60 Minutes FAIL: 10 Questions Scott Pelley Didn’t Ask Mitt Romney But Should Have

On last night’s broadcast of 60 Minutes, in place of the hard-hitting interview that viewers might have expected for a presidential candidate (something more along the lines of, say, Steve Kroft’s righteous pummeling of President Obama, which aired later in the broadcast), audiences were instead treated to a nothing-to-see-here talking-point-a-thon in which Scott Pelley not only allowed Mitt Romney to weasel out of every one of the (very few) hard questions he actually asked but also missed numerous opportunities to try to get the candidate to talk about some of the most serious (and legitimate) voter concerns regarding this campaign.

Here, then, is my list of

10 Questions Scott Pelley Didn’t Ask Mitt Romney But Should Have:

1. Gov. Romney, you say that

the President’s decision not to meet with Bibi Netanyahu, prime minister of Israel, when the prime minister is here for the United Nations session, I think, is a mistake and it sends a message throughout the — the Middle East that somehow we distance ourselves from our friends and I think the exact opposite approach is what’s necessary.

Let’s talk about the Mideast policy you unveiled at that Florida fundraiser last May, which became public thanks to Mother Jones and the “47%” video. That policy, as you articulated it in the video, seems to be based on your belief that the Palestinians have “no interest whatsoever in establishing peace and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish.” Here is what you proposed:

So what you do is, you say, you move things along the best way you can. You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem. We live with that in China and Taiwan. All right, we have a potentially volatile situation, but we sort of live with it, and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it.

What kind of message do you think your characterization of the Palestinians might send, especially in the context of the comments you made in Jerusalem last July, suggesting that their culture is inferior, comments that many Palestinians and others found offensive, and what message do you think your plan — essentially to do nothing to try to work for peace in the region — might send throughout the Middle East?

2. Gov. Romney, many Americans are concerned about your response to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on the anniversary of 9/11, which took the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens, along with members of his staff and security detail. Even some prominent members of your own party have suggested that your reaction was an ill-advised rush to judgment about a volatile international situation about which you did not have all the facts. How would you reassure voters who think your response raises questions about your ability to serve as commander-in-chief?

3. What would you say to voters who perceive your response to the attack on Ambassador Stevens and his staff in Benghazi, namely that you expressed no apparent grief or regret about the tragic loss of life of individuals in service to our country even when you had the opportunity to clarify your remarks the next day, once you did have all the information, as exploiting a national tragedy as a way to try to earn political points?

4. Are you aware that most of the 47% of Americans you identified in the Mother Jones video as paying no taxes, the ones you said you could never get to “take personal responsibility and care for their lives,” are working people who are not exempt from payroll taxes, and that therefore many of them are actually taxed at a higher rate than you are?

5. Since the very small minority of Americans who pay “no income tax” are families living in poverty, low-income seniors who have paid all their lives into the system that now supports them, and active duty soldiers deployed to combat zones, would you like to take an opportunity now to reconsider your description of these Americans as people

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.

6-9. Suggested follow-ups to this exchange:

PELLEY: The tax rate for everyone in your plan would go down.

ROMNEY: That’s right.

PELLEY: But because you’re going to limit exemptions and deductions, everybody’s going to essentially be paying the same taxes.

ROMNEY: That’s right. Middle-income people will probably see a little break, because there’ll be no tax on their savings.

6. Are you saying that you’re going to cut capital gains taxes on middle-income people? Do you understand that most middle-income people do not have any capital gains?

7. Are you aware that most middle-income families are not able to amass enough in savings for the interest on it to amount to anything and that therefore a tax cut on that interest would mean nothing to most middle-income people?

8. When you say that “middle-income people” are likely “to see a little break,” are you still talking about those earning $200,000-250,000, as you defined “middle income” last week?

9. You seem to be saying that the effect of your tax reform would be net neutral. If that is true, what exactly is the point of it?

