The search for candor in the presidential campaign
AP Photo
This post originally appeared on Slate.
Expecting presidential candidates to be candid with voters is such a quaint idea you'd expect to find it on Pinterest. There it is, next to the adorable confectionery and wedding dog photos. Well, I like quaint, and if you also like a Dr. Seuss saying stenciled on an ambiguous decorative item, then join me on my search for candor in the 2012 presidential campaign. I need your help.
We need honesty now more than ever. There are big decisions to be made. A $1 trillion deficit requires a retooling of much of the federal government and a reworking of the tax code. At the very least, Americans are going to have to accept big changes in what they've come to expect from their government. Or they may have to face brutal reductions in public services they count on like the military or quality medical care for the elderly.
Mitt Romney attacks President Obama for not being candid, saying his hot mic moment with the Russian president "calls his candor into serious question." The Obama team makes the same charge about nearly every word that comes out of Romney's mouth. In the books each candidate has written, they've both said that a lack of honesty is what's ruining politics.
Successful politicians must shade the truth, embellish it, and keep everyone happy by avoiding it. But if this year's contenders are going to go on so much about candor, it's worth asking how honest has either candidate actually been. At a later date we'll try to figure out who tells hard truths more often. First, though, we'll need a baseline: What is the most candid thing each candidate has said? I asked each campaign to furnish an example. By candid, I don't mean specific. I mean, what's the best example of a candidate saying something honest enough to cause voters a moment of discomfort.
Mitt Romney:
"Our next president is going to face difficult choices. Among these will be the future of Social Security and Medicare. In their current form, these programs will go bankrupt. I know that, you know that, and even our friends in the other party know that. The difference is that I will be honest about strengthening and preserving them, and they won't."
Being candid about how you're going to be candid is no kind of candor at all. Taking credit for honesty you're not actually offering while criticizing the other party for not being honest compounds the offense, creating a net reduction in candor. Romney could say that under the plan he favors, Medicare recipients who expect a defined benefit will have to switch to a plan in which the contribution is defined. That would get a conversation going.
Romney has been specific about the tax rate reductions people will get, but when it comes to being specific about how those reductions will be paid for, he's less so. The Wall Street Journal reports his economic advisers are having trouble getting the numbers to add up in a way that isn't politically unpopular.
Of course, Romney had his own hot-mic moment a couple weeks back when he appeared to be speaking candidly with wealthy campaign donors. Some journalists overheard Romney offering a Dixie cup of detail about closing loopholes for mortgage interest deduction for second homes and trimming some federal departments. But apparently if we thought we heard some candid ideas from the Republican challenger, we were mistaken. Romney's campaign quickly rushed forward to say he was just repeating ideas he had heard on the campaign trail.
President Obama:
"So this notion that somehow we're offering smoke and mirrors--try to tell that to the Democrats out there, because part of what we've done is we've been willing to cut programs that we care deeply about, that are really important, but we recognize that given the fiscal situation that we're in, everybody has got to make some sacrifices; everybody has got to take a haircut."
The Obama campaign offered several other examples that were very much like the one the Romney camp offered: quotes about how hard choices had to be made without being specific about what those choices would be. This quote, while offering no actual candor, does point to cuts in specific programs like home heating aid, community block grants, and education programs that are in the neighborhood of the type of hard truths we were looking for. They are bad news for voters that the president would like to keep happy.
The president has an advantage over Mitt Romney in this way. Because his actions have consequences--candidates, by contrast, can pretty much say any old thing--his aides can point to support for legislation like Dodd-Frank where the president's advocacy damaged him with the banking industry. Several Democratic fundraisers have said this has led to the slow pace of fundraising on Wall Street.
The president could be very specific if he wanted to be. During the budget negotiations that collapsed surrounding the grand bargain, he considered some cuts to entitlement programs that he never talked about publicly. We're not likely to find out what those trade-offs are now that we're in an election season.
