Mitt Romney

Obama’s Extended Federal Family Responds to Sandy

Leo Gerard — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 07:40:15 -0500

In New Jersey, as Barack Obama and Chris Christie met last week to survey the devastation Hurricane Sandy caused, the President placed a reassuring hand on the heartsick governor’s shoulder. Later, the President embraced storm victim Donna Vanzant in Brigantine, N.J., and told her and all East Coast residents that he and the nation “are here for you.”

Here for you means the federal government would muster all its resources to help Americans devastated by a deadly hurricane to restore some sense of normalcy to their upturned lives and to help rebuild their homes and communities.

Americans unfailingly rally to the aid of those in need. A youngster helps grandma across the street. A community builds a wheelchair ramp for an injured veteran. Sometimes, though, the tragedy is too massive for the scale of help that families and neighborhoods can provide. Then Americans turn to the federal government to help them deliver safety and solace. This is among the most profound and basic duties of government. Barack Obama has insisted that it be performed well because he believes government can be – and must be – a force for good.
President Barack Obama greets New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on arriving in Atlantic City after Hurricane Sandy. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

It’s not a matter of big government or small government. Although, frankly, a government small enough to drown in a bathtub, as Republican lobbyist Grover Norquist seeks, would not be large enough to respond to catastrophes such as Sandy’s destruction across 15 states or to the 750 tornadoes that ripped through the South and Midwest, including Joplin, Mo., in April and May last year. And a federal government that fobbed off responsibility for emergency management to the states or to private enterprise, as Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said he wanted to do during the GOP primary debates, would not be prepared to respond adequately to American catastrophes.

Romney has walked back those statements now, contending after Sandy hit that he wouldn’t eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). But the nation has seen what happens when a president is careless about the federal government helping Americans during emergencies. That would be, specifically, former President Bush’s reaction to Hurricane Katrina.

First, Bush chose patronage over qualifications in naming a FEMA director, appointing to the post an Arabian Horse Association functionary who had absolutely no experience or training in emergency management. Then when Katrina hit, the administration virtually ignored it – failing to respond to pleas for help from desperate governors and mayors; failing to cut short vacations, or even meals, to work on hurricane response, failing to provide available federal resources as Americans died in the Superdome.

In stark contrast, Obama demanded credentials when he selected his FEMA director. He went so far as to ignore party affiliation – appointing William Craig Fugate, a Republican. Fugate, who began his career as a firefighter and paramedic, was director of the Florida emergency management agency – a position that exposed him to rigors of responding to disasters, particularly hurricanes.

Even before Sandy struck the East Coast, Obama and Fugate began planning and coordinating a response. Proactively, the President called 20 governors and mayors to offer help and arrange expedited disaster declarations. He called Christie several times during the storm and gave the governor his personal phone number so Christie could reach him directly. He ordered FEMA and other federal officials to respond to calls from political leaders within 15 minutes. Everyone focused on the impending calamity.

Before the hurricane made landfall, FEMA organized search and rescue teams, sent 139 ambulances to New York, and established support centers with supplies like generators and blankets in New Jersey and Massachusetts. By Monday evening, when the storm hit New Jersey with winds of 80 miles an hour, FEMA had already delivered hundreds of thousands of ready-to-eat meals and bottled water for New Jersey residents who might need it. There would be no Superdome fiasco in New Jersey or New York.

By Wednesday, President Obama joined Christie in New Jersey to assess the devastation in person. A clearly exhausted Christie, who had previously been a vocal critic of the President, expressed strong support for Obama’s response to the storm, saying:

“The president has been all over this, and he deserves great credit.”

President Barack Obama embraces Donna Vanzant, owner of a New Jersey marina damaged by Hurricane Sandy. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

When tragedy occurs, we all naturally turn to our families first, brothers and sisters, parents and cousins, aunts and uncles who we know we can depend on, who we know will give us comfort and relief.

Obama sees government as an extended family. He referred to the federal agencies he collected to respond to Hurricane Sandy as a federal family. We all have immediate biological families, but we all also belong to the American family. We share American experiences and values, privileges and responsibilities.

President Obama has said many times that he believes we all are our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers. Here’s what he says in his speeches:

“Yes, our road is longer, but we travel it together. We don’t turn back. We leave no one behind. We pull each other up.”

That is what he sees American family members doing for each other. That is how Americans pull together to help fellow Americans struck by tragedy. And when the tragedy is of gargantuan proportions, Obama believes that to respond effectively, the federal family must be more than competent. It must be good to do good.

In addition to providing the bottled water and rescue teams, the federal family must, just as any good family member would, just as President Obama did in New Jersey, wrap consoling arms around the traumatized.

Romney Willing to Win Without Honor

Leo Gerard — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 09:39:03 -0400

Mitt Romney kept quiet last week when the subject was rape and God’s will. He remained silent the week before when the news was all about Illinois factory workers pleading with him to stop his alma mater Bain Capital from offshoring their jobs.

At no time this year did Mitt denounce Republican employers who threatened their workers if President Obama is re-elected or condemn repeated Republican legislative attempts to suppress Democratic votes.

Throughout the campaign, Mitt Romney confronted numerous George Washington moments -- opportunities to establish an aura of honor. It takes moxie to tell fellow Republicans that voter suppression is un-American. Only a guy with strongly held principles would stand up to the firm he founded and insist they stop the morally bankrupt practice of offshoring jobs from profit-making American factories. At every turn, Romney chose the ignoble path. He kept his mouth shut rather than speak up for what’s right.

Just last week, an opportunity for righteousness landed in Romney’s lap. It happened when the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Indiana, Richard E. Mourdock, said he opposed all abortions, even in cases of rape, and suggested that God intends rape to happen. Here’s what Mourdock said:

“Even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, it is something that God intended to happen.”

Romney could have specifically renounced this view – that God intends women to be raped and become pregnant as a result. And he could have underscored that position by ending television ads in which he endorses Mourdock.

But he didn’t. A campaign spokeswoman said Mitt “disagreed” with Mourdock on that rape thing, but still supports him. Since then, Mitt has refused to answer questions about Mourdock. And he’s kept airing his Mourdock endorsement ads.

Clearly, Mitt values a Republican-controlled U.S. Senate over a decent stand on rape.

Just the week before, heightened news coverage of the plight of workers at the Sensata factory in Freeport, Ill. gave Romney another opportunity to do the right thing.

He chose to do nothing.

The 170 workers at Sensata will lose their jobs at year’s end when Bain Capital finishes shipping the car sensor factory lock, stock and machinery to China. The workers have repeatedly petitioned Romney to intervene with Bain, a firm he created and still profits from, to stop the offshoring.

