OK...here I am in the middle...middle of the country (Midwest); middle class (that's a subject for another blog--have you noticed everyone thinks they are middle class?); middle in the political spectrum (of course the "right" thinks I'm a radical, feminazi, and I'm not sure what the left thinks...probaby "pro-business" confused moderate). I'm sorry. I digress. I'm trying to find a way to fit writing into my schedule so today it's the "morning strategy"....I've been up since 5:30, trying to get everything on my list finished before kids get up for school. My point? I'm a little foggy.
The debate last night? I fell asleep. Seriously, I fell asleep. My daughter was doing her homework in the living room where the main TV is located so I went into my bedroom to watch on the smaller TV. I'm not even sure when I fell asleep...I think I dosed in and out. From the tidbits I saw, here's what I think...just be YOURSELF. I think that's the appeal of Ron Paul. He comes off as truly authentic.
As for Newt, if you used your Speaker of the House experience and connections to work for drug companies to get the Medicare Prescription plan passed, just say so. Let's not split hairs about whether you were offically a lobbyist or not. "walks like a duck, talks like a duck"... I mean if you used your connections and relationships from government experience to affect legislation, aren't you in the role of a lobbyist who works for companies to get legislation passed or killed? Is there something inherently WRONG with being a lobbyist? Isn't it a decent way to make a living? Instead of a lobbyist or consultant, he called himself an historian? WHAT? What company would actually hire an historian? It just smells funny.
But I liked Newt's answer explaining the presciption drug plan for Medicare...in the olde days, Medicare paid for the open heart surgery but didn't pay for the medication that could prevent the surgery (I think he talked about Lipitor). I would like him to extend this same argument to women's reproductive rights (welfare will pay for the woman to have the child but won't pay for birth control). Hmmm...a topic for another time.
Mitt...you were at your best when you said in one of the bizillion debates, (this is a paraphrase), "I'm not going to apologize for being financially successful." He also tried to explain how investment companies like Baine Capital (sp?) operate...they invest in companies...they take risks...some companies fail; some companies succeed; some companies get broken up and sold. That's business. If he didn't do anything immoral or illegal, what is there to be embarassed about?
BREAKING...Romney just released his taxes! They have it as breaking news. Here in the middle, I think right wing media will say we think it's bad that he made $40+ million dollars...as for "we" I mean me because if you're not radical right, that means your left. It seems they think "liberals" hate people who have money. I certainly don't hate wealthy people. I don't begrudge people for being financially successful. However, it certainly highlights something that has happened in politics (the money has affected outcomes, it seems) and it highlights how the middle class is disappearing. It feels like the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the middle class keeps getting squeezed.
I don't care how much money you made, I care HOW YOU MADE IT (I need to write a blog on that...I think it was my dad who talked about the sentiment throughout the Great Depression and WWII. Instead of being impressed by a person who had lots of money, one was suspicious of a person who had lots of money...either they were born with a "silver spoon in their mouth" which people didn't respect or they made the money illegally...bootlegging or something). During the last decade (actually since the 80s), it seems people are so quick to be impressed with people who appear to be wealthy (he drives a Porsche and has a summer home on Mackinaw Island...he must be doing well). No, maybe he has money, but he might not have done anything to earn that money OR he might have earned it legally but unethically (that's another blogpost waiting to be written...think of unscrupulous mortgage brokers).
Digression ALERT: I can't believe I'm going to post this without proofing, but the trash guy is coming so I need to get hopping. (For some reason, this is one of those things that just irks me about my husband dying...it seems so trivial but it's just one of those simplified 1950s role-definition that I liked...he did trash, any critters that tried to get in the house...spiders, mice, chipmunks...and I didn't have to worry about it).
About the tax thing with Romney. So, it appears his tax RATE was 14%. On the other hand, 14% of $40 million is alot of money and he chose to pay $7 million to charities, which is why his rate was lower I would guess. I think we all have the option to pay money to charities to decrease our tax rate. BUT I'm not a tax attorney (this is one of those areas in which I have not educated myself to keep up with tax laws, etc., so truly just an opinion). I just recall when Gary Hart talked abot a flat tax, people thought it was crazy. I don't think we will change the tax code because it would put an entire industry out of work (tax attorneys and accountants) if we kept it simple. I'm not saying a flat tax is the answer. It just seems it should be simplfied. Ahhhh...gotta go. I hear the trash truck!