10. Why won’t you release your damn tax returns?

University of I’ve-Got-Mine

In a recent post, I set out to discuss a proposal by the University of Chicago economist Luigi Zingales that advocated equity financing of higher education, which he outlined in a June 2012 New York Times op-ed, but reconsidered that project when I realized that Zingales’s political connections, including his close association with GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan, made for a more interesting story, especially in light of the author’s coyness with respect to his political motivations, about which the Times article and accompanying author bio are silent. In making his pitch for equity funding of higher education, he presents himself strictly as a professor and an economist, situating his authority and credibility on the topic entirely in that context. He is of course a professor of economics, but there is no question that his position is also very much informed by his political affiliations, which he does not disclose. As my own position is also political, I have no objection to hearing out the positions of others who come to their beliefs by way of their politics, including when theirs are different from mine. But I think it is important to be forthright about political orientation and values if we intend a healthy debate, and Zingales was not at all forthright in those respects in his presentation to readers.

In this post, I revisit the op-ed, but not because I think his idea deserves to be taken seriously. It doesn’t. Zingales has established precisely zero credibility for one of his central claims, in which he attributes the decreasing affordability of higher education to “crony capitalism,” which he further claims enriches professors at the expense of “everyone else.” As I discussed previously, his unwillingness or inability to acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of professors in the U.S. are not pulling down anywhere near as much bank as he is seems disingenuous. As I also observed, his credibility is further challenged by an impressive tolerance for cognitive dissonance that enables him to give bestie Paul Ryan and his family a pass despite their extensive record of self-enrichment via federal generosity, which I guess is somehow not “crony capitalism” but rather just good old-fashioned free-market capitalism the way God intended.

Rather, I have reconsidered because that op-ed was read and taken seriously by a lot of people, meaning that it has become part of the mainstream of public discourse on the very real problem of college affordability for American students, and especially because it is a fine example of what is so incredibly wrong with the assumptions that inform a lot of that discourse.

Zingales proposes that “Investors could finance students’ education with equity rather than debt. In exchange for their capital, the investors would receive a fraction of a student’s future income — or, even better, a fraction of the increase in her income that derives from college attendance.” According to the author, “Equity contracts would diversify the risk of failure, with highly compensated superstars helping to finance the educations of less successful college graduates,” although it is not at all clear how that would work.

He further claims that the contracts will somehow “avoid pushing graduates into lucrative jobs just to pay off debt,” which sounds great in theory, but I don’t think it could possibly be true in practice. I don’t see how such an arrangement wouldn’t push graduates toward “lucrative jobs,” including by initially pushing them towards undergraduate majors that are considered more likely to lead to such jobs. I doubt Dr. Zingales is naive enough to believe otherwise, and since he provides no evidence to support his claim, I suspect that he is being disingenuous, especially when he adds this part:

Most important, these contracts would provide financiers with an incentive to counsel students wisely, as financiers would profit from good educational investments and lose from bad onesThis would create more informed demand for the schools, exerting pressure on them to contain costs and improve quality.

Leaving aside for now the suggestion that improved quality is somehow a logical result to expect from budget cuts, I am wondering what “good educational investments” that would result in “profit” for the “financiers” might look like. The specifics are left to our collective imagination. But the focus of media attention to the topic suggests that the operative definition of a good educational investment is one that maximizes future earnings in relation to tuition investment, on the assumption that a good investment is definable in exclusively economic — and exclusively individual — terms.

One influential study of “return on investment” (ROI) conducted by PayScale (a company that collects and analyzes salary and other career-related data) ranked 853 U.S. colleges and universities according to the extent to which “what you pay to attend” is worth “what you get back in lifetime earnings.” You probably won’t be surprised to find that of the top 20 schools with the highest ROIs, all but two are private, six are Ivies, and the total tuition at all but three tops $200K. Apparently even that astronomical tuition investment is totally worth it because of the “projected net return on investment” over 30 years: $800K for the #20 college on the list (Rensselaer Polytechnic) and over $1M for the institutions ranked 1-9.

