incredibly difficult to create a working algorithm for all the metrics involved, and the most important variable is Mitt. Getting these things done takes the knowhow, dedication, concessions, and the grit to make tough decisions. Closing loopholes and reforming the tax code would be a good step towards needed simplicity. Most important is the principle that more people working means less government spending, more government tax receipts and a better shot at lowering the deficit and eventually the debt.
Comment by Patrick Edwards (@patrickwedwards) -
Obama had his chance at Hope and Change! Romney knows how to be successful! The country needs a CEO not a community organizer.
Comment by dswonke -
The problem is his tax plan is mathematically impossible without decimating the federal government. Consider the following items:
1. You said he wants to drop federal spending from 24% to 20% of GDP. That’s a cut of $600 billion from the federal budget.
2. He also said that he wants to increase the defense department budget by $200 billion per year. ($2 trillion over 10 years)
3. That means he now has to cut the budget by $800 billion.
4. He also has stated that he doesn’t want to touch Medicare or Social Security for people over 55. That means he won’t do anything to touch those numbers for 10 years.
5. If you take the federal budget and subtract the Defense Department Budget, Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the national debt, you are left with about $1.6 trillion.
6. Again, Romney would have to cut the budget by $800 billion, so he is essentially cutting the entire federal government budget (minus SS, Medicare, DOD, and interest) IN HALF.
7. Do you really see Romney cutting things like aid to Israel, Veterans Services, the CIA, border patrol, the FBI, etc. IN HALF? Probably not likely.
Comment by Eric Wormann (@ericwormann) -
You might be right about how his plan would work. Maybe he is the deciding factor. What bothers me most about his plan is that he feels he can assign specific values to the amount of recovery he will achieve (12m jobs, spending at 20pct of GDP, etc) and within a certain time frame, but with no figures on how we will get there.
That in itself leads everyone to wonder how exactly we will pay for these things in the short term. We can only speculate without specifics.
If the tax cuts of 20pct really do grow the economy, it would make sense that the economy and GDP will need to grow by 20pct to make the cuts revenue neutral, Even using the best GDP growth rates in history (http://www.davemanuel.com/2010/08/03/us-gdp-growth-by-president-1948-2009/), it would take four years to reach that level.
You hit the nail on the head though in the third to last paragraph. Regardless of who gets elected, it will be an uphill battle to get anything done. Cuban/Wonderful 2016.
Comment by shane train (@molecularlevel) -
Presidents (especially Republican presidents) don’t actually have all that much control over what goes on in the government. They don’t have anywhere near as much control as the CEO of a company does. So that’s another problem for Romney.
Comment by rex -
I could not agree more. Romney has proven over and over again that he can do the job. He is a moderate by all past policy decisions, and will hopefully be able to convince Congress on a compromise of some sorts. He has already stated that he would have passed Simpson-Boles.
The economy will recover quickly once long term policy is in place. There’s too much cash sitting on corporate balance sheets for anything else to happen. We just can’t let Washington drive us over the fiscal cliff.
Comment by Aaron Martens (@ajmartens21) -
Just do not think that a President can function like a CEO/President/COO/managing partner – especially in the present environment. Hear totally conflicting histories from his stint as Governor of Massachusetts – his version of working in a bipartisan fashion and another that he was not nearly as cooperative with the legislative branch as he claims. But my larger concern is his approach to foreign policy – and the advisors he has so far in that area greatly concern me – they are the same folks who led the charge into Iraq. You are far more optimistic that a President Romney will be able to lead a bipartisan process on taxes/spending/foreign policy than I am.
Comment by Patrick Pine -
They all say they’re going to be bipartisan… until the people who made hefty campaign contributions start calling in their favors. It’s funny how easily we forget this formula every election cycle.
Comment by Tim Chavez -
Mark, I think people fear Romney because they associate him with “big business” and think he has an interest in making sure the rich get richer. These same people like Obama because he’s “for the people”. Romney will try to make this economy profitable. As you mentioned, its in his blood. A government that can increase its revenue and cut cost efficiently, will increase available funds. Such funds can be used to create new government agencies, thus directly creating jobs and adding additional services to society.
