The light side
of Mitt Romney
A fourth-grade teacher asked the
children what their fathers did for a living. All the
typical answers came up - fireman, mechanic, businessman,
salesman... and so forth. However, little Justin was being
uncharacteristically quiet, so when the teacher prodded him
about his father, he replied, "My father's an Exotic Dancer
in a gay cabaret and takes off his clothes to music in front
of other men and they put money in his underwear. Sometimes,
if the offer is really good, he will go home with some guy
and stay with him all night for money."
obviously shaken by this statement, hurriedly set the other
children to work on some exercises and took little Justin
aside. "Is that really true about your father?"
boy said, "He works for the Republican National Committee
and is helping to get Romney elected, but it's too
embarrassing to say that in front of the other kids."
of Romney Tax Plan
Fifty Shades of Romney
2nd debate: Romney enjoys “Binders of Women”
We knew he was a lover, but never guessed BDSM.
A canine abuser named Mitt
Ordered his people to sit,
Then explained that his name
Was destined for Fame
In the new phrase, my dog “took a Mitt.”
Romney’s family motto: “Mitt happens”
A Gee Oh Pee speaker named Ryan
Had a serious habit of Lyin’
When he said, “I did not”
It meant, who knew what?
So voters are not buyin’ Ryan
Krugman Heading to White House Job?
by Charles D. Hayes
surfaced Oct. 4, following the Romney/Obama debate, that Nobel
Prize Winning economist Dr. Paul Krugman will be offered the job
of chairman for the White House Council of Economic Advisors.
Should President Obama be reelected, it’s no secret that there
will be major changes in his second administration.
At the top, both Sec. of State Hillary Clinton and Treasury Sec.
Tim Geithner have said they plan to step down. Geithner wants to
return to Wall St. – no surprise there; often, his actions at
Treasury made it seem as if he never left – and Clinton will
have a dizzying array of attractive options from book deals and
corporate directorships to planning a presidential run in 2016.
Other cabinet secretaries are likely to follow, including
Attorney General Eric Holder who’s become a lightning rod for
Democrats and Republicans alike thanks to a triad of missteps
including not prosecuting anyone on Wall St. for their role in
the financial meltdown, not being more aggressive in fighting
voter suppression and mishandling the “Fast and Furious”
. . . One advisor who will leave is Alan Krueger, chair of the
Council of Economic Advisors since 2011. And even more
persistent rumors are floating around that the president will
ask Princeton University professor, New York
Times columnist and blogger, and Nobel Prize winning
economist Paul Krugman to take Krueger’s place.
Moment of Candor?
On May 7, 2012, Mitt Romney spoke at a $50,000 a plate dinner in
Florida. At this event, he made the following remarks in
response to a question. Ed.
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the
President no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who
are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe
that they are victims, who believe the government has a
responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are
entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.
That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to
them. And they will vote for this president no matter
what...These are people who pay no income tax...
"My job is not
to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they
should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
Are YOU a
The following test will enable you to ascertain whether you are
a dependent moocher in the opinion of GOP candidate Romney.
- Did you ever attend a public school or university? If Yes,
- Do you expect to collect Social Security benefits when you
retire? If Yes, add one.
- Do you expect to receive Medicare when you retire? If Yes,
- Did you pay less than 14 percent of your AGI in federal
taxes? If Yes, add one.
- Have you ever ridden a public bus or subway? If Yes, add
- Have you crossed a major bridge? If Yes, add one.
- Do you have investments in the Grand Cayman Islands? If
No, add one.
- Have you driven on the interstate highway system? If Yes,
- Did you ever have recourse to the legal system? If Yes,
- Do you work for a living? If Yes, add one.
Yes, you are a moocher. Scum like you vote for
Congratulations. You are a non-moocher, and you should
vote for Romney.
by Ivan Light
Romney claims that he can create more jobs than can President
Obama. Ask yourself: How might his claim ever prove correct? The
answer hinges on Romney’s cryptic five-point plan, details of
which he will not disclose. Romney says he will add two trillion
to the defense budget, reduce tax receipts by five trillion
dollars, and balance the budget. Obama replies that Romney’s
plan cannot work because he cannot increase expenditures, reduce
taxes, and balance the budget without drastically cutting social
security and medicare, which Romney declares he will “never” do.
Romney is promising a fiscal miracle that he cannot deliver.
Romney is selling snake oil. Obama is right about that.
However, Romney’s plan is only snake oil if Romney means what
Romney says. What if Romney is lying to the voters? Suppose
Romney does not really care about balancing the federal budget,
and just says that he cares in order to conform his stated
policy with the GOP’s platform; however, Romney intends to
forget deficit reduction as soon as he’s elected President. This
is what George W. Bush did. Possibly Romney is taking a
play from Bush’s book, and it might work.
