Fine Print
Maybe some of the criticism the comment earned the President was warranted, while he was trying to parse a distinction worth noting (that what private sector recovery we do have is being factored back by the broad effect of austerity on public sector employment), he was losing the forest for noting the different species of tree. The big picture should be better. His job is to have some sense of that.
That said, I think it's almost poetic that President Obama's opposing number came out with words very much along the same lines this past week. Alex Klein writing for the Daily Beast describes "Romney's gaffe" this way:
Romney Thursday night declared—to a group of rich donors, no less—that “big business is doing fine in many places,” partly because these larger corporations “know how to find ways [to] save money by putting various things in the places where there are low tax havens around the world.”
Business doing "fine" —the political sonics of Romney's use of the word are every bit as ripe for exploitation in our political climate as when the President found himself excoriated for saying much the same thing. Klein points out:
Romney’s words on taxes play to practically all of his core, and major, political weaknesses. Highlighting “big business” success resonates with the corporate fat-cat caricature. Attributing that success to “low tax havens” is even worse: a reminder of Romney’s own vast global holdings – from Bermuda, to Switzerland, to the Cayman’s – which have allowed him to defer his tax burden and multiply investor wealth far from American shores.
But the worst part of "Romney's gaffe" —Klein notes— is that he is right.
“Big businesses” are doing disproportionately well in the slowly recovering economy. And those large corporations do take disproportionate advantage of complicated, compliance-intensive global tax deferral strategies and holding companies. The truth of Romney’s words–combined with their applicability to his own professional fortunes–only makes them more politically toxic.
I'll admit that when I first read Klein's piece my glib reaction was that electing Romney as a tax reformer to champion fairness would be a little bit like asking Howard Stern to head up the FCC... so as to restore tact and decorum to the airways. But in fairness, as Klein himself cites a Romney spokesman, "Governor Romney has long said we need to simplify the tax code, close loopholes and create a more level playing field for American businesses.” With his Bain resume´ (or should I say 'portfolio?) we can certainly allow that Romney knows the topography of that somewhat less than level playing field as it lies. Maybe he has some good ideas about how to level it. Maybe you could compare us asking Romney to reform our tax system with FDR asking a free-wheeling financier like Joseph P. Kennedy to head up the SEC back in the day.
But I would suppose this is where the fine print starts to matter. The question arises: what exactly does Candidate Romney propose?
The Tax Policy Center released a report earlier this month, a paper that "documented both the promise and the difficulty of base-broadening, rate-lowering tax reform," as
Donald Marron put it in a piece for Forbes magazine
[The TPC Report] found, subject to certain assumptions..., that any revenue-neutral plan along the lines Governor Romney has outlined would reduce taxes for high-income households, requiring higher taxes on middle- or low-income households.
In a kindly frame of mind, Marron hedges:
I doubt that’s his intent, but it is an implication of what we can tell about his plan so far. (We look forward to updating our analysis, of course, if and when Governor Romney provides more details.)
There's the rub, though... those details.
In the the most polite language possible, Marron's piece in Forbes qualifies The Tax Policy Center report:
"...the authors had to confront a fundamental challenge: Governor Romney has not offered a fully-specified plan... As a political matter, such reticence is understandable."
And if we let Romney get away with that reticence, right up to election day, well... that will be on us. It will be on the dumbed down nature of our own debate.
This past weekend the Obama camp was busy crying foul over Romney's inept attempt at standup comedy, at a bad birther joke that bombed. (On the very same day Romney was opining 'fine' about the current state of big business, he apparently announced, tongue in cheek, to an audience in Michigan that he had his birth certificate —or that he didn't need one —or something like that.) "We don't need a birther-in-chief" went up the silly umbrage of an instantly produced Obama campaign ad —so avidly missing the substantive forest for the silly-ass trees. I'd much rather have seen them challenging Mitt Romney to explain what exactly he means to do about the fine mess he seems to know so well... "big business doing fine" while so many others struggle.
It might not make for loud enough political advertising copy, or serve for a pithy post for your facebook page, but as voters we are going to have to get down to the fine print as we make this decision in November. What Mitt Romney means —what Barack Obama means to do about "the private sector doing fine" or "big business doing fine" while a lot of the rest of the country still staggers and strains for a fully realized recovery, that has to be our focus —that is the substance of the decision at hand.