Romney stiffed them. The candidate who claims he would create 12 million jobs if elected president failed to make an attempt to save the jobs of these 170 workers at a successful, money-making American factory. He didn’t send the workers his condolences for personally profiting from their calamity. He has never even acknowledged the Sensata workers’ existence.

At virtually any moment as he ran for president over the past two years, Romney could have very publically deplored Republican attempts to suppress Democratic votes. That’s because virtually continuously over that time, Republican-controlled legislatures, Republican governors and other GOP officials have concocted a variety of measures to wrest from Democrats their right to vote. These include passing onerous photo ID requirements, limiting early balloting and aggressively purging voter rolls.

These measures disproportionately affect minority, poor, disabled, elderly and women voters, all of whom tend to vote Democrat. Among the most egregious examples occurred in Ohio where the secretary of state tried to limit poll hours in Democratic-dominated counties and extend them in Republican-controlled counties.

At any time during the massive publicity over any one of these incidents across the country – from Maine to Montana and Florida to Arizona – Romney could have stood up and spoken for fairness. He never did – not even after the Republican National Committee was forced to fire a shady voter registration firm that was caught in September submitting hundreds of fraudulent registration forms in Florida or after a Republican operative in Virginia was criminally charged in October with throwing completed voter registration forms in a Dumpster.

A simple statement from Romney would have sufficed: winning by means of voter suppression and registration fraud is craven and beneath the dignity of anyone seeking public office. But he said nothing.

Similar to voter suppression is the attempt at voter coercion that has been made by numerous employers this year. Just this past week, Mike White, owner of Rite-Hite, a Milwaukee industrial equipment manufacturer, threatened his workers with “personal consequences” if President Obama is re-elected. Earlier this month, timeshare mogul David Siegel, who is building himself a 90,000-square-foot, $100 million home, threatened to lay off his workers if President Obama is re-elected. Arthur Allen of ASG Software Solutions and the Koch brothers of Georgia Pacific, told their tens of thousands of workers they’d suffer fallout if Romney loses.

Romney could have acted as a shield for workers by condemning this intimidation. Instead, in a June conference call with business owners, Romney encouraged bullying. He told the business owners:

"I hope you make it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your enterprise and therefore their job and their future in the upcoming elections.”

What Americans want is a president like George Washington. The general’s appeal is not the quirky wooden teeth or odd half-finished portrait. It’s the never-tell-a-lie, step-down-from-power nobility of the guy. Romney, by contrast, has shown he’s willing to win without honor. He doesn’t seem to know Americans won’t elect a candidate they believe lacks nobility.

Who Really Did "Forget Ed" In The Presidential Debates

Jeff Bryant — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 15:24:41 -0400

Way back at the beginning of this summer, an eternity it seems in this exhausting presidential campaign, The College Board launched its Don’t Forget Ed campaign to "get the candidates to prioritize education this election."

The campaign kicked off, according to an article in USA Today, with two installations. The first stunt was to line up rows of 857 empty school desks on the National Mall to represent the number of students who "drop out of school each hour of every school day." The second was to pile a six-foot-high stack of fake $100 bills on Wall Street to represent the $1.5 billion that would be put into the economy each year if the high school dropout rate was reduced by 1%.

Months before The College Board's campaign started, however, The Beltway Class had already determined The Very Serious Issues for this election. And education wasn't to be one of them.

Now that the three presidential debates have run their course, it's obvious that education has indeed been relegated to a side issue at best. But it's not the candidates' fault.

Candidates Squeeze Education In When They Can

Thanks to the relentless reporting of Alyson Klein and Michelle McNeil on the their Politics K-12 blog at the education trade newspaper Education Week, we know that the candidates had quite a bit to say about education -- although they were almost never directly asked about it.

In the first debate, education was inserted into the discussion, unprompted by the moderator, in the context of jobs and the deficit.

As McNeil reported, Obama brought education to the fore "when moderator Jim Lehrer asked him how, exactly, he plans to create more jobs." And Obama brought up education again "when the candidates squared off on how they would cut the deficit," referring to his efforts to consolidate education programs that the Republicans in Congress decided to cut anyway.

"Romney, too," McNeil noted, "stressed the education and jobs connection," and "that he would not cut federal education funding if elected."

In the second debate, a town-hall style event, a question came from a college student "who asked what the candidates were going to do to make sure a good-paying job awaited him upon graduation." This, by the way, was the only question, during all three debates, that even remotely asked the candidates to address the subject of education directly. And both candidates, again, linked education to "jobs" and "economic success."

The topic of education came up two more times during the debate, when the candidates were asked about immigration and assault weapons. Each time, the candidates pivoted from those difficult, perhaps more confrontational, issues to education policy. Regarding immigration, Romney brought up the DREAM act, which lets undocumented immigrants qualify for permanent residency if they have acquired a college degree or completed at least 2 years.

When the topic of gun violence came up, Romney said "good schools could perhaps bring down violence," and Obama used it as an opportunity to "allude to the common core standards (although not by name), and his school turnaround program."

In the final debate, which was supposed to be devoted exclusively to foreign affairs, the candidates became embroiled in arguments "over class size, teachers, and education funding." Again, as in the two previous debates, the candidates' brought up education un-promoted by the moderator, when questions about American economic competitiveness and future stature in the world came up.

There are only two ways to look at this.

Either you could be really cynical and conclude that the candidates pivot to education when they are confronted with difficult questions they don't want to address and grab on to that issue because they assume it's safer ground to strut their stuff.

Or you could conclude that the candidates bring up education because it has enormous systemic impact on nearly every topic the media aim to address -- and because of that influence, people think education is really, really important.

But either way you look at it, you have to conclude, based on the debates, education isn't a bigger factor in the election because people in the media, other than focused concerns like Education Week, just don't care.

What The Media Could Learn If They Cared

If major newsprint pundits and TV talking heads cared as much about education as they do about Big Bird and "binders full of women," they might learn two very interesting things that actually do draw meaningful distinctions between the two candidates.

First, again from the reporters at Education Week, in a less reported series of debates featuring education advisers to the rival campaigns, the discussion revealed that "the campaigns disagree most over how involved the federal government should be" in determining policies and funding for local public schools.

The Obama side clearly supports the federal government's role in pushing schools toward new standards and certain levels of service, and using increased funding to support those efforts.

The Romney camp clearly breaks from those precedents to allow states more leeway in how they provide education services and how they direct funding to providers -- even those who are private concerns.