Comment by alex scher (@scher21) -
There is a lot more to the job than just what you’ve outlined. Let him run for budget director. Unfortunately, many would-be Romney supporters have to consider his stance on choice, heath care, education and a myriad of other issues that leave him wanting.
Comment by ourmanflint1 -
I bet Mr. Cuban, you only do Business with people you can trust? Can you trust this guy? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWgYEkArxos
Comment by Riley (@RileyfromCanada) -
This is fascinating and I agree, the problem with an algorithm in a political environment is that there are way to many ‘X’ Factors that are unquantifiable and can completely ruin a country and possible ruin the middle class. The middle class is the foundation for having the opportunity at a dream to make it big, such as yours and what I don’t hear from the Romney / Ryan camp is a way that their plan is going to strengthen the middle class to levels beyond what the democrats are doing, and as an independent voter, that is the deciding factor. Government is not perfect, their isn’t a formula for how it works and you can’t create a spreadsheet and think it’ll fix the problems, it just doesn’t work that way; this isn’t a CEO type job, this is a job for someone who can handle a lot of different people, crises, and an ever tightening global environment where anything that happens, affects each other instantly and in my belief, Romney and Ryan aren’t the team that can manage that and Obama / Biden have proven that they can turn a country around, albeit not as fast as everyone would love, against a senate that has been filibustering at record numbers and have vowed to vote down every measure the democrats put on the floor, which is an extremely tough government for anyone to run on both sides of the floor.
So, as an independent, I feel like we need to make a decision on something that is heading in a better direction then risk a complete 180 degree change in directions, as I don’t know that an algorithm can fix this problem.
Comment by Daniel Elder (@djelder) -
Don’t care if you’re planning on voting for him or not, but if he were given his ideal circumstances as far as ability to pass what he needed to pass when he needed to pass it, do you think it would work? In my opinion, his plan works better than the plan of the current administration…
As a person with a business background and working on attaining a CPA license, I don’t understand how the current administration believes that its plan will ever reach a “deficit neutral” status…
Comment by Steve Rasch (@steverasch) -
This is a very good explanation of his plan, and crystallizes some of my own thoughts better than I could put them- My question for you: to the degree this interpretation of a tax plan is desirable/a winning plan- is it being effectively communicated by the campaign so lower information voters understand it?
Comment by browenjr -
If you had to do business with Romney, you would not engage in this kind of wishful thinking. People who bought bonds from Bain owned companies sued several times because he is really good at painting a semi-plausible story that does not add up. There is absolutely nothing in his history that makes it remotely plausible he could or would even want to confront the entrenched tax cheats like – like himself. The PE carried interest scam should be a felony – what would ever make you think Mitt would want to fix it? And his record in MA is far from success, no matter what he thinks. Look at the numbers.
Comment by rootless (@root_e) -
Romney /Ryan have my vote. I am in the healthcare field and Obamacare is bad news. Doctors are leaving medicine. Eventually we will end up with average to poor care when they start hiring doctors from third tier schools to take care of the next generation. Waits will be long to obtain the surgery you need now.You couldn’t pay me or alot of people to go into medicine today if Obamacare isn’t halted on some level!
Comment by Gina Britt Rowan -
Well said, Mark. Romney knows that members of Congress know how bad things are and that’s their incentive to work with him in a bipartisan solution. He worked across the aisle in Massachusetts and knows how to focus and collaborate. bringing the rates down 20% across the board will free up a lot of capital and create a lot of growth. Unproductive tax twists need to be dumped. They force jumping through hoops that hurt the economy. Keep up the good work.
Comment by Beaver Media (@nocalmedia) -
I really agree in principle with what you are saying about Gov. Romney and I appreciate your point of view as a businessman and 1%er BUT The government is not a business controlled by a limited few in a single boardroom with ultimate control. Its bureaucratic, broken and full of compromise.
