Tag Archives: romney

Women Don’t Like the Republican Party? Really?

17 Nov

An insightful analysis of the so-called “gender gap” in politics by Kay Hymowitz in City Journal exposes the faulty conclusions of those who claim the Republican Party is out of touch and out of favor with women.  Titled “The Misunderstood Gender Gap”, you can see the whole piece at http://www.city-journal.org/2012/eon1116kh.html

Excerpts:   [Emphasis is mine]

There’s no denying that if you put all individuals with female reproductive parts into a single category, more of them voted for President Obama (55 percent) than for Mitt Romney (44 percent). Men, by contrast, went for Romney, 52 percent to 45 percent; hence the press’s conviction that an important gender gap exists.  .  .  .

The truth, though, is that other demographic characteristics have considerably more significance. A widely reported example is marital status. Fifty-three percent of married female voters went for Romney. Among single women, by contrast, Romney was about as popular as an extra 20 pounds; a mere 31 percent supported him. The gap between married and single women, then, is wider than the male-female gap that the media have been touting.  .  .  .

But the obvious reason for the marriage gap is that for several decades now, married women have become likelier to be white, educated, affluent, and older—demographic groups that leaned Republican in this election. Romney lost the black, Hispanic, and Asian vote, while he won the college-educated vote (though not post-grads), the votes of those making over $50,000 a year, and the votes of older Generation X-ers, Baby Boomers, and voters over 65. In other words, married women voted less as part of a sisterhood than as part of a cohort of white people holding college diplomas, earning more than $50,000 a year, and wearing reading glasses.

Similarly, unmarried women voted just the way you’d expect them to, considering their age, income, education, race, and ethnicity. A large number of unmarried women are single mothers—and minorities are disproportionately represented among that population.  .  .  . Single mothers are also likely to be younger, less educated, and poorer than married women are. Sure enough, all these groups went Democratic in this election.  .  .

The chatter about the “largest gender gap on record” ignores one last surprising fact: women, like men, were less likely to vote for Obama in 2012 than in 2008. The gender gap expanded not because more women went blue but because so many men switched to red. Obama won the male vote in 2008 by 2 points; this year, again, Romney won among all men, 52 percent to 45 percent.

So yes, taken as a group, women vote more Democratic than men do. But that has little to do with their sex, which is why analysts would be wise to pay a little less mind to the gap.

[End of excerpts]

Advertisements

Why, Why, Why? EVERYone Seems to Know

9 Nov

Why did the Republicans lose the presidential election, when it SEEMS so obvious that Obama has done a crummy job of managing the country and economy?  So far, we have heard a hundred different contributing reasons.

Problem: To one extent or another, all the expressed reasons contributed to the loss.  Dominance of mass media support for Obama — yes.  Immigration policy — yes.  Democratic attacks and lies — yes.  Misinformation re: education — yes.  Barak and Michelle are black — yes.  Obama is perceived as “cool” — absolutely.  Romney looks “stiff” — yes.  Perception of Republicans as the party of the rich — yes.  Hating 47 %-ers — yep.  Being against the poor — that’s us.  Hate women — yep.  Entertainers “singing” the praises of Obama — yes.  People loving Dems for give-aways — yes.  Republicans unable to take offensive, always acting/speaking defensively — yup.  Dems used technology better — yes.  Rabid positions on abortion — yup.  Unexpectedly high turnout of Dems, lower turnout of Reps — yes.  Obama first response to Hurricane Sandy — yes.  Chris Christie’s response to Obama’s response to Sandy — absolutely.

Even pro-Obama slants to TV dramas and sitcoms — yes-yes.

And you can add more, I’m sure.  The impact of some of these factors has been underestimated, and for some the impact has been overestimated.  Who knows where the “truth” lies.

Here’s what I think.  I think Americans are so pliable and impressionable that virtually anything will affect at least some small group of people.  And cumulative small effects add up to large effects.

I would even guess that the use of “blue” as representative of Democrats and “red” as representative of Republicans affects the vote of some number of Americans (blue is a more friendly color than red — and China and the Soviets were called the Reds — “boo” on red).

Sound cynical?  Sorry.  My faith in the American people making decisions based upon rational consideration of national and international current and future issues and conditions is at a new low — which I didn’t think was possible.

And I’m not just speaking of Democrats . . . .

 

Let’s Face It — Romney Blew It

19 Sep

I perceive Romney’s “47%”  statement to be an inexcusable mistake on his part — an exaggeration of extreme order, not representative of what a presidential candidate should mess up.   In fact, something I might expect of Obama – but NOT of e seasoned businessman, someone who should be used to identifying the twisting of numbers.

And if I wasn’t so sure that it was just plain unthinking ignorance on his part, I would be insulted that my candidate just dissed millions of people out there on non-taxed retirement incomes, on disability incomes, low-income students, part-time workers raising kids, and those who are just between jobs searching hard for work that will support their families.

As it is, I’m just embarrassed and disappointed.