Questions about the federal role in education are especially important now when many states could be accused of falling short of meeting their constitutional obligations to provide children with an adequate education.

School funding at the state level is woefully short and increasingly looking bleak. According to a study conducted by the Center on Budget and Policy Priority,

States have made steep cuts to education funding since the start of the recession and, in many states, those cuts deepened over the last year. Elementary and high schools are receiving less state funding in the 2012-13 school year than they did last year in 26 states, and in 35 states school funding now stands below 2008 levels — often far below.

Furthermore, many states are short-changing their schools that need money the most. A recent study issued from the Center for American Progress found that there are many states "where combined state and local revenues are systematically lower in higher-poverty districts -- that is, states with 'regressive' school funding distributions."

"What makes these patterns more offensive," the study author Bruce Baker notes, "is that each of these states is taking billions of statewide taxpayer dollars and channeling them back to lower-poverty districts, which are much less in need of state funding support. These states could achieve far more equitable distribution of resources and far more adequate educational opportunities in high-poverty settings if these resources were allocated based on student need."

The problem of inadequate and inequitable funding is so bad in a state like Texas, for example, attorneys representing around 600 school districts are actually suing the state.

Second, if the media cared at all about education, they would be curious why many of the most ardent critics of the Obama policies, aside from teachers unions, are endorsing him anyway.

It makes sense that teachers unions back the president, because the Romney campaign has so clearly demonized them. But why would other critics of the president's polices, who have less skin in the game, come to his support?

Within the past two weeks, for example, two of the most prominent critics of the Obama edu-policies -- Diane Ravitch and Pedro Noguero, have come out in support of Obama.

While their endorsements of Obama differ somewhat, what they certainly have in common is that, in Ravitch's words, "as bad as the Obama education policies are, they are tolerable in comparison to what Mitt Romney plans."

What Romney and the Republicans plan, in particular, that frightens them is, in Noguero's words, "nothing other than the promise of more cuts because they see education spending as a wasteful social entitlement."

So dear Media, unless you really wish to "Forget Ed," how about posing to candidates a couple of questions:

"What is the role of the federal government in education and what should it do about states that are drastically underfunding schools -- especially schools serving the most underserved children -- to the extent that they violate their constitutional obligations?"

"What kind of education are America's children entitled to and how much should we spend on it?"

Even with less than two weeks left in the campaign, there's still enough time to ask.

Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/jeffbcdm

Mitt Romney: The Empty Suit Clueless About the Empty Chair

Leo Gerard — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:01:56 -0400

Billy Koehler died on March 7, 2009, for lack of health insurance. Mitt Romney said on Oct. 10, 2012, that’s impossible.

The Republican nominee for President told The Columbus Dispatch newspaper last week:

“We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance.”

Technically, that’s true of Billy Koehler. He didn’t die in his apartment. He died in his car. Koehler suffered cardiac arrest and perished slumped over his steering wheel at a stop sign in Pittsburgh because he didn’t have health insurance and didn’t have $60,000 to replace his implanted defibrillator.

Romney, a quarter-billionaire born with a silver foot in his mouth, has shielded himself from the world in which America’s many Billy Koehlers exist. Their paths don’t naturally cross. Billy Koehlers don’t hang out with Romney’s NASCAR owner pals. Billy Koehlers don’t disparage the nation’s elderly and impoverished at fundraisers in the homes of private equity moguls. FDR and JFK made an effort to understand the joys and hardships of the non-rich. But Romney hasn’t. And that’s why he so carelessly called America’s Billy Koehlers a deliberately dependent underclass, albeit one comprising 47 percent of all citizens. Because Romney knows nothing of the lives of the nation’s Billy Koehlers, the Republican nominee can dismiss their medical predicaments as nonexistent and assure wealthy donors he won’t “worry about those people.”

Romney told the Columbus newspaper that no one needs to worry about those lacking health insurance because federal law requires hospitals to treat emergency cases:

“We don’t have a setting across this country where if you don’t have insurance, we say to you, ‘Tough luck, you’re going to die when you have your heart attack.”

He continued:

“No, you go to the hospital; you get treated; you get care, and it’s paid for, either by charity, the government or by the hospital.”

Logically, then, the solution would be for no one to buy insurance. Why bother? Hospitals must treat and bill someone else, according to Romney.

But it doesn’t work that way. The late Billy Koehler is an example of how it actually operates – how it fails to work for 26,100 to 45,000 Americans who die each year for lack of insurance.

Billy’s sister, Georgeanne Koehler, a retired hospital worker and member of the Service Employees International Union, told his story at rallies for passage of Obamacare, taking with her an empty chair in his memory. She celebrated the law’s passage in 2010, particularly its provision forbidding insurance companies from denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions. That might have saved her brother.

Billy was just 39 when he suffered his first cardiac arrest. An electronics technician, he had health insurance through his employer, and that paid for surgery to implant a defibrillator. Still, over the years, Billy spent his entire $25,000 in pension savings on medical bills that insurance did not pay.

In 2003, Billy lost his job and his health insurance when the company he worked for closed. He tried to get another job with health insurance but could not. He tried to buy health coverage privately, but every insurer in Pennsylvania denied his request because of his pre-existing heart condition. He didn’t qualify for Medicaid because he earned slightly too much money in his new job as a pizza delivery driver.

While at work on Dec. 14, 2007, he collapsed in the pizza shop. He survived, but a cardiologist told him that his defibrillator needed to be replaced. Because Billy had no insurance, the doctor required payment up front.

Romney’s right about one thing. The hospital treated Billy as an emergency cardiac arrest victim. But the hospital emergency room wasn’t required to give him surgery to replace the defibrillator. And neither Billy, nor his sister, had $60,000 to pay for it out of pocket.

Less than two years later, as Billy drove home from work, he suffered cardiac arrest again. And he died. For lack of health insurance.

Under Obamacare, insurers can’t deny coverage to people like Billy because of pre-existing conditions. Obamacare also established high-risk pools for people like Billy. And Obamacare will extend Medicaid to more low-income people like Billy.

Romney has pledged to repeal Obamacare on his first day in office. Like a 21^st Century Marie Antoinette, he says: let ‘em go to the emergency room.

