POLITICO.com: New Hampshire primary: Why Mitt Romney will win

Check out this page:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71100.html


Comment:
Friends, thought you would find this op-ed I did on NH (and why I am supporting Gov. Romney) interesting.

Thank you,
POLITICO
Politico.com

DNC - Politico: Bain scrutiny picks up

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2011/12/bain-scrutiny-picks-up-108062.html

Bain scrutiny picks up

Politico // ALEXANDER BURNS 12/19/11 2:41 PM EST

There have been a smattering of important stories so far this cycle about Mitt Romney's background as head of Bain Capital, but given Romney's standing in the polls the scrutiny has been relatively light.

That may be starting to change, with three stories on a single day building up the perception of Bain as a genuine liability for Romney in the general election. First, there's this from the wire in South Carolina:

The Associated Press reviewed Bain Capital's little-known investments at The Holson Burnes Group. Bain doubled its $10 million investment into the clock and photo supply company. But workers in South Carolina and New Hampshire lost their jobs as the company consolidated and expanded its operations overseas.

Then, there's this, from WPRI in Rhode Island:

Sensata Technologies, the former sensors-and-controls division of Texas Instruments spun off in 2006 by Mitt Romney's old company, will freeze its pension plan and scale back 401k contributions next month, WPRI.com has learned.

And most importantly, there's this story from the New York Times, establishing the fact that Romney still draws financial benefit from Bain and its investments:

Though Mr. Romney left Bain in early 1999, he received a share of the corporate buyout and investment profits enjoyed by partners from all Bain deals through February 2009: four global buyout funds and 18 other funds, more than twice as many over all as Mr. Romney had a share of the year he left. He was also given the right to invest his own money alongside his former partners. Because some of the funds and deals covered by Mr. Romney’s agreement will not fully wind down for several years, Mr. Romney is still entitled to a share of some of Bain’s profits.

During his political career, Mr. Romney has promoted his experience as a businessman while deflecting criticism of layoffs caused by private equity deals by noting that he left Bain in 1999. But records and interviews show that in the years since, he has benefited from at least a few Bain deals that resulted in upheaval for companies, workers and communities.

The Times story is the most significant because it gives Democrats a way of arguing that the window of accountability for Romney -- the time frame in which he can be held to account for Bain's conduct -- extends to the present day. He's obviously no longer involved in the operations of the company, but as the founder and longtime CEO of the private equity firm who still draws substantial personal income from the company, Romney may have a tougher time washing his hands of Bain's ongoing activities.

So far, Romney's answer on all things Bain has been that not every deal worked and some of them involved making painful choices, but on the whole he is a net creator of jobs who understands the private sector. That has worked in the GOP primary, but it'll be a tougher sell in the general election, and each story about Bain-related layoffs and benefits cuts will make it more so.

DNC - Politico: A Scott Brown-Mitt Romney fender bender

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2011/12/a-scott-brownmitt-romney-fender-bender-108086.html

A Scott Brown-Mitt Romney fender bender

Politico // GLENN THRUSH 12/19/11 5:22 PM EST

Light-red Scott Brown, running in deep-blue Massachusetts, is proving a reliable source of bulletin board material for Democrats as he runs for reelection.

One progressive operative read Sen. Scott Brown's comments blasting the House GOP on Monday for scotching the payroll tax deal - and was reminded of an example of Brown chastising the man he's endorsed for president: former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Back in 2009, Brown, then an up-and-coming state senator contemplating a long-shot bid for higher office, expressed disbelief at a Romney-backed program to give welfare recipients donated cars, free registration, titles, taxes, a year's worth of insurance and even a AAA membership. 

In May 2009, the Boston Herald reported that "Republican Sen. Scott Brown vowed to abolish an expanding state program handing out donated cars to welfare recipients with state-funded insurance and AAA memberships - even though the perk was established under former GOP Gov. Mitt Romney." When told that the $400,000 program, phased out by Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick for budget reasons, began under a fellow Republican, Brown shot back, "I don't care who started it. In this day and age, it's not appropriate. I mean, we're paying for Triple A? You've got to be kidding me."