Thankfully, as of course we all know, the playing field for admission even to elite universities is completely level, and so there is no object whatsoever for any student who would like to attend a high-ROI institution. (Alevei![1]

There is also the role of undergraduate major in calculating ROI. U.S. News recommends “College Majors with the Best Return on Investment,” and Fortune reveals “The 15 College Majors with the Biggest Payoffs.” Kiplinger offers a helpful list of the “Worst College Majors for Your Career” and Time outlines the “20 Best- and Worst-Paid College Majors.” The “best ROI” majors include (pre-)medicine, engineering (looks like any kind will do), economics, finance, or anything that leads to a career in the pharmaceutical industry. Selecting one of these financially promising majors, according one expert, will justify going to a more expensive school” because “there’s more job opportunities” and these jobs “pay better.”

So, is majoring in philosophy (Kiplinger‘s 4th “worst major”) at Stanford (4th highest institutional ROI) a good educational investment or a bad one? Can a high-ROI school compensate for a low-ROI major, or vice versa? Is it still a good investment to pursue a high-ROI major, like electrical engineering (5th “best major”), even if it’s at a low-ROI institution?

And which is the better investment: $200K in tuition for an anthropology major (#1 “worst major”) at a high-ROI institution or at a lower-ROI university at half or even a third of the cost? Will equity financiers want to invest in anthropology majors at all? Might their “wise counsel” include discouraging students from pursuing low-ROI majors? Should anthropology and all other low-ROI majors then be reserved exclusively for those students who can pay their own way?

Will financiers support students who want to attend higher-cost high-ROI institutions if they pursue low-ROI majors? Will they support students at low-ROI colleges at all? Is a low-ROI major and/or attendance at a low-ROI institution a bad investment? Is it a better investment not to go to school at all?

Zingales doesn’t address these issues, not a surprise since he never even gets around to defining “good educational investments” beyond announcing that “financiers would profit” from them and “lose from bad ones.” But it does seem like a free-market guy like him would be totally down with the ROI-rankings game. By the way, his own institution offers “far above median” faculty salaries and enjoys considerable renown, despite its less-than-stellar institutional ROI ranking (#78).

And while Zingales offers no evidence for his claim that somehow equity financing will “avoid pushing graduates into lucrative jobs just to pay off debt,” the framing of his proposal in relation to the investor’s incentive for profit suggests that in the system he envisions, the “wise counsel” of the “financiers who would profit from good educational investments” may well steer students toward high-ROI majors if not compel high-ROI major selection as a condition of funding.

I would love for this to be nothing more than some slippery-slope paranoia on my part, but I don’t think it is. For one thing, there is just no evidence that Zingales’s formulation assumes any kind of educational or cultural value beyond the individual ROI model for the student and “profit” for the “financier.” For another, the ubiquity of ROI as the central assumption of recent public discourse on the topic of the value of higher education suggests that it is not. And for yet another, programs that tie eligibility to very specific kinds of “educational investments” are already part of the discussion. For example, the Amazon Career Choice Program for warehouse employees of the behemoth online bookseller (and everything-else seller) is, according to its FAQ page, “unlike traditional tuition reimbursement programs” in that they “exclusively fund education only in areas that are well-paying and in high demand.” (Those are my italics, but it was not my idea to use “exclusively” and “only” redundantly. Thanks to my low-ROI undergraduate major, today I can easily recognize such graceless syntactic constructions, and the satisfaction I take in doing so is what they pay me with instead of money.)

But none of this quite gets at the real problems with the discourse in general and the Zingales proposal in particular, one of which is this: There is no cultural consensus that students will make the best educational decisions when they base those decisions primarily (if not solely) on the basis of expected individual financial ROI. Should we accept that assumption as a logical guiding principle for any serious discussion of higher education? The case has not been made convincingly or really at all that this kind of thinking is the wisest course for our society, and I have a pretty strong suspicion that it is not. [2]

And speaking of unconvincing arguments, Zingales insists that despite how all this looks, what he is advocating “is not a modern form of indentured servitude.” In his pre-emptive defense against the charge, which he is right to anticipate, he reveals another problematic ideological stance that has gone mostly (but not entirely) unchallenged in the wider public debate of whether college is “worth it.” Zingales says that what he is proposing is not indentured servitude but rather

a voluntary form of taxation, one that would make only the beneficiaries of a college education — not all taxpayers — pay for the costs of it.