Romney’s prescription doesn’t work. It wouldn’t work for his own wife, Ann, who has multiple sclerosis and survived breast cancer. As quarter billionaires, the Romneys have the best insurance in the world. But without it, a hospital emergency room would not have provided Ann Romney with the care she needed. Emergency rooms don’t perform lumpectomies or radiation therapy. Emergency rooms don’t provide therapy for fatigue, dizziness, numbness or paralysis caused by MS. Emergency rooms don’t dispense MS drugs that can cost $3,000 a month. Romney’s clearly unaware of the empty chair campaign. Not having health insurance or $60,000 for surgery is inconceivable to him. He bought his wife a $500,000 dressage horse for MS therapy, after all.

America can’t afford to have in the White House an empty Armani who has made no attempt to find out what it’s like to try to survive uninsured, who remains clueless about all the chairs in America emptied by lack of insurance. The nation can’t afford a president so comatose to the lives of average Americans.

Here Is What Is Happening With #Sensata

Dave Johnson — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 11:55:18 -0400

Uppdate -- See More Arrests At #Sensata Factory That Is Moving Jobs To China then come back for details.

If you are hearing about a company names Sensata, here is the story. Right now this company is moving equipment out of a factory in Freeport, Il. and shipping it to China. They are making the workers there train their Chinese replacements. And the end of the year they are laying off the American workers. The workers have set up a camp across from the factory and have named it Bainport. (please click!) Supporters are trying to block the trucks, and some have been arrested. This is all happening right now, even as Mitt Romney says he wants to "get tough on China." So the workers have asked Romney to come to Freeport and help them.

"The week before they came they took the American flag down outside the plant. The week after they left they put it back up."

See Wendi Kent's moving photos of the Bainport camp, where workers are asking Romney to hep them:

Bainport, Illinois Pt.1

Bainport, Illinois Pt.2- Profits Over People

What's Going On?

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney started the "private equity" firm Bain Capital. Bain Capital makes its money by purchasing companies using "leveraged buyouts" that borrow huge sums using the purchased company's own assets as collateral. They often use part of the borrowed money to immediately pay itself. Bain then cuts costs by doing things like sending jobs to China, cutting wages and manipulating tax rules to cut taxes owed, along with standard big-business practices like consolidating business units, taking advantage of economies of scale not available to smaller competitors, squeezing distribution channels for price cuts, and other practices that bring competitive advantages. (Please see So DID Mitt Romney Really "Create Jobs" At Staples? for a look at how this works.) Then, after reorganizing the purchased companies Bain "harvests" them for profit. ("Harvest" is Romney's word, watch the linked video.)

Bain Capital purchased a sensor manufacturer that makes key components for our automobile supply chain, and named it Sensata. They immediately announced they closing a factory in Freeport, Ill., and sending the manufacturing and jobs to China to save money. (This is significant because China is engaged in efforts to dominate American auto supplies. See China Cheating Costs 400K Auto Parts Jobs and Why The Latest Trade Complaint Against China Matters. )

Bain/Sensata brought in Chinese workers and made the Freeport workers train them. Bain/Sensata is moving the equipment out of the Freeport factory and shipping it to China right now. The Freeport employees have set up a camp outside the factory that they call Bainport and are trying to stop the Bain trucks that are moving the equipment out for shipment to China. Supporters were arrested this week, trying to stop those trucks.

The Sensata employees have asked Romney to come to Freeport/Bainport and help them. Read on to learn about Romney's response to the Sensata workers, and how Romney is actually making big money right now from shipping their jobs to China.

Romney's Opportunity

Mitt Romney is not running Bain Capital anymore. While he still makes millions from the company, and gets checks from the profits made when they ship jobs to China), this is a tremendous opportunity for him. Can you imagine a better spokesman for the Bainport employees than the former head of Bain Capital, who now says he opposes the kinds of things that Bain Capital is doing here?

This is an opportunity for Romney to show the public that he actually means it when he says he wants to do something about companies sending jobs to China! Here is his former company, people who know him, sending jobs to China right now and there is no one in a better position to put pressure on them to stop this than the former head of the company, and on top of that a presidential candidate!

What an opportunity for Romney to show that he means what he says!

Will Romney Help?

Mitt Romney wants to be President, and polls show that the public overwhelmingly wants something done about jobs and factories moving to China and the resulting was pressure that puts on the rest of us and on our economy. So Romney says he will do something about it.

But Romney's current actions are opposite his current words. He complains about China currency manipulation, but refuses to ask the Republican House leadership to bring the China currency bill up for a vote, and refuses to ask more than 60 Republican co-sponsors of that bill to sign a "discharge petition" that would force a vote.

And Romney refuses to even meet with Sensata workers. When asked if Romney would help these workers the Romney campaign says Romney will not do it:

"Governor Romney has not worked at Bain Capital for over a decade, but for four years President Obama has been presiding over an economy that is creating too few jobs and sending more jobs overseas. Despite the President being invested in Sensata through his personal pension fund, and the government owning a major Sensata customer in GM, President Obama has not used his powers to help this situation in any way."— Curt Cashour, Romney Campaign Spokesman.

PS - SNL

Here is SNL addressing the disparity between how Chinese workers are treated (because they don't have a say) and American expectations:

For More On Sensata

Is This Why Romney Won't Talk To Sensata Workers Whose Jobs Are Being Shipped To China?

You Should Know About Sensata - It's What The Election Is About

Election Or Not, What Happens To Sensata-Style Workers?

Blocking Bain Trucks To Save Jobs In Freeport – This Is An IMPORTANT Story

Breaking – Arrests At Sensata "Bainport" Camp

Paul Harris at The Guardian: 'I'm sick to my stomach': anger grows in Illinois at Bain's latest outsourcing plan

Also, see:

Bain Of Our Existence - Go-To place for stories and info about Bain Capital.

Laura Clawson at Daily Kos: Mitt Romney profits as Bain sends American jobs to China PLUS a Daily Kos campaign:
Send a message of support to the Sensata workers as they fight to keep their jobs and shine a light on what a Romney economy would look like.

Unraveling The Romney/Bain Tax Story,

Romney, Jobs And China – Let's Connect Dots

Rights Report Describes Romney-Owned "Brutal Chinese Sweatshop"

Romney, Republicans Again Side With China Over US Companies

Ohio And China – One Side Promises While The Other Delivers

China Is Very "Business-Friendly"

Will Conservatives Support American Companies ... Or Chinese?

Ohio And China -- One Side Promises While The Other Delivers

Here is a Democracy Now! report:

Mitt Romney: Magic Man

Leo Gerard — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 09:28:38 -0400

"I’m gonna float like a butterfly and sting like a bee;
George can’t hit what his hands can’t see;
Now you see me, now you don’t;
He thinks he will, but I know he won’t." ~ Muhammad Ali

At last week’s presidential debate, Mitt Romney floated like a butterfly and stung like a bee.