By cutting taxes on the wealthy, Romney would stimulate spending
to some modest extent, and the result would be enhanced job
creation. By throwing unnecessary money at the Pentagon, Romney
would also create employment. Taking both policies together,
Romney’s plan would indeed create employment just as he
promises. Under Romney, the federal budget deficit would hugely
increase, but government spending and tax reduction would
increase employment all right. The beneficiaries of Romney’s
largesse would also be the rich and the Defense Department, two
core constituencies of the Republican Party. The problem would
be, of course, the vast increase in government deficit which
this policy of “military Keynesianism” would produce. But would
anyone really care in 2016? I don’t care now, and neither does
Paul Krugman, and Romney may not care either. In that case, once
elected, Romney will forget his deficit reduction pledge, and
take credit for increasing employment. He will claim to have
accomplished this by successful restructuring of the private
sector, cutting “red tape,” etc. but the real reason will
be deficit spending by government. Voters will forget the
increase in the deficit out of gratitude for the increase in
On the other side, President Obama actually feels obliged to
reduce the deficit as Bill Clinton did. He promises to do
so, and, unfortunately, he means it. This promise, which, unlike
Romney, President Obama takes seriously, compels Obama to reduce
government spending and to increase taxes. That’s how
deficits get reduced. However, those two policies in tandem tend
to reduce employment. It is easy to increase employment by
lowering taxes and deficit spending; hard to do it while
reducing government spending and raising taxes. The fact is,
alas, Obama’s misguided fidelity to the deficit reduction credo
has already created problems for the economy, and now creates
them for his reelection campaign. By following an economic
policy of austerity, the Obama administration forsook what
should have been a Democratic administration’s main program tool
for stimulating employment: vigorous counter – cyclical spending
that increases federal deficits while rebuilding our civilian
infrastructure. The result of Obama’s austerity has been a
feeble recovery that permits the Republicans to complain that
they could produce more jobs. This is precisely why Obama is now
fighting for his political life.
It need not have been this way. Had Obama embraced Franklin
Roosevelt’s policy of massive government spending to create
employment, as the progressive wing of his own party begged him
to do, then Obama might have greatly strengthened the economy’s
job creation. In that case, Republicans could not now complain
with some justice that the recovery has been anemic. Instead,
Obama embraced austerity, and got the feeble growth austerity
permits. Obama embraced a Republican economic nostrum,
austerity, and meant it, whereas the Republicans have secretly
taken on board the Keynesian economic policy that was once the
hallmark of Democratic policy. When challenged to get real
during the debate, Romney and Ryan issue bald face lies about
their devotion to deficit reduction, and declare the existence
of secret plans whose arithmetic implies the stimulation of the
economy by increasing (not reducing) the deficit. In the
last analysis, when facing the election of 2016, four years
hence, the American voters will be happier with the Romney
policy because voters really care about jobs, not about deficit
reduction. And it’s right that they should not care about
deficits now. Deficits do not matter; growth maters.
To make this point in the remaining days of his anemic campaign,
Obama and Biden must call the Republicans liars to their face,
and mockingly challenge their ability and even their intent to
reduce the deficit if elected. Unless they do this, and make the
voters listen to harsh words, Obama and Biden may lose the
election. This policy would be impolite, and Obama is a very
polite man. But, to “everything there is a season.” A time
for politeness, and a time for brutal candor.
Let 'Em Hear From You
This letter by Ivan Light appeared in the
Claremont Courier October 31st
While President Obama and Governor Romney were studiously
ignoring the issue of climate change for the third time on
Monday, Oct. 22, the Green Party candidate for President, Dr.
Jill Stein, was arrested and handcuffed to a chair in a nearby
detention center. This arrest was ordered to prevent Dr.
Stein from protesting the exclusion of the climate issue from
the national debate. The politicians thought they had excluded
the issue of climate change from our Presidential election in
this time-tested way. Jail the opposition. However,
Mother Nature had a different plan for us. Mother Nature is
harder to control than Jill Stein. Out in the mid-Atlantic
Ocean , Mother Nature had prepared a storm that is remarkable
both for its intensity and for its timing. It is predicted to
inflict a billion dollars of damage on the Atlantic
Coast. Meteorologists are viewing this storm as another
sign of dangerous climate change. Listen to Mother
Nature, and vote accordingly.
The Voorhis Voice is
published by the Democratic Club of Claremont,
PO Box 1201, Claremont CA 91711. The
newsletter’s name commemorates the late Jerry
Voorhis, a talented and courageous Congress
member from Claremont.
Democrat may join the Democratic Club of
on our web
Join us using our website form: http://www.claremontdems.org/e107_plugins/survey/survey.php?1
P.S. – Part of your dues and contributions
may be contributed to Federal and State
candidates. Individual contributions will be
deposited into the club’s Federal account, subject
to the Federal Elections Campaign Act.
Non-individual contributions and contributions of
individuals who so request will be deposited into
the club’s State account. Contributions are
limited under State law. No anonymous
contributions of more than $50 will be
accepted. Federal law requires us to use our
best efforts to collect and report the name,
address, occupation and employer of each
individual contributor. Political
contributions are not tax-deductible. FPPC
#841491. FEC #C00404319