I could not agree more that the beneficiaries of a college education should absolutely be paying for it. Where Zingales and I disagree is in our respective understandings of who the beneficiaries really are.

The problem is not that we have a system in which those who are not “the beneficiaries” of higher education are somehow the ones paying for it. The problem is that too many of the beneficiaries are not paying anywhere near enough for it, too many of them resent what little they do pay, and too many of them would like to pay even less.

This is at least in part because a lot of people honestly don’t see themselves as beneficiaries of the education of other people, which I have to agree is a logical conclusion in the context of the dominant ideology that informs popular opinion on the topic of higher ed, which is (say it with me) that it is all about individual financial ROI. In that context, why would people see themselves as beneficiaries of any education but their own?

But they are. We all are. That a whole lot more people benefit from the education of a single individual than merely the individual and that these benefits are cumulative and span generations is indisputable. We are incredibly fortunate to live in a mostly safe, mostly civilized, and relatively prosperous society with extraordinary rights and resources that are foundational for anyone who wants to build anything. That Americans have achieved so much that is truly extraordinary — think moon-landing extraordinary, Internet extraordinary — is a direct result of the high cultural value that we the people have placed on education in general and higher education in particular, in which we have invested accordingly. In this sense, and I want to make clear that I think this is the sense that matters most, higher education is not merely or even primarily an investment in an individual.

But somehow the idea that it is has become a powerful cultural assumption. Yes, the individual benefit of a college education is undeniable, but it makes no sense to assume (or to try to dictate) that it is valuable only in terms of the financial return to the individual (and to the “financier” who pays for it). What an incredibly cynical, short-sighted, and unimaginative view that is.

Imagine what our society might look like if Americans had always thought that way. Imagine a United States with no G.I. bill, no Claiborne Pell, no cultural tradition of education as a public good. How many valuable advances and innovations in the sciences, technology, medicine, and yes, the arts and the humanities, would never have happened if only affluent people could access a quality university education, if the only higher education open to most Americans was training to be good little worker bees in jobs that are some billionaire’s idea of what is best for us?

The debt that a student takes on is all too individual, but the benefit of that individual’s education is collective. And until we can find a better way to make higher education more affordable and more accessible, we ought to be working harder to support individuals for whom student loans are the only option, even the ones who don’t opt for high-ROI majors and those for whom high-ROI institutions are out of reach. Students who choose alternatives to financial self-enrichment, who choose to pursue work in areas that make life worth living not only for themselves but also for others — and that includes pre-school teachersartistsanthropologists, and philosophers, as well as doctors and engineers — are good educational investments even if “financiers” don’t ever recoup a dime of “profit” off them.

I guess it’s easy to blame the student debt crisis on college students and graduates and professors and administrators, or to propose a funding scheme like Zingales’s that does nothing to address the real causes of increasing college unaffordability, starting with the national disgrace that is the systematic public divestment from state universities. I guess that’s easier than taking on the devastating consequences of student-loan debt on individuals and on the U.S. economy in any meaningful way.

It is hard not to be discouraged at the moment, especially given the possibility that the nation might elect a smirking, dishonest presidential candidate whose idea of fiscal responsibility is disparaging poor people and stashing millions in overseas accounts to avoid paying his taxes. And never mind his equally dishonest, free-marketeer, I-built-that running mate, whose own accumulation of wealth via government subsidies entitles him to a description so many times stronger than hypocrite that even this low-ROI English major can’t think of one that rises to the occasion.

But I hope that the cynical ideology that an educational investment is (and ought to be) an individual thing, that the point of education is an exclusively individual benefit, that the benefit can only be measured as a return on investment that can be counted only in dollars, and that any notion of a “greater good” is socialism and therefore bad does not discourage and even prevent people from pursuing educational goals that aren’t an obvious fast track to generating big revenue for themselves (and “profit” for their “financiers”). The last thing we need in this country is to continue to celebrate and reward the ideology of greed that has gotten us into so many of the messes that we are collectively in today. If we allow that ideology to continue to define our education policy, it is not going to be a win for most of us.