There is a known bug in this experiment. Campaign aides are not the best ones to ask about their candidate's candor. The modern campaign is a series of emergency exercises where aides are trained to smother any compromising thought that makes a break for it. Romney has (rather candidly) talked about his specific strategy against specificity--the more detailed you are the more you'll be attacked.
I can, however, think of a moment when Mitt Romney told farmers and businessmen at a meeting in Treynor, Iowa, he wasn't going to support their ethanol program. "I'm not running for office based on making promises of handing out money," he said. "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt," was a pretty gutsy thing to say, too. (Although the campaign says that wasn't the governor's actual wording for the headline of the op-ed he wrote arguing against the auto bailout, it does approximate the sentiment of the piece.) Romney is paying more of a price for those words in the Midwest than Obama did in 2008 for his comments about fuel efficiency standards.
The lack of honesty in campaigning is nothing new. In 1920, H.L. Mencken observed that "the first and last aim of the politician is to get votes, and the safest of all ways to get votes is ...to be happily free from any heretical treason to the body of accepted platitudes--to be filled to the brim with the flabby, banal, childish notions that challenge no prejudice and lay no burden of examination upon the mind."
Still, we must hope. Sure, candidates shouldn't be asked to commit political suicide, but they must be brave enough to say something more bracing than a cloth diaper. So I will continue to look for examples of candor during the campaign season and try to break off pieces of it from the permafrost of the two campaigns. If you have a better example, please email me at slatepolitics@gmail.com, and I'll elevate it to the top of the running list. This isn't necessarily an exercise in comparative candor. I'm just looking for the truest thing said by each candidate. Perhaps by the end of the campaign we might find an example of something Obama or Romney has said that's provocative enough that we'd really want to tack it up on the wall, and say, "Hey, thanks for being honest."
The Supreme Court Would Like To See Your Papers
A Few Reasons To Miss Newt Gingrich
What are cows used for, besides meat and milk?
Popular in Politics
- IRS scandal highlights leadership vacancies
- Va. GOP candidate: Planned Parenthood "more lethal" for blacks than KKK 746 Comments
- Poll: Most think IRS targeting was deliberate
- Obama: "Full focus" is on recovery from Oklahoma tornado
- Top Obama officials knew about IRS probe, says WH 61 Comments
- Benghazi-disciplined diplomat a prolific poet
- Immigration bill would require fingerprinting at 30 airports
- Letter to a young scandalmonger
You almost forgot the 8 year reign of war and terror of the last Republicon administration.
The bottom line is we need a bipartisan cooperation, honesty, transparency,... for a feasible solution.
I honestly believe if the republicans want to give the Democrats another shellacking in the 2012 elections the republicans should say to the Dems and Obama fine you got your buffet rule we'll pass it today.
Then from now until November just hammer Obama and the dems with the question of "You got your tax increase now where is you plan for the other 1.16 trillion in deficits?"
It would leave Obama stammering and stuttering because he has no plan aside from his populist talking point of tax the rich.
This is no way to run a country.
P.S. if we taxed the $trillions hidden in offshore tax havens, it would raise A LOT more per year than $ 40 billion.
Fact 1- in 2009, of the 236,883 taxpayers with $1 million or more in adjusted gross income, 1,470 (0.62 percent) paid no federal income taxes.
By contrast, in 2007, before the Great Recession, there were more millionaires — 392,221 — but fewer escaped paying federal income taxes. That year, 961 (0.25 percent) paid no federal income taxes.
From:
http://www.blueoregon.com/2011/08/millionaires-pay-no-federal-income-taxes/
Where is the fairness? The bottom line is we need the tax reform because there are many loopholes in current tax codes.
Fact 2- Tax fairness in term of economics based on The U.S. federal tax system is a progressive tax system, meaning that progressively higher portions of income are taxed at progressively higher rates. Europre and Australia have the same concept. In Australia, tax bracket for income over $180,000 is 45% and In 2011 the Australian economy was the fastest growing advanced economy in the world. In 2011 the average middle aged adult had a net worth of over $350 000, making Australians per capita some of the wealthiest people in the world.