Advocates for the poor argued that the program filled a necessary function: Helping employable public assistance recipients find transportation for hard-to-reach jobs. And a Romney campaign spokeswoman told the paper this fall that the program was merely a continuation of an existing one, and actually saved the state about $1 million in welfare benefits that didn't have to be paid out to people who were able to get off the dole.

Interesting that Newt Gingrich, who made welfare reform his raison d'etre in the 1990s, hasn't raised the issue in debates.

Heritage: The answer is: Spend less. Period.

The answer is: Spend less. Period.

Today Politico published an op-ed written by leaders from Heritage Action for America, Americans for Tax Reform, Americans for Prosperity, American Conservative Union, National Taxpayers Union, and the Cato Institute. The piece echoes many of the same themes of Ed Feulner's Morning Bell blog post published on November 7.

Join us in thanking a veteran this Veteran's Day weekend!

The answer is: Spend less, Period.

By: Grover Norquist, Mike Needham, Phil Kerpen, Al Cardenas, Duane Parde, & Daniel J. Mitchell

November 10, 2011

The federal government is spending too much money. Our nation has made more than $63 trillion in unfunded promises, to be paid for by future generations. It poses an existential threat to America’s dynamic, pro-growth economy. The solution to this problem is to reduce federal spending.

This is a fairly straight-forward point – but one that is lost in our nation’s capital, where tough choices are avoided on a daily basis.

A mechanism for dealing with our nation’s fiscal problems was set-up this summer: the supercommittee. Some are now suggesting that instead of addressing the real problems our nation faces — by reducing government spending — the supercommittee should recommend tax increases to meet its deficit reduction targets.

Tax increases are what politicians always do when they are not willing to govern—that is, to cut and reform government spending. The problem, of course, is that tax hikes crowd out and displace spending reform.

In the 2010 midterm elections, Americans rose up in opposition to runaway spending and elected a majority in the House who were publicly committed to opposing any and all tax increases and determined to cut the deficit by reining in federal spending. This new majority is now being put to the test.

Advocates of the supercommittee raising taxes instead of reducing spending by $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years (their deficit reduction mandate) have put forward several unserious arguments.

First, they say, “let’s compromise.” Let’s be balanced, they insist, and promise to cut some spending and raise some taxes. Having pushed spending way up, they now want to pretend this spending is normal or, at least, inevitable. It isn’t.

The solution isn’t to pay for the spending with tax hikes, but to spend much less. Why should anyone be asked to pay more taxes just so Washington can continue to overspend? The tax hike crowd has no answer.

What’s more, there are good reasons to be wary – we’ve been down this road before. In 1982, President Ronald Reagan was promised three dollars of spending cuts for every dollar of tax hikes. The tax hikes were real. But spending — in real dollar terms — went up, not down.

In 1990, the same trick was played out — this time at the expense of President George H.W. Bush and the American people. A two-to-one promise brought higher taxes and higher spending. When tax hikes are on the table, the talk about spending cuts evaporates. Oddly enough, the tax hikes remain.

The second argument is: “We won’t raise tax rates – we will just reduce deductions and credits.” Nonsense. Closing tax loopholes is all well and good. But doing so to raise revenues is just as much a tax hike as raising tax rates.

The tax hike crowd is trying to confuse tax hikes with tax reform. In fact, closing tax loopholes to raise revenue is ultimately antithetical to tax reform — there would then be less revenue available to use to cut tax rates.

The third argument is that we must raise taxes to avoid sequestration if the supercommittee fails. This argument demonstrates how misguided it is to legislate in a climate of hysteria. Politicians should not acquiesce, out of fear, to bad public policy.

Taxes, domestic spending and defense spending should be debated on their merits. Members of Congress should do their jobs and set them each appropriately.

Any congressman who wants to keep his promise to voters to oppose tax increases; to fight for lower spending, and to keep the hope alive for meaningful tax reform in the future must vote “no” on any supercommittee deal that contains a tax increase.

This tells Washington that the only way to get our country back on track is to rein in out-of-control spending.