[1] Of course it is not at all clear that factors that have nothing to do with quality of education, such as the socioeconomic privilege and social advantages that many high-institutional-ROI students and alumni enjoy, can be ruled out as significant influences on a high-ranking institution’s ROI. That is, such a return may not be a function of the institution itself but rather reflective of the relative privilege of the students most likely to be admitted. On a related note, see Thomas Edsall’s March 2012 New York Times article “The Reproduction of Privilege,” which  identifies “anti-democratic trends” in the admissions policies of the “most competitive” colleges, many of which are of course also high-ROI institutions.

[2] And don’t even get me started on how all this institutional ROI business does absolutely nothing to address the highly problematic role of elite colleges and universities in perpetuating social inequality. In discussions of ROI, that function goes completely unremarked even though it a key feature of what makes a high-ROI institution such a “good educational investment” in the first place. These institutions actually exacerbate the class divide, as Thomas Edsall observes in “The Reproduction of Privilege,” cited in Note 1 and linked again here.

Hard-Working Americans Like You

It’s been an amusing week around chez Alevei, especially since Mr. Alevei has somehow ended up on the mailing list for the Republican National Committee, perhaps thanks to a family member or two who still think his politics may be worth trying to salvage. Most exciting of all, he is now therefore eligible to participate in the RNC 2012 Presidential Issues Survey, which has just arrived in the mail, along with a nice note From the Desk of Mitt Romney, cheerily dated “Monday Morning,” that opens with the salutation, “Dear Fellow Republican.” Because the envelope is marked “urgent,” Mr. Alevei of course felt that he had no choice but to give it his immediate attention.

Gov. Romney writes that he and his “friends at the Republican National Committee” are interested in finding out “what hard-working Americans” like Mr. Alevei “want this campaign to be about.” In addition to his “honest, thoughtful answers” to the survey questions, which “will help guide our blueprint to victory” (yes, that is really what it says, guide our blueprint), naturally Gov. Romney “would appreciate” Mr. Alevei’s “financial support as well.”

Also tucked into the envelope is a longer letter from RNC chair (and “obvious anagram”¹) Reince Priebus filled with the usual underlining of important points. You know, like “Make no mistake: the very future of our nation will be determined by the outcome of the 2012 election,” and “Barack Obama is hoping his constant demagoguery, blustery partisan rhetoric, billion dollar war chest and hundreds of millions of dollars from his Big Union Bosses will buy him another term.² We cannot allow that to happen.” That kind of thing.

One thing both letters have in common is their insistence on how truly valuable Mr. Alevei’s thoughts and feelings “on the major issues of the day” really are to the RNC. As Mr. Priebus explains, “The experience you bring to the table is critical to our Party’s success.”

You see, Mr. Alevei has been “chosen to participate in this Survey,” writes Mr. Priebus, because of his “active political involvement and steadfast commitment to the Republican Party” in his “area.” And in his note, Gov. Romney identifies Mr. Alevei as “one of our country’s most active Republicans.”

All this has led me to wonder whether Mr. Alevei has been engaging in political activities about which I am somehow unaware. That seems unlikely, so I am left with the exciting possibility that a long-haired pro-choice civil libertarian who supports same-sex marriage and is married to a Jewish liberal feminist university professor who works for the state may actually be the RNC’s best hope for “active” and “steadfast” support for their idiotic Romney/Ryan ticket come November. (Yes, I do have a rich fantasy life, but alevei.)


1. The brilliant and hilarious Esquire political writer Charles Pierce came up with that one in this August 7 post.

2. I’ve said it before, more than once, actually, but these people are truly and utterly without shame.

Calling the Kettle Crony, Part 1: Mitt Romney

As I wrote last week, getting your head around the idea of GOP vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) as even remotely credible on the topic of calling out “crony capitalism” requires a superhuman tolerance for cognitive dissonance or an extraordinary sense of humor or both.

