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.

GOP Candidate Economic Plans and Income Inequality

Rick Perry's alternative 20% tax plan came out the same week as the Congressional Budget Office report "Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007".

Of the three current top polling candidates, Cain's 9-9-9 plan does the most to accelerate income inequality. Mitt Romney was criticized by Newt Gingrich for capping capital gains tax exemptions. He responded that the middle-class has had a tough go of things under Barack Obama.

Inequality Chat

Paul Solmon, who I remember entertainingly explained the role arbitrage played in the 1987 Black Friday stock fall, followed his PBS NewsHour series with a Twitter chat on 10/28/11, which is re-organized and somewhat translated into English below. I apologize for deleting comments that Solman did not address but it was helpful for the sake of a coherent Q&A.

Without getting into arguments about whether or not the United States Government taxes too much or spends too little, this independent voter is primarily interested in two issues. How does income inequality affect the ability of the private sector to function?

Question: Why a series on economy inequality?
Solman: I think it's the most important economic issue of our time, has been for years. Can America Dream, US survive inequality like Gilded Age, '20s?

JRRuss67: What happened in mid-70s to cause the gap to widen so much?
Solman: Lots: Globalization (cheap labor) I. Deregulation. Diminished influence of unions. Big boost came from '80s with "tax reform."

Question: Why feature Libertarian Epstein? Don't they get enough air time?
Solman: Maybe, but not from us. I thought he made his case so blatantly, viewers could evaluate it for themselves. Disagree?

tniblett: How have we convinced ourselves that inequality is good for USA?
Solman: Because it's in the interest of the economy's winners to champion the notion that they deserve what they get?

tniblett: True, but why is it in the interest of economy's losers to believe it?
Solman: A puzzle why economy losers believe it. But polls now suggest we increasingly DON'T believe inequality is good for economy.

Question: Doesn't inequality always contribute to inequality or repression?
Solman: No, inequality doesn't ALWAYS contribute to political instability or repression. But it doesn't seem help either one & if wide enough.

tkmalone: How does concentrated wealth affect consumer spending? More money on fewer individual needs, food, houses, cars, etc.?
Solman: Concentrated wealth hurts consumer spending because wealthy save a higher percentage of their income. Much higher.

Question: Why not "income disparity" instead of "inequality," which implies something wrong, INequitable?
Solman: Because "inequality" is a clear and true description? Would you prefer "income asymmetry"? Folks would feel even better.

Question: It seems the corporations have written off consumer demand and are still making profits?
Solman: US corps are selling more and more abroad. That's presumably why the US market has gyrated so because of events in Europe, China.

norrisj: 12th grade economy class here. We are concerned about equal opportunity vs. equal result.
Solman: "Equal opportunity" sounds great. But if only some folks have marketable skills in this economy and others don't, then what? Can those of us with skills that aren't "marketable" opt out of this market in ignorance, deceit and obedience? Aside from unemployment? The grim truth is, choices are to opt out via downshifting (living with folks? At Zucotti Park?) or getting the skills. Opportunity inequality based on marketable ability. Needs to be role for folks with limited ability, be it factory or massage.

policylink: How do the coming racial demographic changes play into this debate? US will be majority people of color by 2042
Solman: I don't know. You'd think poorer minorities would vote for equality policies, wouldn't you?

AFWorkforce: People need choice. Many people feel like they are looking at glass ceiling and shackled to job
Solman: Yes, hard to move if you can't sell your house or are terrified that if you quit your job, you won't find another.

BerylSchewe: How do we widen the chances for equal opportunity without increasing entitlements?
Solman: Why "entitlements"? How about real jobs that need doing, done by sidelined Americans? CCC anyone?

norrisj: What would you propose for equality policy? Income cap? Tax the rich? confiscate?
Solman: Taxing the wealthy seems such an obvious starting point. Top tax rate under Wilson: 77%; FDR: 94%. Today: 35%!

mediacodex From London: Isn't raising opportunities for lower classes more important a focus than on lower inequality?
Solman: Yes, focus on job opportunities for the low downs but can it be done without investing in them? Who will invest but high ups?

bwmcr: How do we begin to showcase that economic policies that increase equality are not socialist, and gaining acceptance.
Solman: FDR was accused of being a socialist and, compared to what had preceded him, perhaps he was.

DgwilsonDave: What about putting fees on fossil fuels and emissions and rebating equally per person?
Solman: Charging the true cost of negative externalities like pollution is basic economics. But wouldn't do much to affect inequality.

bwmcr: How about tax breaks for companies that have more equal pay like Ben and Jerry's? Reward socially-mindedness.
Solman: It would be very difficult to legislate. Got to be easier to tax the wealthy. And if government owns, to pay top dogs less.

tsheely67 Why does such a high percent pay NO federal tax? Wouldn't more stakeholders insist on less waste?
Solman: Interesting point. Flat taxers say simple is better. But you can have simple and progressive both. Check out original tax form.

JohnMesserly: Paul, recall when you did your first story on it?
Solman: For PBS Boston, inequality stories in early '80s. For NewsHour, "Upstairs, Downstairs" in '87. Reported "Hourglass economics" in '89.

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."

Mitt Romney's Economic Priorities

While Barack Obama’s American Jobs Plan is the most detailed document by a presidential candidate to date, Mitt Romney laid out significantly more detail than Jon Huntsman or Herman Cain in an e-book: Believe in America: Mitt Romney's Plan for Jobs and Economic Growth announced during a speech given at the McCandless International Trucks Company in North Las Vegas, Nevada. Here are his "day one" priorities.

Day One
Introduce Legislation to:

1. Reduce the corporate income tax rate to 25 percent.
2. Implement the Colombia, Panama, and South Korea Free Trade Agreements.
3. Direct the Department of the Interior to undertake a comprehensive survey of American energy reserves in partnership with exploration companies and initiates leasing in all areas currently approved for exploration.
4. Consolidate the sprawl of federal retraining programs and return funding and responsibility for these programs to the states.
5. Immediately cuts non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent, reducing the annual federal budget by $20 billion.

Sign Executive Orders to:

1. Direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services and all relevant federal officials to return the maximum possible authority to the states to innovate and design health care solutions that work best for them.
2. Direct all agencies to immediately initiate the elimination of Obama-era regulations that unduly burden the economy or job creation, and then cap annual increases in regulatory costs at zero dollars.
3. Direct the Department of the Interior to implement a process for rapid issuance of drilling permits to developers with established safety records seeking to use pre-approved techniques in pre-approved areas.
4. Direct the Department of the Treasury to list China as a currency manipulator in its biannual report and direct the Department of Commerce to assess countervailing duties on Chinese imports if China does not quickly move to float its currency.
5. Reverse the executive orders issued by President Obama that tilt the playing field in favor of organized labor, including the one encouraging the use of union labor on major government construction projects.