Mitt Romney Believes in America and So Should You!!: Part 2

***This is part 2 of a post on Mitt Romney's campaign ad, "Believe in America." If you haven't yet had a chance to read part 1, you can scroll down and find it on the right hand side under "Blog Archive."***

So as it turns out, Romney’s campaign voluntarily admitted the full context of Obama’s comments in a blog post written by Gail Gitcho, a Romney spokeswoman, the very same day the ad was released:

“Three years ago, candidate Barack Obama mocked his opponent’s campaign for saying ‘if we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose.’ Now, President Obama’s campaign is desperate not to talk about the economy…Now, the tables have turned – President Obama and his campaign are doing exactly what candidate Obama criticized. President Obama and his team don’t want to talk about the economy and have tried to distract voters from President Obama’s abysmal economic record.”

From this statement, it seems that Romney’s campaign is suggesting that their ad is actually pointing out the hypocrisy of 2008 Obama’s criticism of McCain in light of the fact that 2011 Obama is ‘desperate not to talk about the economy.’

But am I honestly supposed to accept that Romney’s campaign sincerely believes the American public would pick up on that subtle, highly implied criticism in a 60-second TV ad? Or, just as unlikely, that more than a few thousand voters will read Gitcho’s full explanation of the ad? No. The reality is that the Romney campaign’s intention was to make Obama look bad in the eyes of the general American public, while pre-empting the response from the Obama camp and generating extra media attention in the process. A media strategist might say that they achieved their goals. But as a citizen interested in seeing more honesty and integrity in our politics, I am irritated—though sadly, not surprised.

Look, I’m not trying to make Obama into a saint on this matter. His 2008 comments on McCain’s campaign strategy were sensationalized and somewhat decontextualized in their own right. We can debate who was more deceptive, but the bottom line is that we need to learn to think for ourselves. Rather than take politicians’ words at face value, we need to critically examine their statements, their sources, and their motives. It is the responsibility of both the public and the news media to avoid being manipulated by highly-paid political strategists and well-crafted rhetoric. 

We are accustomed to throwing up our hands and saying, “That’s politics for you!” We label idealistic (or worse, naïve) those people—like me—who believe that we can cultivate a political system grounded in honesty and transparency. But collectively, we have the power to hold accountable those who prevent this very system from taking root.

Mitt Romney Believes in America and So Should You!!: Part 1

Mitt Romney, who is running for the Republican Party’s nomination for President in 2012, released a new TV spot a couple weeks ago. It’s title—“Believe in America”—proves once again that campaign slogans are always moronic. Check it out...

The first half of the ad uses audio from Barack Obama’s speech to New Hampshire residents in October of 2008, just weeks before the national election. Graphic overlays (highlighting what Romney perceives to be Obama’s greatest economic failures in office to date) claim in no uncertain terms that Obama has not lived up to his promises. But the real knockout punch comes when Obama says, “If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.”

Romney is clearly capitalizing on this rather embarrassing oratory gaffe by Obama. I mean, how could the President have implied that discussing a plan to rebuild our economy isn’t a constructive use of our time? Well…he didn’t. Before you jump to any conclusions, I’m not insinuating that Romney’s campaign actually doctored a video of Obama! I am, however, suggesting that Romney took that line from Obama’s speech completely out of context. You can read the full transcript of Obama’s October 2008 speech if you like, but here is the direct context for his statement on the economy:

“Even as we face the most serious economic crisis of our time; even as you are worried about keeping your jobs or paying your bills or staying in your homes, my opponent's [John McCain’s] campaign announced earlier this month that they want to "turn the page" on the discussion about our economy so they can spend the final weeks of this election attacking me instead. Senator McCain's campaign actually said, and I quote, ‘if we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose.’…But here's what Senator McCain doesn't seem to understand. With the economy in turmoil and the American Dream at risk, the American people don't want to hear politicians attack each other - you want to hear about how we're going to attack the challenges facing middle class families each and every day. You want to hear about the issues that matter in your lives. You want to hear about how we're going to bring about the change that we desperately need for our country. That's what the American people want to hear. So let's debate our genuine differences on the issues that matter.”

So, what President Obama actually said was more like, “If we don’t keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.” It looks as if Mitt Romney is attempting to criticize Obama for a statement that Obama himself was in fact criticizing. Or is he?

Check back on the blog tomorrow to find out how Romney's campaign explained the ad and what I think is really going on here... 

/ryan wallace/

Silly Government, Taxes are for Everyone!

