Romney and Huntsman Face Off on Afghanistan

During the 11/22/2011 National Security Debate, Mitt Romney faced off against Jon Huntsman on troop levels and tactics in Afghanistan, which the US is currently funding to the tune of roughly $2 billion a week.

Jon Huntsman took the first stab at Afghanistan policy when a separate question arose about US-Pakistan relations.

HUNTSMAN: You've got a nation-state that is a candidate for failure. And I say it's a haven for bad behavior. It's a haven for training the people who seek to do us harm. And an expanded drone program is something that would serve our national interest.

I think it must be done. And I think it must be consistent with recognizing the reality on the ground of what we need out of Afghanistan: we don't need 100,000 troops in Afghanistan.

We don't need to nation-build in Afghanistan when this nation so desperately needs to be built.

When making an independent appraisal of the region, it's useful to recall who we are fighting and why.

In Afghanistan, the US is primarily fighting the Taliban, who ruled Afghanistan in 2001. They were given an ultimatum to turn over al Qaeda members who trained in their country. To this day, the Taliban is not classified as a terrorist organization by the state department. To be placed on that list, an organization has to be foreign, engage in terrorist activity, and threaten the security of the US or its citizens.

Nationality-wise, the 9/11 hijackers consisted of 15 Saudis, two UAE, one Lebanese and one Egyptian.

Romney justified his support of current troop levels in Afghanistan.

ROMNEY: We spent about $450 billion so far, 1,700 or so service men and women have lost their lives there, and many tens of thousands have been wounded. Our effort there is to keep Afghanistan from becoming a launching point for terror against the United States. We can't just write off a major part of the world.

He then segued to address our $4.5 billion annual investment in Pakistan.

ROMNEY: We can do a lot better directing that to encourage people to take advantage of the extraordinary opportunities of the West and freedom represent for their people.

HUNTSMAN: I totally disagree. I think we need to square with the American people about what we've achieved. We need an honest conversation in this country about the sacrifices that have been made over nearly 10 years. We have dismantled the Taliban. We've run them out of Kabul. We've had free elections in 2004. We've killed Osama bin Laden. We've upended, dismantled al Qaeda. We have achieved some very important goals for the United States of America.

Now, the fact that we have 100,000 troops nation-building in Afghanistan when this nation so desperately needs to be built, when, on the ground, we do need intelligence gathering, no doubt about that. We need a strong Special Forces presence. We need a drone presence. And we need some ongoing training of the Afghan National Army.

But we haven't done a very good job defining and articulating what the end point is in Afghanistan. And I think the American people are getting very tired about where we find ourselves today.

ROMNEY: Are you suggesting, Governor, that we just take all our troops out next week or what's your proposal?

HUNTSMAN: Did you hear what I just said? I said we should draw down from 100,000. We don't need 100,000 troops. many of whom can't even cross the wire. We need a presence on the ground that is more akin to 10,000 or 15,000. That will serve our interests in terms of intelligence gathering and Special Forces response capability. And we need to prepare for a world, not just in South Asia, but, indeed, in every corner of the world in which counter-terror -- counter-terrorism is going to be in front of us for as far as the eye can see into the 21st century.

ROMNEY: And the commanders on the ground feel that we should bring down our surge troops by December of 2012 and bring down all of our troops, other than, perhaps, 10,000 or so, by the end of 2014. The decision to pull our troops out before that, they believe, would put at risk the extraordinary investment of treasure and blood which has been sacrificed by the American military.

To consider the varying costs between the approaches, the US is spending about $1 million per troop per year.

Barack Obama's Balanced Approach: Fair Share or Class Warfare?

On 09/19/2011, Barack Obama made some remarks on how the select committee should approach deficit reduction.

"If we’re going to make spending cuts -- many of which we wouldn’t make if we weren’t facing such large budget deficits -- then it's only right that we ask everyone to pay their fair share."

Obama's definition of fairness: "Middle-class families shouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires."

Newt Gingrich was the only GOP presidential candidate to refer to Obama's "class warfare" during the 09/22/2011 debate but Paul Ryan, John Boehner, and Lindsey Graham were all characterizing Obama's "fair share" as "class warfare" by then.

In an 08/15/2011 New York Times op-ed piece by the Chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, "Stop Coddling the Super Rich," Warren Buffett argued that because he received much of his compensation as "carried interest," taxed at 15 percent, his overall tax rate of 17.4 percent was significantly lower than that of his employees, who averaged 36 percent.

An independent voter who isn't issued Republican or Democratic talking points for characterizing Obama's view as "class warfare" or "fair share" has to evaluate some facts, so here goes.

Chris Wallace interviewed White House Senior Adviser David Plouffe on Fox News Sunday 09/25/11.

Wallace used the following figures to question whether top earners were paying their fair share.


Fair Share?
Top 1% = 38% of Federal Income Taxes
Top 10% = 70% of Federal Income Taxes
The Tax Foundation Oct. 2010

Non-Payers
46% = No Federal Income Taxes
The Tax Policy Center July 2011

Looking at these numbers, it seems that the wealthy may be paying a higher percentage of their income to the federal government. Note that the first set of numbers, stating what the wealthiest pay, and the second set, what 46% of households don't pay, come from two different organizations. The second study would appear to be excluding FICA taxes, which Buffett argues disproportionately hit those who derive all their income from salary. Are those numbers also excluded from the first study?

