I had a funny feeling after the debates last night.
I couldn't quite place my finger on it until this morning when it hit me, while Romney clearly appeared sharper than the President, I couldn't shake the feeling that much of what he said came with some strings attached.
He reminded me of the car commercials with the disclaimer that says "taxes, titles, and license fees may apply".
For example, Mitt said:
I'm not looking for a $5 trillion tax cut.*
Then you get to the asterisk part:
What I've said is I won't put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit. That's part one. So there's no economist that can say Mitt Romney's tax plan adds $5 trillion if I say I will not add to the deficit with my tax plan.
What you hear is "I'm not looking for a tax cut."
Yet Romney is looking to cut taxes. In fact, he's stated that he would like to cut taxes across the board by 20%.
According to the Tax Policy Center this would reduce revenue by $480 billion per year in 2015. Over ten years, this would be roughly $5 trillion of revenue lost.
Now Romney does claim that he will make cuts and eliminate deductions to come up with this $5 trillion, however, he offers few specifics.
So you can choose to take the Viagra but be forewarned "In the rare event of an erection lasting more than 4 hours, seek immediate medical help to avoid long-term injury."
This sounds like a sales pitch to me. Where's the other asterisks?
Some more asterisks:
I'll make government more efficient*
*and to cut back the number of employees, combine some agencies and departments. My cutbacks will be done through attrition, by the way.
Translation: I'm going to cut government.
Number two is for people coming along that are young, what I do to make sure that we can keep Medicare in place for them is to allow them either to choose the current Medicare program or a private plan. Their choice.*
*
Lehrer: Do you support the voucher system, Governor?
Romney: What I support is no change for current retirees and near-retirees to Medicare. And the president supports taking $716 billion out of that program.
Lehrer: And what about the vouchers?
Romney: So that's - that's number one.
Translation: I support a voucher system.
Regulation is essential.*
*As a businessperson, I had to have — I need to know the regulations. I needed them there. You couldn't have people opening up banks in their — in their garage and making loans. I mean, you have to have regulations so that you can have an economy work. Every free economy has good regulation. At the same time, regulation can become excessive.
Translation: I am going to deregulate.
I don't want to kill jobs in this environment.*
*We've got to get those dollars back to the states and go to the workers so they can create their own pathways to get in the training they need for jobs that will really help them.
**I would like to take the Medicaid dollars that go to states and say to a state, you're going to get what you got last year, plus inflation, plus 1 percent, and then you're going to manage your care for your poor in the way you think best.
Translation: I don't want to kill jobs unless they're government jobs. The way to do this without effectively saying it is to push the responsibility to the states and then only partially cover their costs. See "unfunded mandates".
I love Big Bird.*
*I'm going to stop the subsidy to PBS.
Translation: I do actually like Big Bird, but I don't like PBS because I think it's liberal.
I think what is going on is that Mitt, the asterisk, made a big move to the center.
He's trying to sound like his policies are moderate, but when I read the asterisks, I can't help but think that he's pushing the same trickle down deregulate/cut taxes policies we've heard from conservatives for 30 years.
I have to admit he appeared much sharper and on point than Obama last night. He did a good job with the sell.
But the product seems questionable. And I don't buy the new moderate, middle-class Romney* repackaged with a series of conservative asterisks (asterii?).