Have you ever read Illinois’ State Constitution in its entirety? Be honest. And it doesn't count if the last time you "read" it was in 8th grade history. Well, go ahead and take a few moments to read over the preamble—it's only a paragraph. Not surprisingly, it's saturated with language relating God's providence and extolling lofty ideals of justice and equality. And unless you're a political history buff or you're over the age of 55, then you, like me, might assume that it was written way back in the day (more precisely, 1818) when Illinois was incorporated into the Union. But you’d be wrong. In fact, our current Constitution was written a mere four decades ago in 1970. And that little historical detail, to put it bluntly, gives me the urge to smash something in rage.

 You see, when I thought the Constitution was written in 1818, I had an easier time swallowing the first sentence of Article IX Section 3: “A tax on or measured by income shall be at a non-graduated rate.” Being the generous man I am, I was going to give the 1818 authors of the Constitution the benefit of the doubt and presume that this edict outlawing a graduated income tax was not in direct conflict with some of the core values put forth in the preamble (i.e. the elimination of poverty and inequality, and the assurance of economic justice). But for those holding the pens in 1970, living in a modern society not all that different from our present one, this incongruity could not possibly have escaped them. Now, I will—once again, on account of my generosity—concede that modern Illinoisans are significantly more unequal (in terms of their pre-tax incomes) than their 1970 counterparts, which means that a flat income tax would have been less unfair 40 years ago than it is today. However, a regressive tax system is...well, regressive. It is inherently unequal and cannot engender real economic justice by any stretch of the imagination.

Many of my fellow Illinois citizens agree with me that our tax system is unfair. However, some contend that it is unfair not for the poor, but for the wealthiest taxpayers. They decry a tax system that allows the average person in the bottom 20% of earners to pay only $1,300 a year in state taxes, while the average person in the top 1% forks over $102,000 in state taxes.[1] Although that line of reasoning certainly makes it seem as though the wealthy are paying more than their fair share, we must consider effective tax rates to understand what a 'fair share' really is.

Effective tax rates are the most accurate measure of tax burden because they reveal just how much of a person's total income he or she is spending on taxes.  So, the average person in the bottom 20% of earners may only pay $1,300 a year in taxes, but since he only makes $10,100 a year, he’s paying an effective state tax rate of 13.0%. Conversely, the average person in the top 1% of Illinois earners who pays $102,000 a year in taxes earns $2,084,700, which makes her effective rate only 4.9%. So even though wealthy Illinois taxpayers contribute a much greater sum of money to the state, the poorest taxpayers give more than two and a half times as much when taxes are considered as shares of their incomes.

To put it in different terms, after taxes the average person in the bottom 20% is left with $8,787 to live on while the average person in the top 1% has $1,982,549.70.

So, we must ask: “Is this tax structure really the best we can come up with to ‘eliminate poverty and inequality’ and ‘assure economic justice?’”

/ryan wallace/

---

[1] Primary state taxes in Illinois include sales and excise taxes, property tax, and both personal and corporate income tax. For more information on Illinois’ tax system, read this report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

Herman Cain, the Model United Nations Student

When I was in high school, I was involved with something called Model United Nations, which was basically an exercise in students dressing up in their parent's gigantic formal clothes, and going to conferences where they debated topics they knew very little about.  Now I don't disparage the program, because it was actually quite formative in opening up my world view and exposing me to tons of issues (like the debates over throwing trash away in space...COPUOS anyone?).  But let's be real here.  For the majority of us participants, our knowledge about things like state-sponsored terrorism were not up to even Wikipedia standards.

With such a shallow pool of facts and critiques to draw from, students were often left to bring up the same talking points over and over and over again.  Once someone found a shtick that worked for them, they held onto it for dear life, and with the utmost conviction.  For example, one notorious classmate of mine, no matter what proposal you offered, would always get up and demand to know where the funding would come from.  Brilliant!  The art of saying something while saying absolutely nothing at all.  Which brings me to Herman Cain:




Brilliant!  I am actually quite impressed, once he gets going, with his ability to confidently hammer home a non-point over and over again.   I am pretty sure Cain would've won the MUN Best Delegate Award multiple times.