He punched and parried, feigning the great Muhammad Ali.

Any likeness between the two is, however, mere illusion. America has seen victory by Muhammad Ali. America worked through disputes with Muhammad Ali. Now America admires Muhammad Ali. And Mitt Romney is no champion. Instead, Romney's a magic man. He employs sleight of hand. He uses smoke and mirrors to confuse and obscure. Unlike President Obama, Mitt doesn't do math. He performs tricks, sorta like Muhammad Ali said in his rhyme – Now you see severely conservative Romney, now you don’t. The GOP nominee asks Americans to engage in magical thinking – to believe his hocus-pocus is not just a stage show but will actually painlessly solve problems.

Last week, Romney promoted his magic show during the debate. He promised his performance as president would be fabulous, stupendous, unprecedented! He bragged:

“My plan is not like anything that’s been tried before.”

Specifically, he was talking about his tax plan. Romney has pledged to reinstate the Bush tax cuts should they expire at year’s end as scheduled, then further slash income taxes by 20 percent for everyone. Also, Romney has vowed to eliminate and cut other federal taxes, including the estate tax.

Here’s the part where Romney promises to accomplish something never done before: he says he’ll slash and burn all these taxes but not add a dime to the deficit or to the tax burden of the middle class. When Ronald Reagan made a similar promise, George Bush I called it voodoo economics. George Bush II tried this magic trick and failed. Bush gave everyone, particularly the rich, tax breaks. Then the federal deficit skyrocketed. To quote a bumbling former Republican presidential candidate, “Whoops.”

Romney says that won’t happen when he performs as president. He’s too good. The illusionist swore to the nation Wednesday night:

“My, my number one principal is, there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit. I want to underline that: no tax cut that adds to the deficit.”

He hasn’t specified how he’d accomplish that because, as you know, magic tricks are proprietary secrets. He’s offered a couple of enticing tidbits, however.

One is that he’d close tax loopholes and deductions to recoup income lost because of all those tax cuts. But he won’t say which ones because, again, those proprietary magic secrets.

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center (TPC) analyzed Romney’s proposal and concluded it didn’t add up – even when they gave him lots of breaks because his plan is clandestine. To get back $1 from closed loopholes for every $1 in tax cuts, the TPC determined that Romney would have to eliminate breaks favored by the middle class, such the mortgage deduction. And that means Romney’s plan would cost middle class families an additional $2,000 a year on average, the TPC said.

Still, Romney assured the American people last week:

“I will not, under any circumstances, raise taxes on middle-income families. I will lower taxes on middle-income families.”

Abracadabra!

Romney insists his bag of tricks contains one that will enable him to defy the math of the TPC economists, who served in both Republican and Democratic administrations. One way would be to do what Bush did, just cut taxes and increase the deficit. Romney contends that’s not in his repertoire:

“I won't put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit. That's part one. So there's no economist can say Mitt Romney's tax plan adds $5 trillion if I say I will not add to the deficit with my tax plan.”

Nobody can say it if Mitt Romney says they can’t! He dismisses pesky economic experts with a wave of his magic wand.

Just as he’d heal the budget, Romney would patch up the nation’s health care system -- with pixie dust.

First, he says he’d repeal Obamacare on day one. Second, he told debate listeners:

“What I support is no change for current retirees or near-retirees to Medicare.”

Logically, or mathematically, or realistically, that won’t work. As of August, 5.4 million seniors had saved $4.1 billion on prescription drugs, about $768 each, because Obamacare closes the Medicare prescription plan donut hole. And, under Obamacare, this year more than 18 million Medicare recipients received at least one preventive service for free. Killing Obamacare would mean seniors would have to pay those costs once again from their own limited funds. This would be a costly change to Medicare for current retirees and near-retirees.

Also, Obamacare extended the life of Medicare by eight years. It did so by reducing payments to medical facilities by $716 billion over a decade, reductions accepted by the providers when the law was negotiated. Romney says he will eliminate the savings to Medicare and give those payments to the medical facilities. That, logically, would snuff out the life of Medicare eight years earlier, which would be a tragic change to Medicare for current retirees and near-retirees.

But, you know, presto-chango, Romney says it ain’t so.

Many aspects of Obamacare are beloved by those who have benefitted, including extending coverage for young adults on their parents’ plans, eliminating coverage caps and instituting rebates when insurers charge too much. But perhaps the most important Obamacare protection was the specification that insurers can’t deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.
Repealing Obamacare would eliminate that benefit. Romney’s response at the debate:

“In fact, I do have a plan that deals with people with pre-existing conditions.”

Romney’s plan could exclude millions, however, since it guarantees insurance only if the person with a pre-existing condition has maintained coverage without a lapse longer than three months.

But, no worries. In Romney’s magical world, if we all just clap loudly enough, Tinker Bell won’t die!

Like any good magician, Romney keeps the details of his plans for America hidden up his sleeve. Taking a cue from that Muhammad Ali rhyme, he believes:

Your hands can't hit what your eyes can't see.

Arrests At Sensata "Bainport" Camp

Dave Johnson — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:48:35 -0400

Sensata is a Bain-owned company that is closing a factory in in Freeport, Il to move the jobs to China. The workers have set up a camp they call "Bainport" and workers and supporters are trying to block the Bain trucks that are moving equipment out to ship to China right now. In breaking news there were arrests made today.

Last week in the post Blocking Bain Trucks To Save Jobs In Freeport -- This Is An IMPORTANT Story I wrote about the Sensata workers in Freeport who have set up a camp they call Bainport, and are asking Mitt Romney to show that he means what he is saying about cracking down on China by coming to Freeport and asking his former company not to send these jobs to China.

The Sensata workers camping at Bainport as asking Mitt Romney to come help them keep their jobs. Romney insists that he has nothing to do with Bain Capital anymore (his tax returns showed that he gets more than $400,000 a week from Bain investments).

Helping the Sensata workers would show that he means it when he says he has nothing to do with the things Bain does now, and that he will do something about the jobs being sent to China. What better opportunity to prove both than to show up and confront Bain for sending these jobs to China!

Romney, Bain And The Outsourcing Strategy

Mitt Romney and Bain "pioneered" outsourcing strategies. They invested in companies set up to help other companies send jobs to China, and they especially used offshoring in their strategies to avoid paying the taxes that enable We, the People to have good schools, roads, courts etc. The NY Times story, Offshore Tactics Helped Increase Romneys’ Wealth explained,

Some of the offshore entities enabled Bain-owned companies to sidestep certain taxes, increasing returns for Mr. Romney and other investors. Others helped Bain attract foreign investors and nonprofit institutions by insulating them from taxes, again augmenting Mr. Romney’s bottom line, since he shared in management fees based on the size of each Bain fund.