Until we repeal legal decisions like Citizens United and reduce “mystery money” from the political system, politicians, who gain access to the club, will have problems putting their personal gains behind the country. Sad but true.
I am filmcartel.org and I approved this message. 😉
Comment by Eric Abramson -
PLEASE READ: how about voting for liberty. how about voting for freedom. how about voting for the constitution. how about voting for a candidate that will put gun rights and gay rights in the same sentence. how about voting for a candidate that will put cutting military (OFFENSE not defense) in the same sentence as medicare reform. how about voting for a candidate that will bring the troops home now. how about voting for a candidate that will end the expensive and ineffective war on drugs. how about voting for a candidate that will abolish corp income tax, federal income tax, capital gains tax. how about voting for a candidate that will abolish the irs. how about voting for a candidate that will implement a cost neutral, fair tax: a 23% federal income tax. how about voting for a candidate that will repeal the patriot act and the ndaa. how about voting for liberty. how about voting for freedom. how about voting for the constitution. support GOV gary johnson in 2012. PLEASE tweet his name MR. CUBAN. you may say a vote for a third party candidate is a waste. i say its a waste to vote for the lesser of 2 evils. i saw its a waste to vote for someone you dont believe in. i say its a waste to vote against liberty. i say its a waste of a vote to continue to let this duopoly control our debates and our LIVES. 5 % of the vote will give gov johnson funding the next election and we may have a chance for a real revolution. LET GOVERNOR JOHNSON DEBATE NOW!
fyi: gov johnson is on ballot in all 50 states. please help get name recognition
Comment by johnthomas (@johnthomas_24) -
How do we trust a guy whose policies will continue to keep him in the 14% tax bracket, while I toil away harder than him (Perhaps not smarter than him) and pay 28%? It is just not fair… Even animals know what is fair and unfair.. check out this youtube video which experiments on monkeys. http://twentytwowords.com/2012/10/08/monkey-hilariously-reacts-to-receiving-unequal-pay/
Comment by Sameer Sugwekar (@sugwekar) -
Mak senior risk management major at Temple here. Although Romney is a financial wizard, how do you feel about his stance on PPACA and the social security & medicare crisis the US is currently facing?
Comment by Mickey Kaline (@Reitdudez) -
Solid sound off, always interested in your take on things, Mr. Cuban. I agree that Romney/Ryan is fit ticket with an actual plan for the next four years. “Finishing what we started.” is the slogan I’ve heard time and again from the Obama/Biden ads but I’m not sure what we started, where it is headed and I’m fairly certain I won’t like it. They think they’ve started something good the last four years and I’m of the opposite opinion. It certainly is a big election and in matters foreign and domestic the globe and markets will shift depending on who is elected.
Comment by Matt Semple (@CohibasN_Cognac) -
I think this is a great analysis from someone who does not rely on the mortgage interest credit or earned income credit and therefore think they are expendable. Just kidding, Mark – but you’re wrong. Romney himself can’t be the variable. You can’t tell 400 million people to “trust me.” Romney didn’t save companies at Bain — he cannibalized them of their assets to make a profit for his investors. People lost jobs they’d had for a long time. I’m 38 years old. I don’t want a voucher when I get to the age of medicare. I want medicare to be there when I need it. I want Social Security to be there when I need it. Romney doesn’t care about me, but I bet he cares about you. I suppose his message is right on point. Also, you don’t pay enough in income taxes. Have a nice night!
Comment by Shaun Westbrooks (@shauntacular) -
Let me get this straight. Despite the fact that everything he claims to do is mathematically impossible without raising the deficit and/or cutting tax credits critical to the middle class, we should just be like “It’s ok man, you’ll figure it out somehow. If you say you can, that’s good enough for me. Because you’re an ‘amazing deal maker'”. Sounds like a weak argument to me. No offense, but obviously his tax plan benefits you more than Obama’s, so I’m not surprised you would make such a stretch argument in his favor.