$0-$6,000 Nil
$6,001-$37,000 15c for each $1 over $6,000
$37,001-$80,000 $4,650 plus 30c for each $1 over $37,000
$80,001-$180,000 $17,550 plus 37c for each $1 over $80,000
Over $180,000 $54,550 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000
In 2011 the Australian economy was the fastest growing advanced economy in the world. In 2011 the average middle aged adult had a net worth of over $350 000, making Australians per capita some of the wealthiest people in the world.
Fact 3- The more you make money the more you get reward. If your adjusted gross income is one million, you will pay $300, 000 based on Buffet Rule- you earn $700,000. If your AGI is $37,000, you will pay about $4650 and you have only net income of $32350.
Fact 4- How much does a millionaire pay more tax under Buffet Rule. Let's consider a simple scenario, roughly 5% to 2% more based on Buffet Rule , and no more loopholes, with AGI is 1 million dollars he has to pay more 5% -or 2%- of 1 million, ie 50, 000 dollars more-or more $20,000.
Therefore where is the Republican point to protect millionaires: we need to lower tax for millionaires because they are persons to create business and investment?!!!
Fact 5- Thousand of millionaires and billionaires did not use their money to invest in the market since the recession, and some of them invested in foreign countries, not in our country.
Where is the logic?
Our Congress wants to cut about $230, 000 billion /year and protect the millionaires and billionaires by not raising tax for them. Roughly if for only 5% more for millionaires and tax reform, the revenues may have more than $230,000 billion/year. The key point, that additional revenue will be invested in our lasting and boosting economy. Consequently the government is able to collect more sale tax, to reduce unemployment, to pay off debt, ....
Why to protect the millionaires and billionaires by hurting the retired seniors, poor people,... by cutting a marginal income of those people?!!! They are resources for consuming and reducing consuming leads to reducing supply; consequently mass lay-off , business failure, losing sale tax, ....
The fact is reducing spending too much will create more problems for our economy based on historical facts.
The bottom line is a long vision for our lasting economy or a short unfeasible vision one for a possible recession again.
The buffet rule would only raise at most 40 billion a year!
Our defects right now are 1.2 trillion. So while the buffet rule makes a great populist talking point it will do absolutely nothing to save Medicare, SS or lower the deficit in any meaningful way.
The only way taxing the 1% would put a dent in the current deficits would be if their incomes were taxed at 100% then we still would have about 200 billion a year in deficits.
Name just one good thing the Republicons have done or want to do for the 99%. No they want to balance the budget on the backs of the poor as they increase welfare payments for the rich.
As you look for "candor," John, please don't assume -- as so many within the Beltway do -- that Simpson-Bowles IS "bipartisanship." The Simpson-Bowles recipe called for $3 of cuts for every $1 of tax hikes, a profoundly conservative approach. Even so, it couldn't get Republicans to support it. (Sadly, most Democrats, including my own Sen. Durbin, held their noses and voted "aye.") But recognize that Simpson-Bowles itself is a conservative, not a centrist, approach!
There is something that can satisfy our Congress with the goal of cutting 230 billion/year if both sides together look at feasible mathematical solutions which include increasing taxes for wealthy people, cutting wasteful spending, raising the retirement age, tax reform to eliminate tax loopholes, eliminating earmarks, cutting unnecessary subsidies, fraud, ...
The feasible solution can only be achieved if both sides are honest and transparent. In fact, we can do better than what our Congress wants.
Good night, friends
You have to understand, this IS Romney. He has no clue of his own and is only a parrot right now, trying to say what everyone wants to hear. IF elected, he will destroy this country without a doubt. Trickle down does not work, it's been proven over many years and brought us to where we are. If you want to give another tax break to the wealthy, take it out of YOUR POCKET, NOT OURS.