Mitt Romney
For each candidate, I want to answer three questions. How have they provided for the poor in their public duties? How have they shown that they hear the cry of the poor in their private lives? And what do they say about our responsibility to the poor? Knowing the answers to those questions will put me a long ways towards understanding who I want to support.
I'll note that we're comparing a former governor, a former mayor, and a bunch of senators. Different offices require different roles. So take that into account when you look at what they've done in their positions. Also, I'm going to be writing primarily positive things about each candidate, because most of the negative is in the ommission. So pay a lot of attention to what they failed to do and what they've failed to say. And if you want to rip them apart in the comments, please do.
For no particular reason, let's start with Mr. Romney.
What does Mitt Romney think about helping the poor?
Political History
Mitt Romney was Governor of Massachusetts from 2003-2006, the sole term of public service we have to evaluate him on.
- The first issue addressed when he became governor was balancing a $3 billion budget shortfall. Romney did not cut services to the needy while raising the budget. When the legislature voted to give him increased powers to regulate the budget, one of his first actions was to stop cuts to homelessness programs that had been proposed before he came into office.1
- At several points during 2003, Romney added additional funding to supplement homeless services, and over the course of his tenure in office he maintained overall funding for homelessness programs.2 In 2004, Romney set up a commission to consolidate services for the homeless and determine how they could best be served.
- In his tenure as governor Romney provided incentives for the increased construction of affordable housing and help for first-time homebuyers.
- Romney vetoed many bills that would have provided additional services to the homeless, the poor, and low-income homebuyers. Legislative overrides on his vetos may be one reason that funding levels for homeless services did not drop. Advocates for the poor attacked his vetoes, especially in 2006.3 Romney defended the vetoes throughout his tenure by stating that the programs were inefficient and did not provide the needed assistance.
- After Katrina, Romney signed an emergency bill allocating $25 million to provide housing in Massachusetts for several thousand families who had been forced to leave the Gulf states.
- In 2005, Romney signed a universal health care system into law. The system is a market-based approach that combines public and private systems to ensure universal coverage. In many cases public spending was redirected to individuals in order to enable them to purchase their own private health care.
- In 2005, Romney proposed welfare reform. Massachusetts's policies had been out of line with federal reforms that emphasized a transition from welfare to work. Romney proposed instituting stricter standards regarding who had to transition back to work and the amount of work they were expected to do, in order to double the number of people on welfare who were working. To supplement this he proposed a significant increase in funding for education, training, and childcare for those on welfare. The Massachusetts legislature fought Romney throughout 2005 and 2006 on this issue, arguing that federal standards for who had to work were too strict, though that meant giving up $56 million in federal funding for welfare.
- In 2002, Romney campaigned on indexing the minimum wage to inflation, which would include an immediate 20¢ increase. In 2006, he vetoed an increase in the minimum wage to $8/hour and instead proposed an increase to $7/hour.
Statements About the Poor
- "If we are forced to balance this budget on the backs of our seniors and the poor, we will expose the core services of government to disproportionate cuts. That is not fair. The best solution is to spread the burden."4
"We will continue to be a generous state when it comes to caring for the poor, the disabled and the elderly. We will be far less generous when it comes to patronage, waste and inefficiencies."5
"I felt very strongly that the social programs of the sixties and seventies, the liberal agenda - I’ll call it the Johnson agenda-had hurt working families, had hurt the poor in many instances. And while the liberals had the best of intentions, I felt that the programs themselves had created a permanent underclass and had fostered poverty instead of eliminating it."6
"People want a chance to work so they can build self-sustaining lives instead of relying on a welfare check that will keep them trapped in poverty. By providing support services and incentives where necessary, we want to give welfare recipients the opportunity to achieve independent and fulfilling lives."7
"Work is an important and necessary part of life for all adults, and every member of our society should contribute to the level of his or her abilities."8
"I do not believe that indexing the minimum wage will cost us jobs. I believe it will help us retain jobs."9
"With approximately 1,500 Massachusetts families currently living in shelters and motels, it is important that the Commonwealth provide decent and safe temporary housing opportunities to the homeless. But it is equally important that we continue to provide resources and services to assist them in transitioning out of shelters and into permanent, independent housing."10
Private Life
- When in charge of Bain Capital, founded and then ran the Bain Capital Children's Charity Ltd., which spends over $1 million a year on children’s causes.
- In 1990, was asked to head Bain & Company, which had major financial issues. He brought the company back to profitability without layoffs.
- In 1999, was chosen to run the Salt Lake City Olympics, which were facing financial issues and several scandals. In the three years that he ran the Games, he put $1,000,000 of his own money into it and donated the $825,000 salary he got to charity.
- Is the honorary Chair of the Points of Light Foundation, serves on the board of City Year, helped found United Way Faith and Action, works with Boston’s Ten Point Coalition, established the Tyler Charitable Foundation, and is active in Boy Scouts.