Grover Norquist is the president of Americans for Tax Reform. Mike Needham is the chief executive officer of Heritage Action for America. Phil Kerpen is vice president for policy of Americans for Prosperity. Al Cardenas is chairman of American Conservative Union. Duane Parde is the president of National Taxpayers Union. Daniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

Perry for President - Politico: "Mitt Romney faces an inconvenient truth on climate change"

Romney yet to comment on record of capping CO2 emissions in Massachusetts

A new Politico report reveals Mitt Romney's rhetoric of opposing regulations to cap CO2 emissions does not match his record as Massachusetts governor, as he made his state the first in the nation to cap CO2 emissions. 

The Romney campaign refused to comment on this report when contacted by Politico.

"Mitt Romney should clear the air, take a position on regulating CO2 emissions, and stick with it," said Perry spokesman Ray Sullivan. 

Politico

Romney hit for past emissions stance

November 1, 2011

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67380.html

Mitt Romney faces an inconvenient truth on climate change.

While the former Massachusetts governor often touts his decision not to sign up for a regional cap-and-trade compact, he also glosses over a six-year-old set of carbon dioxide rules that his aides touted at the time as the first in the country for electric utilities.

Under Romney's regulations, finalized in September 2006, Massachusetts's six largest power plants faced mandatory CO2 limits with several market-friendly compliance options designed to help keep the costs down.

Democrats and environmentalists panned Romney's rules as weak tea. Many felt burned by the governor's decision not to join then-New York Republican Gov. George Pataki and other neighboring state leaders in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

But Romney's problem is now on the other side of the political spectrum as critics on his right said they are troubled by a decision to implement the CO2 limits in the first place.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry's presidential campaign, for example, has done its homework. It released a 60-second Web video last month hitting Romney for the CO2 rules, likening them to the Obama administration's EPA climate policies.

Perry aides last week also circulated news clips on the Romney rules from 2006. They argued that even if Massachusetts didn't participate in RGGI, Romney still should be held accountable for putting mandatory caps on greenhouse gases.

"Mitt Romney is misleading the American public by criticizing policies he enacted as governor of Massachusetts," Perry spokesman Mark Miner said. "Mitt Romney has been running for president for six years, but he can't run from his record."

If elected president, Romney has said he'd reverse Obama-era environmental rules, including EPA's endangerment finding that declared carbon dioxide a threat to public health, making it subject to restrictions under the Clean Air Act.

Speaking last week at a fundraiser in Pittsburgh, Romney said he was a skeptic on global warming science. And he recounted his decision on RGGI to explain why he would reject a cap-and-trade system.

"I actually had in Massachusetts a consortium of states that came together with a cap-and-trade program. It was called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative," he said. "And all the governors, Gov. [George] Pataki and so forth, all signed it. I refused to sign. I do not believe in a cap-and-trade program."

Romney aides did not respond to a request for comment about the Massachusetts CO2 regulations. Campaign aides told The Wall Street Journal last month that the climate rule came at the end of a lengthy process that started in 2001 with former Republican Gov. Jane Swift.

But when the rules were issued, Romney was front and center to take credit.

In a December 2005 news release announcing the rules would take effect at the start of the new year, Romney said, "Massachusetts continues to be committed to improving air quality for all our citizens. These carbon emission limits will provide real and immediate progress in the battle to improve our environment. They help us accomplish our environmental goals while protecting jobs and the economy."

The release touted how the limits were the "toughest in the nation," and it celebrated the assistance of John Holdren, then a Harvard environmental policy professor, and Billy Pizer, then an environmental economist at the D.C. think tank Resources for the Future.

Romney's critics have pounced on Holdren's role in the climate rule, noting he's now the head of Obama's White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. The Perry campaign also highlighted his reliance on Gina McCarthy, the Obama EPA air chief who served Romney at the time as undersecretary for policy in his Executive Office of Environmental Affairs.

On Monday, Pizer said Romney's CO2 rule didn't strike him at the time as that big of a deal because it was so narrowly focused on just a few power plants.

"He was trying to burnish his environmental credentials and put the best spin on whatever environmental accomplishments were going on," said Pizer, now a faculty fellow at Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions. "I don't remember thinking at the time it was hugely significant. But of course anything at this point trying to reduce emissions should be viewed as significant."