Specifically, I suggested that the very idea of Rep. Ryan’s endorsement of A Capitalism for the People: Recapturing the Lost Genius of American Prosperity, a new book decrying “crony capitalism” by the University of Chicago economist and self-proclaimed drain on the economy Luigi Zingales, is kind of a ridiculous, hypocritical outrage that really ought to be hilarious but isn’t because of what Rep. Ryan’s power and influence could potentially mean for actual people who are not Paul Ryan or Luigi Zingales.

As I hope I made clear in that post, this is by no means to suggest that Rep. Ryan is not an expert in crony capitalism. Of course he is. [1] That’s part of what makes him such a great match for his running mate, Governor Mitt Romney.

The campaign, including a Republican primary season that I hope I never have to try to convince any sane person to believe actually happened, has been a long, brutal slog for the governor, and over the course of it, one thing that has become increasingly obvious to everyone is that the many gifts and blessings bestowed upon the presumptive GOP presidential nominee by his creator do not include a sense of humor. And yet even knowing that, I am still able to find it remarkable that in the course of deploying one of his favorite general-election campaign tactics — righteously accusing President Obama of crony capitalism (claims that have earned him four Pinocchios — reserved for “whoppers” — from the Washington Post‘s Fact Checker column) — Gov. Romney somehow manages to do it every single time with an impressively straight face. My mom sometimes says, “I never get too old not to be disappointed by people,” and I guess I have to say I hear that.

To be fair, though, everyone in the world who is not Kristi Yamaguchi knows perfectly well that Gov. Romney is well acquainted with crony capitalism, so at least theoretically, goes the logic, he should be able to recognize it when he sees it. And, speaking of Kristi Yamaguchi, Wayne Barrett reported in the Daily Beast in May that

one circle of Romney donors [is] tied to a tainted Olympic contractor who has given more than a million dollars in campaign donations. After being granted immunity by prosecutors, the contractor, Sead Dizdarevic, admitted making $131,000 in cash payments to Romney’s predecessors. The cash was used, at least in part, to subsidize the IOC gifts. Yet it was Romney, not his indicted predecessors, who awarded Dizdarevic the hospitality deal that’s made him the ticket king of the Olympics to this day.

David Simmons also testified in the 2003 federal trial of Romney’s predecessors, in a case that was ultimately dismissed. But unlike Dizdarevic, Simmons pleaded guilty to a federal tax misdemeanor as part of a cooperation agreement that allowed him to avoid a multi-count felony indictment.

According to the Salt Lake Tribune, the guilty plea was connected to Simmons giving a fake job to John Kim, the son of a critical IOC member, to qualify him for a sham visa, and then submitting fraudulent tax and immigration filings to cover up the alleged conspiracy.

Since that time, Simmons and his family have given more than $317,000 to Romney and affiliated campaigns, and business associates of the family have added nearly $160,000 more. Simmons and his wife, Melinda, donated $32,100 themselves, going back to 2006.

The stories of the many interesting maneuvers that Mitt Romney had no choice but to finesse if he was going to succeed in his important mission to make Kristi’s Olympic dreams come true in Salt Lake City are many, various, and complex, so I encourage you to read Barrett’s meticulously researched article in its entirety.

In the meantime, while we are on the topic of astonishing hypocrisy, let’s remember back to Gov. Romney’s February 2012 op-ed in the Detroit News, in which he called the U.S. auto industry bailout “crony capitalism on a grand scale.” As if that bit of evidence of his astounding lack of self-awareness weren’t sufficiently spit-take inducing, Mitt “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” Romney really brought his A game when he announced in May 2012 that he is now prepared to “take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry’s come back.”

Of course, this probably sounds completely insane to any normal person, so let me explain. What you may not realize is that opposing the bailout in November 2008 and then calling it “crony capitalism” in February 2012 is absolutely what saved the auto industry and with it approximately one million jobs. [2]

The liberal media is of course withholding the credit that Gov. Romney “will take a lot of,” thank you very much, for no other reason than to help his political enemies. So don’t believe all that stuff the Washington Post reported in May 2012 in their pitiful lamestream-media attempt to debunk the governor’s not-even-joking claim that he is responsible for saving the auto industry. The Post — if that is its real name — would have us believe its outlandish claim that

Many independent analysts have concluded that taking the approach recommended by Romney would not have worked in late 2008, simply because the credit markets were so frozen that a bankruptcy [which Romney advocated] was not a viable option.

