If you want to know Mitt Romney’s real plans for a hypothetical Presidency, you either have to give him lots of money, or be lucky enough to stand on the street near the backyard where he talks to people who give him lots of money. The incompetence of allowing the press to listen in on Romney’s speech is a bit more newsworthy than the content itself, which is more standard-issue modern Republican fodder.
Romney went into a level of detail not usually seen by the public in the speech, which was overheard by reporters on a sidewalk below. One possibility floated by Romney included the elimination of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Cabinet-level agency once led by Romney’s father, George.
“I’m going to take a lot of departments in Washington, and agencies, and combine them. Some eliminate, but I’m probably not going to lay out just exactly which ones are going to go,” Romney said. “Things like Housing and Urban Development, which my dad was head of, that might not be around later. But I’m not going to actually go through these one by one. What I can tell you is, we’ve got far too many bureaucrats. I will send a lot of what happens in Washington back to the states.”
Asked about the fate of the Department of Education in a potential Romney administration, the former governor suggested it would also face a dramatic restructuring.
“The Department of Education: I will either consolidate with another agency, or perhaps make it a heck of a lot smaller. I’m not going to get rid of it entirely,” Romney said, explaining that part of his reasoning behind preserving the agency was to maintain a federal role in pushing back against teachers’ unions.
Yes, because federal agencies should be hollow shells weaponized to disable unions.
Much of the focus here will be on Ann Romney calling the criticism from Hillary Rosen an “early birthday present.” But looking at the substance, given HUD’s performance in housing policy since the collapse of the bubble, I would probably rather it remain as an appendage than a standalone agency. A couple of Romney’s other agenda items are actually pretty good. In talking about tax policy, he actually listed some of the loophole closures he would support to help pay for his signature policy, a 20% across-the-board cut to individual rates. The one that jumped out at me was this: “I’m going to probably eliminate for high income people the second home mortgage deduction.” This is such a no-brainer policy that it will never get done. If you’re rich enough to own a second home, then you’re clearly rich enough not to need a second deduction of mortgage interest. An intelligent Democratic Party would sidestep their Buffett rule vote today and put that on the Senate floor immediately. You have the leader of the opposition party’s endorsement, after all.
Romney also promised a “Republican DREAM Act,” presumably something similar to what Marco Rubio has been promoting, bestowing legal status on undocumented students who were brought to America as children, but denying them a path to citizenship.
I suppose it’s possible that Romney’s campaign wanted him to be heard in this speech, but it’s unlikely that you’d want to give away your strategy. Then again, for someone confident enough in April of the election year to already sell access to the inauguration, anything’s possible.
UPDATE: It goes without saying that these proposed tax deductions are pretty meager and would in no way match a 20% decrease in rates.




20 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
The Federal government is a tool to suppress the will of the people? You’re doing it wrong.
A list of high dollar donors and the favorable treatment they can expect from Romney? See Obama 20008-2012
That depends on either of the two parties really meaning it.
I predict that Romney would be like Obama. Some commentators here predict that in some ways, Romney might even be preferable (argument being that the Dems won’t go along with plans to dismantle SS and Medicare put forth by a Prez Romney, but would vote for such “reforms” under Obama).
I don’t know about that; the kabuki ability of Dems is pretty astounding at times (i.e., just *enough* Dems might go along with a Prez Romney to insure passage while the CPC shakes their angry fists in the air and give speeches asking us for more donations, but do nothing procedurally like the Tea Party Caucus has done to make live miserable for all the other Congresscritters to actually *punish* the rest of Congress for doing what they did).
-stewartm
See here.
4th image is the current crop of presidential candidates (well, a month or so ago). Mittens and OilBomber are almost on top of each other in political ideology and practice.
So Romney want to elimintate three agencies, HUD, Education, and what’t the third one????????
We are SOOOOO screwed with these two choices to lead the country in our sellout to corporations and the 1%.
Justice Department (not being used anyway)
Who cares whether Willard’s wife worked or not, the question all should be asking is when was the last time Willard worked?
Do we really want someone chronically unemployed for the last 5 years to be CEO of the USA? One example, look at Willard’s ‘decision’ to dump the auto industry if he was in charge.
An immediate example, Willard’s proposal to eliminate state and property tax deductions. They have already been eliminated for high income earners subject to the alternate minimum tax(AMT). One of the nice features of the AMT is one has to figure their tax without any state and property tax deductions.
One would assume Willard being the experienced CEO would know this but then again he probably doesn’t do his own taxes. Just more smoke and mirrors but hey he has to throw out some policy B.S. to make him look presidential.
Most all of his income is listed under “unearned income” on the tax forms he has released.
Wasn’t it calcualted that he “unearns” about $47,000 a day on all his ill-gotten gain from Bain.
But remember $20k of that trickled down to his housekeepers.
Since the state and property tax deduction has already been eliminated for upper middle income earners and above thru the AMT, the jist of Willard’s proposal to eliminate these deductions is to INCREASE taxes for middle income earners and below since they would not be able to take this deduction.
It ain’t the 80′s no more where Willard can just flip businesses w/out anyone taking notice.
Five housekeepers…not much of a trickle.
But remember he is employing people to build an elevator for his west coast autos. The trickle down will have enormous effect./s
He is of an age where your flow is not strong and steady anymore. Oh wait is this trickle down or tinkle down. Always confusing for me since I’m wallowing in their excrement most of the day anyway.
It’s not like the cars can just “walk up the stairs.” They NEED an elevator.
Short and to the point.
Willard’s proposal to eliminate state and property tax deductions shifts more of the tax burden to middle and lower income earners since this deduction has already been eliminated for higher income earners.
Especially when you think the $20k was for all housekeeping expenses. What does Buffet pay his housekeeper?
Heck–if you can get the Dept of Ed to help take the lead in killing public education-as it has under Obama–why get rid of it, at least until the dirty work is done?
Would we rename it the Department of Ignorance???
You know the GOP slogan, “An uninfomed public is our best voter.”