Wednesday, September 7, 2011

Romney's Twilight Zone, "Too Much Information" part 3

Romney's job plan was unveiled today. I think, it is a little milquetoasty but hey, that's really what I want in a Republican candidate. I'm all for sanity.
  • Lowering tax rates for businesses and middle-class housholds. Romney said lowering corporate taxes will help lure firms to invest in the US, while eliminating capital-gains and dividend taxes for households earning less than $200,000 will encourage saving.
Lowering taxes for the middle-class households doesn't really create jobs, nor does personal savings create jobs. Capital-gains and divident tax cuts also do not honestly create more for saving than increasing interest rates, or increasing wages. But, it is, of course, good news for people who are in the investment industry. And good news for the rich who, even though their capital gains taxes won't be cut, they won't be raised from historically low levels anyway. If these tax cuts were truely geared towards a redistribution of income from those who don't spend money on the economy but play with it, then it might do some good. I really honestly need a little more assurance that it won't be another cut where the rich increase their share of the pie yet again. I don't trust you guys anymore, sorry. And there is nothing about raising capital gains taxes on the rich, of course. It is just all magically paid for I guess. But if it means cutting government, the cuts are coming from social programs that monetarily benefit those who are not wealthy, and that hardly would boost savings rates of the middle class. It is all doublespeak for failed policies of the past.
Lowering corporate taxes is truly the oddity here. Lure firms to the U.S.?  Come on. Why don't we just give tax breaks to those willing to locate here like state governments do all the time? Why do things that way? It would be much more cost effective without paying businesses who are doing great right now. Well, take a guess who wouldn't get more tax breaks that way. And that makes me feel even more suspect of "lowering taxes for the middle-class."

I often wonder why the concept of cutting capital gains taxes and dividend taxes plays well with those who can't afford to "play" the stock market. Last time I sold stock I was expecting the income to be taxed at my income tax bracket. It was incredibly low, before Romney helps me. I was happy but I knew that the amount of stock I "play" with is insubstantial compaired to the wealthy.  It bugged me that others got so much more benefit out of something that was brand new to me, but I was indeed happy to pocket the money I didn't really deserve.
  • Reducing government regulation, including a rollback on Obama's health care law. Encouraging domestic energy production.
I'm wondering if a reduction in government regulation will include the banks that caused this economy with the freedom they used to bankrupt us, AND still have, basically. Any more reduction of government regulation and we might not exist anymore. Again, American multinational corporations of all kinds are doing great. They don't need more freedom, they are doing well. That said, Obama has been working on reducing regulations that are ineffective. Again, I don't trust you Republicans who seeem to think deregulation is just a way to reward your political donors. Encouraging domestic energy production: I guess this means more subsidies for the oil companies who are already raking it in from record profits in addition to the subsidies they have now. This is shameful. Encouraging "production" means relying on the same companies that produce now. Oil.
  • Promoting US exports.
This screams milquetoast. Of course we all want to increase exports. How? We export our jobs now. Our big companies rely on this cheap labor from overseas to exist. How much more can we promote exports by just promotion.
  • Streamlining the federal government, so that rising national debt doesn't hobble the nation's potential growth.
Streamlining government. I like that word "streamlining." I see this vision of a sleek 1950's car going down the road. Cutting government is already a plan in place and oddly it is already hooked to the rising national debt. Does this mean even these austerity measures are not enough? This of course is the worst idea imaginable and not only does Romney appear to want more of it, but the amount of reduction we already have in the works will most likely stagnate the economy for years to come. We are in a depression. If streamlining meant to actually fix the government and make it like a sleek car, I' would be all for that. But no, what it really means is reduce the national debt during a depression without help from the low taxed people with all the money mulitplying like rabbits in their gold and bank accounts, where it sits. It means cutting Medicare and Social Security and probably not Defense. And EVERYBODY knows that the sliver of government that is discretionary is dinky small.

Yes, I still cross over parties and vote for Romney in the primary because, honestly, the only thing we have going for us here is that there will be a whole multitude of people who have no reason to vote in the Democratic primaries and who do have a reason to vote in the less extreme on the other side. Milquetoast is better than going past the twilight zone into the darkness.