On the contrary Tom, We study the fine print to make sure we are not an enemy of God or Freedom. It was your snarky comments and false claims that needed to be corrected. Based on your re-framing of my comment, it sounds like your having one of those guilt trips. Rest assure, God forgives you...so don't I for that matter. I look forward to your next article
Sean | 2012-09-04 15:35:03
Sean, my apologies for the subtleties (since you apparently take them as an affront) . I guess when you can situate anyone who differs with your politics as an enemy of God and freedom there really is no need for studying the fine print.
Tom Driscoll | 2012-08-31 21:16:51
Looks like another article with subtleties based on Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals", a required reading for those elite Poly Sci Universities. "Disinformation does not only threaten our insight into the workings of our world; It makes us vulnerable to fear, misunderstanding and doubt: All things that lead to destruction". We do have a choice. One choice is a concept of a large central government. Those nations structured as so, ultimately find themselves leveled by massive bureaucracy, rules and regulations and restrictions on freedoms, all for the supposedly greater good of its people. Austerity measures are often implemented in these societies when they begin failing due to government waste and corruption. These measures ultimately bring pain, hardship and in some cases atrocities we would rather forget. The other form of government is far less restrictive and is based on a concept of freedom and liberty. It is the ultimate gift to man. It is gifted from God where all people are equal and have the freedom of governing themselves. It is based on free markets, faith in your neighbors to help those less fortunate and the ability to build something without tyrannical government intrusion or confiscation. This form has enabled people to build the greatest country in the history of the world in terms of wealth, freedom, science, technology and the list goes on and on and on. We are so very blessed to have the ability to choose. The choice is clear and the choice is yours.
Sean | 2012-08-31 16:30:53
Concerned Citizen, Romney has paid all of his taxes and is in good standing with the IRS. There are many individuals / corporations like Mitt, who operate globally with income sources from around the world. There are many legal options to manage tax burdens on this income and if its legal, nothing wrong with it. Mitt has paid his taxes. Assuming he's engaged in illegal activity is not fair, it needs to be proven. From what I've read he has been audited and has come out clean. US is working to close tax loopholes / havens that others do exploit, and there are stiff penalties including jail and huge fines. Those engaged in illegal activity will ultimately be caught down there. However most people operating down there are doing it legally. You would be surprised at the 'household names' that have accounts offshore....legally. My business / family all bank in Holliston. If Mr. Obama / Bernanke keep playing their games with our currency, we'll all be banking out of our mattress.
Holliston Republican | 2012-08-30 10:16:11
Sorry "Townie", but you're not correct - the Cayman Islands is the fifth largest financial center in the world after London, New York, Tokyo and Zurich and a single office building in the capital of George Town has 18,000 registered corporations - the Brazilians and other nationalities in our surrounding towns send money back home just like the Italians, Irish, Polish and Greeks have for years, they're trying to support their families - we're not talking about them, we're talking about greedy wealthy individuals who are American citizens and large corporations.
Concerned Citizen | 2012-08-29 21:54:41
Dear concerned Citizen, I think you will find that more money leaves this country untaxed, by ilegals to their homeland than all the corporations you claim hide their profits off shore. Just count the number of "wire money" firms in just our surrounding towns. Townie
Townie | 2012-08-29 17:08:08
Sorry Holliston Republican, but any wealthy individual or corporation in the United States of America who hides money in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda or a Swiss bank in order to avoid paying taxes is unpatriotic - stealing and cheating from the American people and their government for reasons of greed is Un-American - I bank in Holliston and I'm proud to support my local community bank.
Concerned Citizen | 2012-08-28 18:22:54
The CEO versus the Comunity Organizer is an interesting way to frame this decision we are making. I think either one of the candidates for office has to be a little bit of both. But even going whole hog for the CEO analogy, as citizens we are all stakeholders in the corporation/country and we deserve a candid account of what the man asking for the CEO position has in mind. Are there a lot or successful corporate boards that would expect any less? That would grant the job on the wishful thinking (some insult for the current officer) and a promise to have at the details only after they've got the job?
Tom Driscoll | 2012-08-28 12:06:05
I am a small business owner who both lives and runs my business in this great town. I struggle just like the rest of the middle class, and I find nothing wrong with big business. We all need to compete to survive. If a business (or person for that matter) is successful enough to grow it's sales, improve purchasing power, and *legally* establish political / business relationships to better their organization, they earned it the same way I earn my living. I compete against some big business, and if I want to close a sale, I need to lower my price, or offer something else. That's capitalism. I also find nothing wrong with a taxpayer using all *legal* methods to minimize tax liability, on or off-shore. If they are smart enough to do it, good for them. It does not make them a bad person and I find nothing with it morally. Obama has earned his stripes along the way, and I'm sure if you were to peel back the layers you'd find plenty of unsavory history there as well. Regardless - this country is on the road to bankruptcy. We need a CEO to get us back on the right track, not a community organizer.