Comment by Dawood MC -
While I am an Obama supporter, I enjoyed your breakdown of Gov. Romney’s tax plan. It is tough to argue his success as a businessman, but I think it is risky to believe that decisions made in running a business will transfer well to running the country. While I agree revising the tax code (simplifying) is absolutely necessary, he needs to make it clear what these across the board cuts will actually be. This much ambiguity does not place much confidence in the voting populace towards what his tax plan may actually accomplish.
Comment by Bonnor Crennan (@cbrennan84) -
All of things Romney lists are extremely ambitious and vague, partly due to complexity as noted, but Washington seems to be entirely different from any other place seems like Romney if elected can either solve all these lofty vague goals or fail flat on his face.
Comment by Andrew Sidebottom (@andrewside89) -
could it not help tho for he and ryan to explain at least a few options. even to say “as a republican, wed probably fight specifically for these, and democrats will fight for these. and we’ll have to make a bipartisan decision on which ones get cut”
the complete inability to answer that question, whether having true significance or not, is hurting how that plan is viewe, imo.
Comment by cpjuengel -
Mark, I think you have it exactly right. The problem with the last 4 years was that nothing got done. Obama was not engaged in negotiating any compromise solutions. Republicans had no one to negotiate with. Romney is a deal maker. He knows how to compromise to get things done. He will not dig his heels in and refuse to budge on any single issue.
This gridlock can not continue. Either way something needs to get done. The congressional leadership…well that is an oxymoron. There is no leadership, and that must change on both sides…no matter who wins the presidency.
Comment by Don Dodge -
Great Article and analysis
Comment by PowerIsPeople (@PowerIsPeople) -
America has a chance to be the last, best, “least-worst,” place on Earth. I’m voting for the candidate that can preserve our American ideal without screwing up our American finances (any more than they already are).
Comment by Steve from the Quad (@jagvocate) -
Remember, we have tried tax cut after tax cut for over 30 years and the net result was the near-destruction of our global economy, decreasing average income and skyrocketing top 1% wealth.
Letting Romney near the White House will result in more of the same, amplified. His math isn’t math, and even if you pretend it is, it doesn’t work.
Comment by serious fun (@seriousfun8309) -
No questions it is a complex problem, and probably the biggest challenge of his career if the Senate stays Dem. How does he simplify the economic message (like you have) so it gives confidence to swing voters?.
Comment by Adam Holst (@RealAdamHolst) -
Well written, Mr. Cuban. Gov. Romney’s confidence is based on a career filled with personal, religious, Olympic, government and business success. He is not without fault nor without failure and he remains persistently resolute in his confidence that he can get things done.
In particular, his experience as governor in Massachusetts, with a highly-Democratic state legislature, speaks to his ability to work the variables in the algorithm rather well.
Comment by Ralph M. Sherman (@rmshermanlaw) -
Very well said. You put if far more eloquent that I could to my liberal and independent friends.
Comment by Brad Groux (@BradGroux) -
I definitely agree with everything you wrote, and will add that I think he also knows that it’s not his confidence that matters right now. He has it, and will regardless. It’s moot. The important thing for him is to instil this same confidence in the American people. This is a similar situation to Obama, but Obama has already shown what he is or isn’t capable of. I suppose this is the same as every election, but in an election of this sort, I feel it is even more apparent.
Comment by Kyle Kiepert -
Very well said and it says a lot that someone like you would back his plan. Thanks for chiming in!
Comment by Chad Ferguson -
Mark – spot on. I honestly believe Romney doesnt release more tax deduction details for two reasons: 1) he doesnt know all of what they will be and 2) the reason he doesnt know is because he intends for that decision to be bipartisan.
The man solves problems. He is extremely calculated, rational, and confident as you said. He has earned my vote.
Comment by Tyler Hogge -
He is a man willing to create a coalition and work in a bipartisan way. He seems to be intent on getting AMERICA back on track, not just dems or republicans. Great assessment!
Comment by Sarina G (@HaKolBzman) -
You could at least say if you have faith in it, do you plan on voting for him? Something of substance that let’s people know how confident or not confident you are in him.
Comment by Chris Erickson (@bigtrix36) -
Comments are closed.