In Unraveling The Romney/Bain Tax Story I explained how it works,

The complicated story of how the 1%ers and their corporations evade democracy's taxes is the story of our crumbling schools and infrastructure and the flow of all the gains of our economy to a very few at the top. This tax evasion is also part of the story of our deficits and debt. The tax evasion is "legal" -- because the tax evaders pay the people who write the tax laws. And even as their tax evasion adds to our budget deficits and debt, the 1%ers are insisting we close the deficit by cutting Social Security, Medicare and "safety-net" programs!

[. . .] The American-based entities can buy American companies without incurring "foreign-based" obligations. Then the foreign-based entities can avoid the taxes that the American-based buyers of companies would have to pay. And the foreign-based investors can be in the foreign-based parts of the company, avoiding US tax obligations. Also American entities like pension funds can avoid US taxes they would otherwise have to pay.

To put it another way, the same company can pretend it is US-based when that is what it needs to be, and foreign-based when that is what it needs to be.

Mitt Romney is wealthy because he engaged in strategies to lay people off, sending their jobs to China and pocketing the wage differential for himself. Then his companies would force people to take wage cuts or risk losing their jobs, too, and pocking the wage difference for himself. The profits from these "enterprises" were manipulated in ways that enabled him to pay very little in taxes, so the rest of us end up not only with layoffs and lower wages, but bad schools, crumbling infrastructure and government debt.

Then later, Mitt Romney can claim that We the People are the cause of the resulting government debt and that we need "austerity" -- less for We, the People in order to keep taxes low.

Arrests

Today community members supporting the Sensata workers were arrested for trying to block Bain trucks from sending the factory's equipment to China.

Visit the Bainport blog for pictures and details.

Romney Loves American Cars; Obama Loves American Car Workers

Leo Gerard — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:17:49 -0400

GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, son of an American Motors CEO, naturally says he loves American cars. His wife, as he put it, “drives a couple of Cadillacs.” He’s installing an elevator in his beach mansion just for his cars. Though a millionaire, he rejected flying his five sons to a vacation destination, instead packing them into a car, then strapping their dog Seamus’ carrier to the car roof for a ride that, shall we say, challenged the canine’s intestinal fortitude.

President Barack Obama, by contrast, has given some love to American car companies and American car workers. He rescued Chrysler and General Motors, preserving the American icon companies and hundreds of thousands of American car manufacturing jobs. He imposed sanctions on Chinese tires that received improper export subsidies, a move that saved thousands of U.S. tire-building jobs. And now he’s challenging illegally-subsidized Chinese auto parts to sustain American companies and workers.

Romney has blasted Obama every auto-manufacturing-job-preserving step of the way. On the auto bailout, Romney admonished, “Let Detroit go bankrupt.” He condemned the tariffs on Chinese tires. Romney claims he loves American cars. But the actions of his private equity firm, Bain Capital, in buying companies that were “pioneers” in offshoring American jobs, suggest he’s fine with American firms making cars and car parts overseas. Obama, by contrast, took the action necessary to ensure American cars are made in America by American companies employing American workers.

Here’s what Romney actually said about his adoration for cars:

“I love cars. I love American cars. And long may they rule the world.”

When it came to helping them continue to rule the world, however, Romney dissed Detroit.

President Obama embraced Detroit. He took money from the Wall Street bailout fund and used it to help GM and Chrysler continue to rule the world. GM regained the title of world’s largest car company in January and hundreds of thousands of auto and auto part manufacturing workers retained their jobs.

Similarly, in September of 2009, President Obama imposed duties on unfairly traded Chinese tires. My union, the United Steelworkers (USW), filed the trade case that led to those duties. The sanctions saved thousands of tire-making jobs in the United States and contributed to creation of 1,000 more.

Earlier this year, the USW, the Alliance for American Manufacturing and 189 members of Congress urged Obama to take yet another trade action, this one to protect American auto parts manufacturers and their workers. The request followed publication of four reports detailing China’s illegal export subsidies to its auto parts sector. Nations may subsidize manufacturing for internal consumption, but international law prohibits subsidizing products to be exported because it distorts the market, causing the bankruptcy of manufacturers in countries where the artificially cheap products are sold.

The auto parts complaint says that forbidden export subsidies, including cash grants, preferential tax treatment and other perks valued at $1 billion over the past three years enabled China to jump from 16^th largest producer of auto parts in 2002, when it exported $7 billion in parts, to 5^th largest last year when it exported $70 billion.

The upshot is that imports of auto parts from China increased seven fold, contributing to the loss of nearly half of all U.S. auto parts jobs – 400,000 – since 2000. An example is Olymco, Inc. a Canton, Ohio, metal-plating company where 100 workers, members of the USW, once made auto parts. Now, mainly as a result of subsidized Chinese competition, only 11 workers remain.

The predatory Chinese practices encourage U.S. auto parts makers to offshore manufacturing, and now some of the largest U.S. auto parts companies produce in China.

Sensata, a car parts manufacturer in Freeport, Ill. is among those on the way to China. The 145 workers in Freeport, who make sensors and controls, are training their Chinese replacements.

These workers may return to China to join many there who are packed into dormitories that rival turn of the 20^th Century U.S. tenements for slum conditions. Romney described workers in a Chinese appliance factory he visited:

“working, working, working as hard as they could, at rates of roughly 50 cents an hour. They cared about their jobs; they wouldn’t even look up as we walked by.”

That’s right. These exploited workers kept their heads down. These 50-cent-an-hour laborers feared they’d be fired for the audacity of looking at a quarter billionaire American visitor.

Sensata is owned by Bain Capital, the company Romney founded in 1984, the private equity firm that Romney claims he left in 1999, even though it continued to pay him millions for a decade afterward. The workers at Sensata have publically begged Romney to intervene with Bain on their behalf to keep the factory in the United States. They’ve collected 35,000 signatures supporting their cause. They’ve got the backing of the Freeport City Council, U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky and Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn. They’re camping outside the factory in a tent city called Bainport. But Romney hasn’t responded. No word from the candidate who claims to love American cars.

He loves owning ‘em. He relishes riding them up and down on elevators. But when it comes to showing a little love for car businesses and car workers, Romney’s frigid. Just ask the workers cooling their heels at Bainport.