What in the world is the problem with us Republicans?  We have all the ammunition in the world to blast away all the arguments of the Democrats, and we just slog along with the worn-out “Are you better off . . . .” rerun.  Is that all the imagination, all the drive, all the outrage we can muster at the misrepresentations of the Democrats?  We have to misrepresent right back?

May God save us.

Words of Wisdom from “Silent Cal”

31 Aug

In a piece by Charles C. Johnson in City Journal, Mr. Johnson pretty much devotes the essay to quotes and interpretations of Calvin Coolidge, about whom Johnson  is readying a book for publication.  Johnson is a researcher with Breitbart News and a writer with Revere Advisors.

 Coolidge may have been “a man of few words”, but the words replayed in this essay are truly on target, even prescient.

 The full essay can be found at http://www.city-journal.org/2012/eon0830cj.html

Excerpts:    [Bolding is mine]

Coolidge .  .  . emphasized the ideal of the common good. “A true citizen of a real Republic can not exist as a segregated, unattached fragment of selfishness,” he told the delegates, “but must live as a constituent part of the whole of society in which he can secure his own welfare only as he secures the welfare of his fellow men.” In other words, we’re all in this together. Promoting the general welfare—and not the selfish interests of a few—meant promoting American principles, but this didn’t mean embracing statism. In language that sounds much like Romney on the campaign trail, Coolidge announced his own first principles:

I believe in the American Constitution. I favor the American system of individual enterprise, and I am opposed to any general extension of Government ownership and control. I believe not only in advocating economy in public expenditure, but in its practical application and actual accomplishment.

With the newly created Budget Bureau, he set about putting the country’s fiscal house in order and became the last president actually to pay down the debt, shrinking the government.

He even confessed a “sort of obsession” with government economy. “I regard a good budget as among the noblest monuments of virtue,” he explained in words that could have been said by Paul Ryan. “We can only be relieved of our present private and public burdens by refraining from private and public extravagance.” Americans should reject expenses for which there is “no commensurate return.” Taxes, contrary to what Senate majority leader Harry Reid has argued, are “not a voluntary contribution. . . . They are a stern necessity.” But when the government spends less, “it grants everybody a life pension,” which they can use “to raise the standard of existence.” Taxing less “increases the value of everybody’s property and raises the scale of everybody’s wages.” Taxing corporations would simply see them pass those costs on to everyday people. The tax that is “theoretically best” interferes with business least.

While Coolidge’s critics ahistorically claim that he was a pawn of Wall Street, he—and his secretary of the Treasury, Andrew Mellon—actually made the tax code far more progressive, while still reducing taxes for everyone and achieving the desired economic growth. “Taxes take from everyone a part of his earnings, and force everyone to work for a certain part of his time for the government,” Coolidge said. Take less from them and they will do more. Economic growth would average 7 percent a year over the course of Coolidge’s first full term. And while in Coolidge’s day “every student knows that excessive high rates defeat their own purpose,” President Obama has yet to learn what Coolidge’s “government of common sense” taught. “Whatever cry the demagogue may make about his ability to tax the rich, at the end of the year it will always be found that the people as a whole have paid the taxes.” Good taxation follows “the straight path of justice” by only taking what the government needs and no more.

Most of all, Coolidge had a sharp sense of the limits of what government could achieve. “We harbor no delusions about securing perfection. We know that mankind is finite,” he warned his fellow Republicans. This is a particularly important lesson for Romney, whose Mr. Fix-It attitude has at times recalled Herbert Hoover, to whom Coolidge referred dismissively as a “Wonder Boy.” There may be some problems that Romney-Ryan cannot fix.

[End of excerpts]

I can’t add anything to this — can you?

Getting Specific on Tax Reform — Should Romney and Ryan Be Bold?

14 Aug

Below are excerpts from a column by Nicole Gelinas. Her column is titled “Radicalizing Romney-Ryan”, and provides, I think, serious food for thought.  Ms. Gelinas is a contributing editor to the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal.  The entire column can be found at

http://www.city-journal.org/2012/eon0813ng.html

 Excerpts:  [Bolding is mine]

.  .  .  . Mitt Romney wants to lower tax rates.  .  .  .  Paul Ryan wants to cut spending by taking on America’s entitlement culture. The new ticket can marry these two ideas  .  .  .  introducing a plan to eliminate the biggest middle-class entitlements of all: cheap mortgages and employer-provided health care.

Romney’s “Believe in America” campaign blueprint and Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” budget map present the candidates’ viewpoints clearly. Romney wants “a fundamental redesign of our tax system.  .  .  .  To pay for tax-rate reductions  .  .  . he’d make the tax code “simpler” and “more efficient.” These are code phrases for taking away deductions, though he doesn’t say which ones. Ryan is more aggressive, saying that he’d .  .  .  pay for these lower rates by “clear[ing] out special interest loopholes”.  .  .  .All fine—but Ryan, like Romney, never says whichloopholes he would eliminate.