The Post is also guilty of relying on sources who have little experience with or understanding of the industry, such as former GM executive Bob Lutz, who also rejected Gov. Romney’s bid for credit. (“What these people always deliberately forget is there was no money,” Lutz said, because of the meltdown of the global credit market. “Nobody had any money.”)

And don’t believe Reuters, either. They reported in February that Lutz, a Republican, was “infuriated” by Romney’s charge of crony capitalism. “This is the lie that gets told again and again and again — government intervention wasn’t necessary, that this was creeping socialism, that Obama wants to take over or give a sweetheart deal to the unions,” he said. Lutz also dismissed Romney’s claim that “we didn’t need the government and this could have been a privately run bankruptcy with the normal Chapter 11” as “fiction.” [3]

But can you blame Mitt Romney, a man who wouldn’t have an elevator in his garage or a dancing horse that gets him tax breaks worth $77K a year if he didn’t get pretty much everything he wants in this life, for thinking he can have this auto-bailout things both ways, too?

So, let me quickly summarize here, because I can see how this might all be a little confusing: For Mitt Romney, the auto bailout is nothing less than a disaster for the industry and an egregious example of the worst kind of crony capitalism that saved a lot of jobs for which we should all thank Mitt Romney. Everybody clear now? Good.

As I was working on this post, I was starting to think that Rep. Ryan and Gov. Romney truly take the absolute effing cake when it comes to astonishingly shameless hypocrisy on the topic of Crony Capitalism and How It Is Destroying America.

But it turns out I was wrong about that. An op-ed that recently came to my attention suggests that the title of Absolute Effing Cake-Taker When It Comes to Astonishingly Shameless Hypocrisy on the Topic of Crony Capitalism and How It Is Destroying America would perhaps be more appropriately awarded to its author.

More on that in Calling the Kettle Crony, part 2, coming later this week. File it under “I never get too old not to be disappointed by people.”


1. If you didn’t have time to follow the links in last week’s post, allow me to direct you again to some of the credentials that qualify him. Particularly noteworthy are Joe Romm’s article, “Paul Ryan And His Family To Benefit From The $45 Billion In Subsidies For Big Oil In His Budget,” and Bob King’s “Koch brothers have Paul Ryan’s back,” as well as “Ryan Family Financially Benefits from the Health Insurance Industry,” by Tara Culp-Ressler, and “Ryan’s Shrewd Budget Payday,” by Daniel Stone.

2. Here’s Gov. Romney in February 2008:

If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Now here he is in February 2012:

The president tells us that without his intervention things in Detroit would be worse. I believe that without his intervention things there would be better.

And finally May 2012:

My own view, by the way, was that the auto companies needed to go through bankruptcy before government help. And frankly, that’s finally what the president did. He finally took them through bankruptcy. That was the right course I argued for from the very beginning. It was the UAW [United Auto Workers] and the president that delayed the idea of bankruptcy. I pushed the idea of a managed bankruptcy and finally when that was done, and help was given, the companies got back on their feet. So I’ll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry’s come back.

3. According to the Post, the bipartisan Congressional Oversight Panel had this to say at the end of 2008:

The circumstances in the global credit markets in November and December 2008 were unlike any the financial markets had seen in decades. U.S. domestic credit markets were frozen in the wake of the Lehman bankruptcy, and international sources of funding were extremely limited. Bankruptcy with reorganization of the two auto companies using private DIP [debtor in possession] financing did not appear to be an option by late fall 2008, leaving liquidation of the firms as the more likely course of action absent a government rescue.

The Post also reported that President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers projected in December 2008 that

the direct costs of American automakers failing and laying off their workers in the near term would result in a more than 1 percent reduction in real GDP [gross domestic product] growth and about 1.1 million workers losing their jobs, including workers for automotive suppliers and dealers.