The auto parts case is Obama’s ninth trade action against China. The Washington Post wrote:

“The Obama administration has steadily amped up its enforcement actions against China at the WTO.”

Obama has repeatedly confronted countries whose illegal trade practices threaten American companies and workers, filing twice as many cases in one term as Bush did in two. He has tangibly demonstrated his love for American cars and American car workers.

The Radical Rich: Moving From Romney to Re-Occupy

Richard Eskow — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 00:00:19 -0400

Two recent movements have transformed the political landscape. The Occupy movement literally operates in the light of day. The other movement operates in secrecy, with money as its "speech" rather than ... well, you know, speech.

The Romney video offers us a rare glimpse of the other movement. This movement of the extremely rich is ruthless, radical, and full of rage. And it's on the rise.

If you're not scared, you're not paying attention.

The Revolutionary

Sure, it was stupid for Mitt Romney to insult the non-Federal-tax paying "47 percent" on that video, especially since so many of them are Republican voters. But it was only "stupid" in traditional political terms. For a radical – and make no mistake, Romney is a radical – those rules don't apply.

The bile flows out of this unscripted Romney. He says of his father, the governor, presidential candidate and car company CEO: "Had he been born of Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot of winning this." This kind of resentment, as absurd as it is, is a very real emotion for the Radical Rich.

The words seem to sting his lips when he says "they believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, that they are entitled – to health care, to food, to housing, you name it. That's an entitlement."

Feast your eyes on the articulated rage of the Radical Rich. Romney and his audience are genuinely angry at people who "don't pay taxes" – although almost all of the "47 percent" do, counting payroll and sales taxes. That doesn't matter. The Radical Rich consider all of them – the disabled, the elderly, poor people, veterans – the Other.

From Savanarola to Sarah Palin, from Robespierre to Romney, the psychology never changes: You're either one of us or one of them.

Private Equity Party People

In his attempt to defend Romney, David Brooks suggested he was a "fundamentally decent" person who only expresses contempt for so many of this country's citizens because it appeals to his audience.

The only thing that may be less "decent" than hating entire groups of people is pretending to hate them for your own purposes. But this incident reveals something even more important than Romney's weakness of character, which is:

That's what appeals to Romney' audience.

The guests had gathered at the home of Mark Leder, a private equity manager whose business practices are as exploitative and job-killing as Bain Capital's. Leder's post-divorce antics earned him the nickname "private equity party boy" and headlines like "Nude frolic in tycoon's pool."

Romney and the others keep their clothes on, in case you were wondering, so the video's work-safe.

But that doesn't mean they're not enjoying life. They've acquired a level of wealth, power and luxury which ancient pharaohs and kings could never imagine: Their private jets will take them anywhere on the planet at a few minutes' notice. Rulers of nations flatter and court them. They even seem to be above the law. None of them will ever know hunger, or financial fear, or be denied medical care because they can't pay for it.

And yet they're filled with resentment.

Their voices are heard over the the constant clinking of silver forks on fine china. As the night wore on a man at that table undoubtedly loosened his expensive belt – lizard-skin, perhaps, or calfskin – because he'd eaten too much. A slightly tipsy woman left lipstick prints – a Shiseido lacquered rouge perhaps, in a shade like "Savage," "Nymph," or "Nocturne" (Mark would like that) – on a half-empty glass of very fine wine.

And yet, beneath the warmth of the meal and the glow of the wine, they were burning with rage.

Meet The Radicals

They're probably just a small subset of high-earning Americans. But these resentment-fueled party people are a new force in politics, made even more powerful by growing wealth inequity and Citizens United. They are the Radical Rich.

How radical are they?

Romney and his party are already pursuing their radical policies: A dismantling of most government programs, including a self-funded program like Social Security and vitally needed ones like Medicaid, Federal disaster relief, education ... even law enforcement and storm warning systems to reduce deaths and property damage.

The country they seek is radically different from the one we all grew up in, or even the troubled one we live in today. It's a nation without a social safety net, with hungry and ill people in the streets, without free and fair elections, without basic legal protections for consumers or the environment – a United States unlike anything we've seen in our lifetime.

How angry are they?

Their resentment is as great as their wealth. It seemed like an unfortunate slip from an unpleasant individual when another hedge funder, Steve Schwarzman, compared the loss of his tax breaks to Hitler's invasion of Poland. But we now know that this sense of outrage is shared by many, if not most, of his peers: Hedge funder Daniel S. Loeb. The unnamed CEOs of Fareed Zakaria's acquaintance. Scandal-ridden bank CEO Jamie Dimon.

You'd think they'd be kissing the ground Barack Obama walks on, given their embarrassment – or what should be an "embarrassment" – of riches.

But they're enraged. Why?

Insatiable

Because it isn't enough.

At no time in modern history has the top 1 percent – or the top 0.1 percent, or the top 0.01 percent – owned more of our wealth or paid less in taxes.

But it isn't enough.

The Wall Street executives who broke laws weren't indicted, and those who ruined their own businesses were saved – their wealth and incomes protected – by the very people who are being financially destroyed by their actions.

It isn't enough.

Our government relaxed the regulations, razed the rules, and leveled the laws so they could ruin both the economy and the Gulf of Mexico, and has left us vulnerable to their ongoing predations.

It isn't enough.

What do they want?

They want more – more tax breaks, more protection from the law.

And they want adoration. From the looks of it, nothing short of an Roman Imperial cult – complete with their apotheosis as state deities upon their death – would satisfy them. Obama's corporate-friendly policies, which have protected their wealth and protected them from judgement, aren't enough. They want him to pledge his fealty on the White House steps – or they'll destroy him.

Not every wealthy person is radical, of course. It seems as if a rich person's level of bitterness and rage is directly proportional to the undeservedness of their riches: Hedge fund managers who exploited the rules are the angriest, while authentically talented business people, artists or genuinely "job-creating" entrepreneurs seem to be the least angry.

Could it be guilt, and a not entirely unreasonable feeling of low self-worth, turned outward? Whatever's behind it, a Molotov cocktail of wealthy rage has exploded.

Asymmetrical Warfare

David Frum, a conservative and former George W. Bush speechwriter, gets it. Frum writes that "what makes it all both so heart-rending and so outrageous is that all this is occurring at a time when economically disadvantaged Americans have never been so demoralized and passive, never exerted less political clout. No Coxey's army is marching on Washington, no sit-down strikes are paralyzing factories, no squatters are moving onto farmer's fields."

Beautifully said. Frum's batting average dips slightly as he continues: "Occupy Wall Street immediately fizzled, there is no protest party of the political left."