.  .  .  Romney and Ryan should target the places where the money is. Between 2010 and 2014, according to Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation, the federal government will spend $659.4 billion on allowing employers to pay for their employees’ health insurance with pretax income and $484.1 billion on allowing homeowners to deduct their mortgage-interest costs from their income. These are the two biggest tax breaks for individual filers (the first of the two counts as an individual break, not a corporate one, because it benefits individual people).

If Romney and Ryan are looking for tax breaks that “distort economic growth,” they don’t have to look far beyond these two items. Employers’ paying for workers’ health care out of [pre-tax] money .  .  . makes it impossible to create a real market for individual health insurance. Only when .  .  . Americans see how much health insurance actually costs .  .  .  and stop thinking of it as a perk of working for the Man, will we finally see real health-care reform.  .  .  . 

The mortgage-interest deduction .  .  .  . Between 2000 and 2007, mortgage debt doubled, and the government subsidized much of that borrowing. People could buy houses that they couldn’t afford and justify the purchases by saying they were lowering their taxes.  .  .  . 

.  .  .  .  The candidates could propose a bill that would gradually phase out both deductions, removing 10 percentage points of today’s benefit each year over a decade until there was nothing left. Such a proposal would constitute a cut in spending, though critics on both the left and the right would condemn it as a tax hike. When the government pays you to borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy a house, it’s spending money. When the government gives you generous deductions for acting in a particular way, it’s spending money.

.  .  .  voters would howl. People wouldn’t like paying more—directly, at least—for health care than they had before, and they wouldn’t want to lose an arrangement in which someone else pays for such a big chunk of their home-mortgage expenses. But then, welfare recipients didn’t like it at first when the feds reformed welfare. For that matter, today’s Americans shouldn’t feel grateful that the government rewards them for behaving exactly the way that it wants them to behave. They should feel insulted.

The GOP must attack these hidden entitlements. How will Washington ever be able to reform Medicare if it can’t even tell affluent people that it will no longer pick up part of the tab for their four-bedroom house? What’s the point of going after corporate-tax loopholes when the two biggest corporate-tax breaks constitute barely a tenth of the money that Washington spends each year on employer-paid health care and mortgage interest? How can Washington cut food stamps when it’s subsidizing Lipitor and Ambien for the middle class?

If Romney and Ryan make genuine tax reform a key part of their agenda, the election will show who Americans really are. Do we want fair taxes that enable individual choice? Or do we want a government that hands out goodies when we do what it wants us to do? However we answer, it’s better to know sooner than later.

[End of Excerpts]

As much as I would hate to lose my mortgage deduction, Ms. Gelinas provides some compelling reasons for considering ending these two high-impact taxpayer benefits.

Your thoughts?  Could a Romney/Ryan ticket ever win with such a plan?  Is Ms. Gelinas really pro-Obama and wants to witness the Obama landslide if Romney and Ryan get specific?

Ann Romney Is Right on the Money (So to Speak)

19 Jul

Saw another great interview of Ann Romney this morning — and I think it was on ABC’s “Good Morning America”.

The interviewer tried to trap her with the question about why Mitt won’t release more tax returns (even though there is no legal requirement for him to do so).

And Ann NAILED it.  I am not quoting, but she said what we all know — that this is a fishing expedition to find something — anything — that will divert attention away from Obama’s record.   Mitt is a very successful businessman and, no doubt, his tax returns are quite complex.  So complex, in fact, that it would be relatively easy for even you and me to find something to distort and fill up the airwaves for a while.  Meanwhile, the Dems don’t have to answer for the sorry performance of their programs.

Did I hear Mitt himself, though, say that he’d release his returns as soon as Obama unsealed his college records?  Maybe that was someone else.

Message to Mitt — “Do you have what it takes?”

17 Jul

Courtesy of my friend at http://Quixotetilts.blogspot.com

 

Obama to Mitt, “stop whining”. Quixote to Mitt, “cut it out Mitt, makes you look stupid”.

Mitt, this is not a game of tidily winks. It’s not even a prize fight. It is more akin to a duel to the death. The death of our nation that is. And even in a prize fight, I have yet to see a contender stop and ask his opponent to apologize.

The question to you from Quixote is this, “do you have what it takes to K O Obama”. Don’t let him manage your campaign. There is more than enough out there to put him on the canvas.

He came out of Chicago. His close associates were crooks. He has revealed absolutely nothing pertinent about himself. He has run the most secretive administration in recent years, maybe ever. He has broken ever campaign promise he made in his  run for the presidency. He has done a terribly bad job of running the country. He has ruined our reputation abroad. He has squandered the TARP money for no results. He worsened our economy. There are fewer people working today than when he took office even though he claims to have created millions of jobs.

You have supposedly, trained and capable political strategists. If what they have demonstrated thus far is the best they can come up with, you had better replace them.

And, what the heck are you going to do when elected? Do you have a plan? Can you communicate that plan to the voting public? Fifty-nine points ain’t gonna cut it. I’ll bet even you can’t recite them without notes.

In a few sentences, in 14 point type, on one sheet of 8 1/2 by 11 double spaced, just what the heck are you gonna do. Maybe  you should talk to ole Herman. You know the 9-9-9 man.

But absolutely “no more whining”.