Is seeking to adjust the tax code for high earners class warfare?

On the 08/16/2011 PBS Newshour story Land of the Free, Home of the Poor Paul Solmon reports some different numbers.

Distribution of Financial and Housing Wealth in the United States
Top 20%: 84%
2nd 20%: 11%
3rd 20%: 4%
4th 20%: 0.2%
Lowest 20%: 0.1%
Study by Dan Ariely of Duke University and Michael I. Norton of Harvard

Here we get a story that deals more with "class" and class mobility. Because it deals with quintiles instead of deciles, the numbers don't directly stack up but the underlying numbers don't appear to be necessarily inconsistent.

When it comes to the fair share or class warfare of the Buffett rule, Jon Huntsman advocates cutting the 15% taxation on capital gains and dividends to zero. Mitt Romney supports cutting tax on capital gains, dividends, and interest to zero for those who earn less than $200,000. That makes him more of a "class warrior."

Rick Santorum would cut corporate taxes for manufacturers to zero. Massachusetts Democratic senatorial candidate Elizabeth Warren would beg to differ with that approach.



"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there - good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory and hire someone to protect against this because of the work the rest of us did. Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea - God Bless! Keep a Big Hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."

Jon Huntsman's American Jobs Plan

On Wednesday, Jon Huntsman came out with his American jobs plan "Time to Compete."

Some highlights submitted for your approval:

Tax Reform:

Introduce a revenue-neutral tax plan that eliminates all deductions and credits in favor of three drastically lower personal tax rates of 8%, 14% and 23%.

Eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax, which is not indexed for inflation.

Eliminate taxes on capital gains and dividends.

Reduce corporate rate from 35% to 25%.

Regulatory Reform

Repeal existing regulations, including Obamacare (Affordable Care Act) and Dodd-Frank (Wall Street Reform).

Dramatically rein in the EPA. Oppose new ozone rule that would effectively halt new construction. On Friday, White House asked EPA administrator Lisa Jackson to withdraw the draft of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards plan. 

Ensure that NLRB and other agencies abandon their “job-destroying” policies.

Reform the FDA by streamlining the testing and approval process.

Enact comprehensive patent reform to weed out rent seeking and foster invention. "This American Life" episode "When Patents Attack" illustrates some flaws of current patent system.

Privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Energy Independence

Expedite the process for reviewing and approving safe, environmentally sound energy projects, including the development of North American oil and gas reserves; oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska; shale gas and oil in the U.S.; and Canadian oil sands.

Eliminate the subsidies and regulations that support foreign oil and inhibit domestic alternatives such as compressed natural gas (CNG), electricity, biofuels, and coal-to-liquids, which are not price-controlled by OPEC.

Free Trade

Make trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama a priority. Pursue new trade opportunities with Japan, India, and Taiwan.

Is Jon Huntsman too Reasonable to be a Republican?

Jake Tapper of "ABC News This Week" started off his interview with Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman by quoting Tim Pawlenty: “‘What I brought forward I thought was a rational, established, credible, strong record of results, based on experience governing, a two-term governor of a blue state, but I think the audience, so to speak, was looking for something different.’ Isn't Governor Pawlenty describing the same problem you're having on the campaign trail right now?”

Jon Huntsman was making his debut on a Sunday news show during a week when the full-time host, the president, and Congress were on vacation.

After a week when most major news outlets had played Rick Perry’s sound bites about the treasonous Fed chairman Ben Bernanke, the questionable theory of evolution, and the uncertain causes of climate change, Huntsman was able to elbow his way into the ambient light of the media spotlight, not with a bold ill-considered remark but with a tweet.

“To be clear, I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.”




Interview Transcript | Link to Full Interview

Huntsman's Views On:

Perry’s Scientific Views:
“I think there's a serious problem. The minute that the Republican Party becomes the party -- the anti-science party, we have a huge problem. We lose a whole lot of people that would otherwise allow us to win the election in 2012.

Perry’s Bernanke Treason Statement:
“And every time we have these sideshows take place, finger-pointing and name-calling, it takes us that much further off the ball, which is fixing our core in this country, is getting our economy fixed and creating jobs.”

Michele Bachmann’s Promise of Gas Under $2.00 a Gallon:
“You know, I just -- I just don't know what -- what world that comment would come from, you know? We live in the real world. It's grounded in reality. And gas prices just aren't going to rebound like that.”

Republican Candidates' Refusal of Debt Ceiling Deal:
“You can imagine -- even given the uncertainty of the marketplace the last several days and even the last couple of weeks -- if we had defaulted, the first time in the history of the greatest country that ever was, being 25 percent of the world's GDP and having the largest financial services sector in this world by a long shot, if we had defaulted, Jake, this marketplace would be in absolute turmoil. And people who are already losing enough as it is on their 401(k)s and retirement programs and home valuations, it would have been catastrophic.”

The Media:
Tapper asked why he had raised his hand, along with all the other Republican candidates in response to Bret Baier’s Iowa debate question about refusing to raise even $1 of taxes for $10 of spending cuts.

“Well, I'm just sorry that the debate resorted to a raising of hand as opposed to some discussion about where this country needs to go in terms of overall tax policy.”