Occupy didn't "fizzle." It attracted massive support almost overnight. Within weeks it had dramatically transformed the national conversation. Democrats from the president on down were forced to address issues of economic injustice, at least rhetorically, instead of negotiating destructive (and pro-wealthy) austerity deals with the Republican counterparts.

But the powers arrayed against Occupy – in the media, in politics, and elsewhere – combined with the winter winds to force it into hibernation.

Frum's absolutely right, however, when he says there's "no protest party of the political left" – although I'd drop the word "protest" and make it simply a party, one that can win rather than just siphon off votes. That won't happen without a mass movement.

That's why it's time to re-Occupy our country. In fact, maybe it should've been called "Re-Occupy" all along. It was, and it remains, a re-occupation – of our privatized public spaces and our privatized political discourse. Occupy, or something like it, is the only force that has a chance against the power of the Radical Rich.

Closing the Deal

Mitt can't close the deal. He's tanking like Facebook's IPO. Why? Because he's one of the Radical Rich, and he can't control his rage any more than Steve Scharzman can.

The executives I used to know would have laughed off Obama's populist rhetoric as long as the cash kept pouring in. But the new crowd doesn't just want an unfair and ill-gotten share of the nation's wealth. They want it paid as tribute.

This didn't happen by accident. The Radical Rich have, in David Frum's words, been "scammed" by political operators playing off their emotions. In the old days demagogues would work a mob into a frenzy until it was ready to burn down Parliament. Nowadays you can work a billionaire or two into a frenzy and buy Parliament instead. That's much more efficient – and a lot less messy.

And yet, even with all their resources at his disposal, Mitt can't close the deal. He can't hide his radicalism long enough.

Next time it'll be uglier. They may not even try to close the deal. They might just take it. That's why we need a new movement.

What would a revived Occupy movement – a "Re-Occupy movement" – look like? That topic should dominate the conversation on the American left. This election and the events that follow it should be viewed through the lens of long-term independent activism, with political office only one tool among many.

Romney articulated both his own emotions and those of his crowd when he said of the American majority, "The things that animate us aren't the things that animate them." Well, right back at ya, pal.

That's why it's time to Re-Occupy the country – now, before it's too late.

Romney, Ryan, GOP Demand Obama Stop Strengthening Welfare Work Mandate

Leo Gerard — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:34:15 -0400

Republicans in two Congressional committees voted last week to press forward with legislation that would deny states the flexibility they requested to help more welfare recipients get jobs.

That’s right.

Not only that, Rep. Paul Ryan, the GOP vice presidential candidate, said last week he is eager to return to Washington this week for a floor vote on the Republican measure prohibiting the Obama administration from, as the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) described it:

“encouraging states to consider new, more effective ways to meet the goals of TANF (welfare), particularly helping parents successfully prepare for, find and retain employment.”

That’s right.

Republicans don’t want the Obama administration to help states get welfare recipients off the dole and into jobs. In July, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney launched an attack on the administration’s offer to meet a demand from states for more flexibility so states could move more people to work instead of pushing more paper around. Now, Republicans in Congress are taking up the cause of thwarting Obama’s plan to grant states’ request for flexibility. Historically, Republicans supported moving welfare recipients off the federal rolls and onto private pay rolls. But they’re not going to let Obama get credit for accomplishing that.

This dispute began with an attempt by the Obama administration to reduce regulatory burdens. Here’s what President Obama wrote Feb. 28, 2011 in the Administrative Flexibility memo:

“I am instructing agencies to work closely with state, local, and tribal governments to identify administrative, regulatory, and legislative barriers in federally funded programs that currently prevent states, localities, and tribes, from efficiently using tax dollars to achieve the best results for their constituents.”

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) took the directive seriously and asked states for suggestions. Some state officials complained about burdensome welfare reform paperwork requirements and asked if HHS would provide flexibility. Among them were Utah and Nevada, both of which have Republican governors. Utah also has a Republican supermajority in its legislature.
HHS responded with a memo to states issued on July 12. It offers states a chance to achieve flexibility through waiver of some welfare rules if states conduct HHS-approved pilot programs that move additional welfare recipients to work in measureable ways.

The memo states at least 10 times that the goal is increased employment. For example, there’s this:

“HHS will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals of TANF (welfare).

“Moreover, HHS is committed to ensuring that any demonstration projects approved under this authority will be focused on improving employment outcomes and contributing to the evidence base for effective programs; therefore, terms and conditions will require a federally-approved evaluation plan designed to build our knowledge base.”

In a letter that accompanied the memo, HHS repeats incessantly that all proposals must fulfill the goal of increased employment. Of the 21 sentences, at least 10 specify that less welfare and more work is mandated by the law, is important and will be required for waiver. For example, there’s this:

“The (HHS) Secretary is only interested in approving waivers if the state can explain in a compelling fashion why the proposed approach may be a more efficient or effective means to promote employment entry, retention, advancement, or access to jobs that offer opportunities for earnings and advancement that will allow participants to avoid dependence on government benefits.”

Despite all that, Mitt Romney began condemning the waiver offer immediately after it was issued. Congressional Republicans hope this week to bludgeon it to death with legislation forbidding HHS from providing the flexibility requested by governors, including Republicans Gary Herbert of Utah and Brian Sandoval of Nevada. Herbert’s state department of HHS wrote the federal HHS in 2011 seeking flexibility:

“Nevada is very interested in working with your staff to explore program waivers. . .”

Like welfare-to-work, Republicans have long supported “flexibility” for states in implementing federal mandates. For example, in 2005 every Republican governor in the nation – 29 of them – wrote Congress to support a bill that would have allowed waivers to welfare reform law requirements. The governors told Congress they wanted “flexibility to manage their TANF (welfare) programs.” The letter said:

“Increased waiver authority, allowable work activities, availability of partial work credit and the ability to coordinate state programs are all important aspects of moving recipients from welfare to work.”

Mitt Romney signed that letter. He was among the 29 governors seeking flexibility through waivers to manage welfare.

That’s right. The same Mitt Romney who now is denouncing the Obama administration’s effort to provide flexibility.

Now, Romney despises flexibility. Now, he hates waivers. Now, he’s demanding an end to the effort by HHS to give states the ability to experiment with pilot programs to increase the employment of welfare recipients.

It’s yet another Romney flipflop, another Romney Etch-A-Sketch moment. Said it once, erase it now. Romney figures GOP inconsistency doesn’t matter as long as it hurts President Obama somehow.