white radical nerd lady in my 30s
transplanted to the East Coast US
happily living in sin with my co-conspirator Mr. X
my Dragon Age sideblog
Other tags of interest - Places I Wish I Was Right Now, GPOY, owls, you are cordially invited to my pants, this has been a post, OH MY GOD, Favorite of all the things, Maru is the best cat in the whole world
Mitt Romney’s father, George W. Romney, also ran for president in 1968, and for awhile was a frontrunner. He lost the Republican nomination to Richard Nixon. He then served in Nixon’s cabinet.
Which is sort of hilarious. And it’s funny that we never talk about Mitt trying to follow in his father’s footsteps (ruthless CEO, governor of an ostensibly liberal state, running for president under a strictly corporate profiteering platform).
WOW! How did he accomplish such a feat?
- Romney’s initial emergency budget proposal for fiscal year 2003 called for $343 million in immediate funding cuts, necessitating layoffs of state employees and cuts in aid to cities and towns for public safety and education.
- He also proposed cuts in state expenditures for Medicaid, the government program providing health care for the poorest state residents. The cuts included caps in payments to medical providers (one example being through limiting payments for hospital stays to 20 days, no matter how sick the patient), increased stringency of the criteria for Medicaid eligibility, and rationing of access to higher-priced medications for Medicaid patients. Some 36,000 Massachusetts residents lost their Medicaid eligibility.
- The 2003 emergency budget revision proposal also included funding cuts affecting public colleges and universities, treatment for schizophrenic and other mentally ill patients, and various other social services.
- Romney’s austerity budget for fiscal year 2004, unveiled just weeks later, included even more substantial cuts in state funding for cities and towns. The final budget passed by the legislature (after overriding Romney’s attempt to make still further cuts using line-item vetoes), cut funding for local aid to many communities by as much as 20 percent. Already struggling to absorb funding cuts from the prior year’s budget, communities across the state were forced to cut services and hike fees, while laying off teachers, police officers, and other municipal workers.
- To compensate for lost revenue from the state government, communities raised local property tax rates, helping drive up the average residential property tax bill by 22 percent over the course of Romney’s tenure. In response to complaints about the high residential property taxes, Romney supported and signed into law legislation that allowed communities to shift some of the burden of rising property taxes from residential property owners onto business owners.
- As with the 2003 emergency revision budget, Medicaid funding, which was responsible for more than one-fourth of all state spending and which had been growing rapidly, was targeted for cuts in the 2004 budget. In addition to proposing reductions in payments to hospitals and nursing homes for care of Medicaid patients, and restrictions on Medicaid patients’ access to prescription drugs and eligibility for nursing homes admission, Romney proposed that the low-income Medicaid patients be charged monthly fees for participation in the program, along with co-payments for visits to doctors’ offices.
- Romney vetoed a funding bill for payment of attorneys representing the poor, declaring that it was more important for the state to balance its books than to pay attorneys, and that the attorneys should provide the services pro bono. The cuts in payments for representation of the indigent provoked outraged attorneys to strike. The plan to remake the court system was unsuccessful.
- Romney proposed 33 new fees along with increases in 57 existing fees, resulting in higher costs for birth certificates, new car purchases, driver’s learning permits, firearms permits, professional licenses, and billboards advertising, as well as for many state services.
- Opponents said many of the fees posed a hardship on those who could least afford them, such as fees for the state to provide certification of blindness and a photo identification card for the blind. The proposal also called for a $50 fee for tuberculosis tests and a $400 fee for those who tested positive (the tuberculosis fees were rejected by the legislature).
I urge you to pay attention to all this. As a resident of Massachusetts I have long been critical of his callous attitude towards the people who need help the most. It would be a tragedy if the entire country were to fall into his hands.
That’s very interesting, Mitt.
We’ve had a lot of mass shootings in 2012. Were they caused by single parenting? Were these all young people?
A bipartisan group of women in Massachusetts formed MassGAP to address the problem of few women in senior leadership positions in state government. There were more than 40 organizations involved with the Massachusetts Women’s Political Caucus (also bipartisan) as the lead sponsor.
They did the research and put together the binder full of women qualified for all the different cabinet positions, agency heads, and authorities and commissions. They presented this binder to Governor Romney when he was elected.
So how DID women fair under Governor Romney?
First of all, according to MassGAP and MWPC, Romney did appoint 14 women out of his first 33 senior-level appointments, which is a reasonably impressive 42 percent. However, as I have reported before, those were almost all to head departments and agencies that he didn’t care about — and in some cases, that he quite specifically wanted to not really do anything. None of the senior positions Romney cared about — budget, business development, etc. — went to women.
Secondly, a UMass-Boston study found that the percentage of senior-level appointed positions held by women actually declined throughout the Romney administration, from 30.0% prior to his taking office, to 29.7% in July 2004, to 27.6% near the end of his term in November 2006. (It then began rapidly rising when Deval Patrick took office.)
Third, note that in Romney’s story as he tells it, this man who had led and consulted for businesses for 25 years didn’t know any qualified women, or know where to find any qualified women. So what does that say?
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Massachusetts Voters shows Obama with 57% support to Romney’s 42%. One percent (1%) is undecided.
Mitt sure loves to point to his tenure as Governor of Massachusetts as an experience that qualifies him for the White House. Yet the state he governed does NOT want him as President, and by a large margin.
Why do you suppose that is?
(As someone who lived under his tenure, I’d say it’s because he was a lousy governor who was just warming the seat on his way to something more lucrative. But that’s just me.)
Is nobody else freaked the fuck out?
I wasn’t at all worried before, but it’s OCTOBER and the Obama supporters are… asleep? On vacation? In some secluded location planning their next move? What?
WTF you guys. PRESIDENT ROMNEY. Just think about that. The UNMITIGATED DISASTER of that. This guy has no morals or standards whatsoever that I can discern. He’ll do whatever the money tells him to do. The money tells him to bomb Iran, he’ll shrug and inform the Pentagon.
We should all be terrified by that possibility.
And if there isn’t enough drama, they will create some.
So they are going to act like the election is a lot closer than it really is. All the political media know how to do anymore is the “horse-race” coverage, where you obsess over the polls and the candidates’ strategies. They have to have a competitive contest, otherwise they will have no interest and lose ratings.
Keep it in mind in this last month before the election, because they are going to jump on every little thing as though it will swing the whole election. Obama clinches the election! Now Romney takes the lead! No it’s Obama! Romney’s catching up! No he’s not!
This is what they do instead of any substantiative coverage of the issues and the candidates. Feel like you just watched a totally different debate than what the newscasters did? That’s because it doesn’t matter what actually happened - they’re shaping a narrative. They are only cherrypicking the parts that will make their narrative more interesting. And when they talk about what “people” are thinking, they cherrypick people who will follow the right script.
So. Don’t panic. Ignore them for the most part, call them out if they’re blatantly ignoring the facts. They’re nearly obsolete, anyway.