-Tim

Meet the Williamsons

          Maybe you know a family like the Williamsons. Despite two full-time incomes, Mary and Jeffrey Williamson cannot adequately provide for their family of five, which also includes their teenage daughter, Angelica, their middle child, Jake, and their toddler, Marcus. Looking back, they realize how good they had it just a couple years ago. Mary worked part-time and took care of the kids, and Jeffrey had a union construction job that paid him a wage they could live on. But the virtual collapse of the construction industry cost Jeffrey his job, and left him with little recourse but to settle for a minimum wage job as a cashier at a grocery store. Mary was fortunate that the diner where she worked part-time as a waitress was able to start giving her full-time hours, but she too makes only minimum wage, even with her tips.

            If the Williamsons were members of your church, how would you expect your congregation to respond in their time of need? Presumably, you would walk with them and find creative ways to help get them back on their feet. After all, that’s what the community of the Church is all about. The pastor might offer temporary financial assistance, a few members might tap into their business networks to help find Jeffrey a decent job, and other members might volunteer to watch the Williamsons' kids after school while Mary took an extra shift at the diner a couple days a week.

            If you open up a newspaper these days, you don’t have to look far to find a story on unemployment or underemployment. The deflating reality is that the Williamsons are not an outlier. They are just one of hundreds of families in your surrounding community who find themselves in a constant struggle to make ends meet. You wonder to yourself, “How is our church supposed to respond to all these families?” Your church doesn’t have the resources to help everyone. But more importantly, it’s clear that there is a much larger issue at hand. There’s no question that your church should continue to support the Williamsons however it can. But shouldn’t the church also be asking how it’s possible that a family with two full-time incomes has to choose between paying rent and having enough to eat this month?

            If you take a closer look at the minimum wage, the federal poverty line, and real cost-of-living figures in Illinois, it wouldn’t take you long to realize that things don’t add up quite right. Since Mary and Jeffrey each work full-time at minimum wage ($8.25 in Illinois), they’re earning roughly $34,320 a year before taxes. According the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the federal poverty line for a family of five is $26,170. As a result, the Williamsons don’t qualify for public assistance programs like SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) or TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). But wait a minute…we already know that their $34,000 a year isn’t enough to get by. Needless to say, the federal poverty line is no longer an accurate metric. So what does it really mean to be ‘in poverty?’ Or to put it another way, how much would Mary and Jeffrey actually have to earn to be self-sufficient in providing for their family of five? According to the Social IMPACT Research Center, Mary and Jeffrey would need to bring in over $60,000 together—nearly twice what they can earn at the current minimum wage. To put that into perspective, they would each need to work full-time at a rate of $14.25 an hour just to earn enough to pay for the basics for their family. And I do mean the basics. That means rent, groceries, health care, clothing, childcare, school books and supplies, and transportation. We’re not talking about vacations, after-school tutoring, savings for college, birthday gifts, summer camp, or even a family night out to the movies.

            Some of the folks who oppose raising the minimum wage in Illinois have voiced concern that the added expense to businesses that employ minimum-wage workers would force them to cut jobs, which, at the end of the day, only further exacerbates the problem. This is a valid concern and a logical conclusion to draw. But, as it turns out, a recent national study comparing job growth in bordering counties with differing minimum wages has effectively proven that increases in minimum wage do not affect job growth. Additionally, several other studies have demonstrated that raising the minimum wage actually saves businesses money (by reducing employee turnover and thus the cost of training new employees), generates new revenue for businesses (by increasing worker productivity), and creates a better work environment (by significantly elevating employee morale).

            From an economic standpoint, there is also strong evidence that suggests we should raise the minimum wage. It's been estimated that raising the minimum wage would generate over $1 billion in new consumer spending in Illinois over the next four years. Raising the minimum wage means putting more money in the pockets of families like the Williamsons who will turn around and spend that money every month, primarily on goods and services in their own local communities. And if that’s not convincing, I imagine most of us would agree that minimum wage should, at the very least, grow at the same rate as our economy. However, as our economy has expanded, minimum wage has lagged behind. If minimum wage had simply kept pace with inflation over the past forty years, it would be over $10 an hour today.

            No doubt there are some convincing reasons to support a raise in minimum wage. It would ease the burden on financially vulnerable individuals and families, it would benefit businesses in a number of ways, and it would pump some much-needed new revenue into our flailing state economy. These are indispensible arguments we should bring to the public square to bolster our appeal. But if you consider yourself a person of faith, I really shouldn’t have to work so hard to convince you to support an increase in the minimum wage. When it comes down to it, we’re talking about standing with some of our most vulnerable neighbors, like the Williamsons, insisting that their stories be heard and their lives valued the same as yours and mine.

~ryan wallace

Go to Raise Illinois to learn more and take action.