- Has a net worth of around $300-500 million. IRS records show that in a five-year period from 1999-2004, Romney donated 2.9 million dollars to 40 different charity groups, $2.2 million of it to the Mormon church. Also gave money to colleges, a library fund, AIDS action groups, homeless shelters, and children’s charities. During that time he put another $3.6 million into a charitable foundation that he founded. Stated in a 2002 debate that he gives 13% of his annual income to charity. A significant amount of his giving is reportedly private and not in the IRS reports.12
I know that I cannot achieve anything resembling perfection in evaluating what these folks have done. So help me out! If I leave anything out, if you know anything about their commitment and actions (or lack thereof) please shout it out in the comments. I want as much help as I can in this. And I did not frame this as support or condemnation of his policies, but an objective attempt to lay out what he has done. Feel free to be subjective in the comments (and I will join in later). Does Mitt Romney hear the cry of the poor?
[1] January 17, 2003 press release
[2] Press releases regarding homelessness
[3] "Mass. to Mitt: What about us?" Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center
[4] January 10, 2003 press release
[5] February 27, 2003 press release
[6] "The Holy Cow! Candidate", The Atlantic
[7] January 24, 2005 press release
[8] March 15, 2006 press release
[9] "Romney's minimum wage decision could have national implications", www.boston.com
[10] March 55, 2003 press release
[11] "Mitt Romney on the Issues", www.mittromney.com
[12] "Romneys listed as big givers to charity", www.boston.com
11 comments:
Great research!
Thanks for doing this. It will make my life somewhat easier as campaign season approaches.
I realize its an issue more or less orthoganal to the motivations of this blog, but I've been pretty concerned by what seems to be the systematic destruction of inidividual privacy over the past few years. If during the course of your research, you come across revealing information about the various candidates views on privacy, and have room to include that in the blog (say, "privacy tidbits for batman" appended at the bottom of an entry every once in a while), I would hugely appreciate it.
heh - I'll keep that in mind bat, but an email might be more appropriate considering the length these posts have already reached.
Huh...it's hard to know if when people say, "I want to avoid waste" if they are serious or just using it as an excuse. The other hard thing is that, I just going to say this, is that where I lived in L.A. there were many people who were not getting the services they needed (new wheelchairs), but others who were doing anything and everything to get a handout for more crack/booze.
But then again, I didn't see Romney proposing a major overhaul and increased funding for mental health/drug recovery programs.
I'm trying make some distinctions between the different circumstances that entail "poverty" especially in cities such as Los Angeles. I wish I had a broader understanding of poverty in the US as a whole, but I don't. The most heartbreaking "poverty" issue I've seen in LA is homelessness. It's hard to say which candidate has the best understanding of this phenomenon. The path towards homelessness begins with someone's life being completely destroyed early on. Like a woman who lives at the Walter Hoving home might have been raped by her stepfather and sent out onto the streets by her mom to sell drugs. Then she might have fallen into the hands of an abusive lover who also abused drugs and made her have sex with people for drug money. I guess what I am saying is that a lot of the extreme poverty in our city is caused by drug abuse and poor family morals, to put it lightly. The rest of poverty is a result of immigration or ghetto inheritance. I once read an article in the Atlantic about a guy who made some changes in New York city's drug rehabilitation and homelessness policies. His whole approach towards homeless fixated on drug rehabilitation within the context of permanent housing. I forget his name, but there were some significant changes made. So any candidate who understands that homelessness is part of a larger cycle would be great.
I am not settled in my mind with regard to how much this actually matters in a presidential candidate. Is the government in a position to meet the needs of the poor in America even if there was a blank check for such a job? I go back and forth.
Most of the time though I consider it impossible for government on any large scale (besides city level maybe) to implement anything that honors the dignity of human beings. I mean, if it is hard enough for faith groups to accomplish this on any level, how can we expect a political group to be any better.
@greg
I don't think the president, alone, can do all that much. He can pass or veto things, and he can speak publicly, say in the state of the union, to force the issue into the public eye. There has to be some agreement between the legislative and executive branch, for anything to change. Like you said, I don't think even a blank check can "solve" the problem, but I think the past few years have shown that the president and congress, working togeth, can go a long way towards making the problem much, much worse.
ps. i have no idea why my previous comment listed me as "bat" and the current one lists me as "john."
I believe that individuals can do much more for the poor than the government. But I do think that the government can do a lot. For example, our trade laws, our buisness regulations, and how we provide health care are going to deeply affect the state of the poor, and that's not even mentioning welfare or homeless services. Government has a lot to do with housing that can't be done privately either. The criminal justice system, mental health provision, and immigration law are all relevant as well. And should I mention disaster relief?
The president can't do everything by himself, but he (or she) can do a lot. Besides just signing laws, the president can certainly put pressure on the legislature - both public pressure and private pressure. And, as John said, they have a lot to do with what's in the public eye and the legislature's eye.
This blog is called "Change the Wind", though, because I do believe the people are the greatest factor. We will affect the president in this nation, and how the poor are responded to, much more than he will affect us.
you might check out his campaign page on campaigns.wikia and think about contributing to the "Poverty" section-- http://tinyurl.com/2a3hz6
Or, you could delegate that task to one of your faithful readers.
The government can do a lot. The private sector can do a lot.
Folks who simply mouth the same old, same old conservative hostility to government don't contribute to the solution. Folks that ideologically reject private sector solutions don't help either.
I really like your specificity.
As the 2008 elections are upon us, many people are discussing the various candidates' records and statements. I encourage you all to be informed voters about Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney by visiting the following site:
http://TrueRomney.com
I hope that you will all make a well-researched voting decision.
Post a Comment