Holliston Republican | 2012-08-28 10:20:09
Moral argument, like any good argument really, involves listening, hearing out both sides and allowing that each might have valid points to make. And each might be burdened with flawed bias as well. Our job as citizens is to examine both and maybe to be careful of taking the destructive aspersion of the debate too far. I tend to brush aside assertions the Mitt Romney is running for president to lower his own taxes for instance. (He's shown with what scant returns he has released that he knows how to lower them without the bother of becoming president.) I rather suspect he genuinely believes the whole of the country and its economy benefits when we favor a certain elite entrepreneurial class, the one he happens to be in. Grudgingly, I'll admit there may be something to his point, but recent years have also shown this maxim of maximizing the reward of success applied indiscriminately can render perverse results. There are aspects of the man's own portfolio that point this up too. That's why I think we need to challenge a campaign premised on the fact that Mitt Romney has been in the general area of profit and success and he might shad that grace on our government. I want the nitty gritty policy detail. The fine print.
Tom Driscoll | 2012-08-28 07:35:10
The planet I live on is the one where I work my small business for 65 hrs. a week for modest gain, while watching the unholy alliance between big government and big business,trade unions,government contractors,and all of the other "favored groups" reward political loyalty to both parties. The U.S.A. is no longer a meritocracy, but a country largely controlled by the institutions favored by powerful politicians on both sides. Fair play and morality have been replaced by graft, corruption, and greed. Every major problem we have in this country is caused by a lack of morality.
Gary D'Alessandro | 2012-08-28 06:02:27
Today's Republican party is not your father's Republican party - Today it's about defunding Planned Parenthood and NPR, privatizing, reducing or eliminating medicare, social security and medicaid, eliminating the Department of Education, the EPA and the minimum wage, controlling women's health and reproductive rights and securing additional tax reductions for the extremely wealthy and corporations - if that's your cup of tea, go for it - me, I think I'll stick with Barack Obama
Mr.Lee | 2012-08-27 21:41:04
The case I was trying to make, my fellow Americans, is that we had all better regard this election (and all others for that matter) as something just a bit more serious than a vehicle for venting our resentments. There are actual substantive decisions at hand, that require some effort on our part. We're going to have to read the "fine print" and really come to terms with what we read. No one should want to see our tax system turn into a disincentive for industry and effort, neither should we sit by complacent while it serves as incentive for short cited and destructive profiteering, off seas evasion and self servingly selective carpetbagger pseudo-citizenship.
Tom Driscoll | 2012-08-27 21:39:38
Oh good, if Obama gets in we can all get more free stuff like free food, section 8, ssi disability and even EBT cards for booze and drugs. What a great country. And there even going to have free health care. Why work.
enough | 2012-08-27 19:54:19
Its obvious from some of the comments that you are from another planet. This 1% you love to bash are the ones who have created our great universities, hospitals, and humanitarian programs donated from their wealth. Squeeze them too tightly and you will no longer have the "Golden Eggs"
American citizen | 2012-08-27 16:35:28
The real villan here is crony-capitalism, and there is not one bit of difference between the Democrat and Republican politicians in this area. If the Occupods and Tea Party would both identify their greatest common enemy as such, and combine forces to root it out, mabe we can start the march tword "fairness" that so many profess to want.
Gary D'Alessandro | 2012-08-27 10:41:32
America is starting to see manufacturing jobs come back home. This country needs a President that knows how to make money, not spend it. My vote is for Romney!
Holliston Republican | 2012-08-27 09:37:07
That's exactly right Yvonne... plus we know what the overall economic policies will look like: massive cuts in social programs, but steady spending if not big increases for defense spending, and meanwhile will pursue big tax cuts for the wealthy. It's all good for the 1 percent. Deficits will continue to go up while overall wealth continues to be redistributed to the rich.
Jay Tinkerton | 2012-08-27 09:11:07
If Romney is elected, big business profits will go higher because they will be outsourcing more jobs just like Romney did when he was governor.
Yvonne Giargiari | 2012-08-27 07:50:40