Taxes key to Mitt Romney's '04 pitch to Standard & Poor's

Spencer Collins · #1 (**permalink**) 08-11-2011, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Gov. Mitt Romney lobbied the credit ratings agency Standard & Poor’s in 2004 to raise his state’s credit rating in part because Massachusetts had raised taxes during an economic downturn two years earlier.

The claim was part of a presentation to the ratings agency obtained by POLITICO under a state freedom of information law from the Massachusetts Executive Office of Administration and Finance. The Nov. 4 presentation, stamped “confidential,” helped persuade S&P to raise the state’s grade and handed Romney the perfect talking point for last week’s humiliating national downgrade by the same agency.

“When I was governor, S&P rewarded Massachusetts with a credit rating upgrade for our sound fiscal management and the underlying strength of our economy,” Romney boasted. “That didn’t happen by accident. The president’s failure to put the nation’s fiscal and economic house in order has caused a massive loss of confidence that resulted in an embarrassing downgrade.”

But Romney’s case to S&P is a far cry from the anti-tax absolutism of the Republican Party he hopes to lead. Indeed, it bears a far closer resemblance to the right-of-center grand compromise rejected by House Republicans this year — dismissed because it would include new taxes and end tax breaks President Barack Obama described as “loopholes” — or the more modest compromise that passed, than to the Cut, Cap, and Balance plan Romney “applauded.”

The presentation to the ratings agency reveals that Romney’s administration made the case to Standard & Poor’s that his state was creditworthy because of both spending cuts — the current preferred GOP method — and new revenues, including fees he imposed and tax “loopholes” he closed. The presentation also prominently cited a controversial set of tax increases in the summer of 2002, which Romney, then a candidate, had opposed.

The documents, 27 pages of confidential “discussion materials” (Part 1, 2, 3, 4) and a 50-page presentation focused on the 2005 budget, don’t make clear whether Romney participated in the presentation. Eric Kriss, who served as Romney’s secretary of administration and finance, said he believed Romney and his top aides had delivered the presentation on a conference call with the ratings agency analysts.

Romney’s spokesman then and now, Eric Fehrnstrom, said he wasn’t sure whether Romney was present, and current Massachusetts officials were unable immediately to say, though it would be typical for the executive to star at such a high-stakes meeting.

And Romney said in a radio interview Tuesday that he was proud of his personal involvement in the process, in contrast to Obama. "The president really ought to personally sit down and meet with S&P. I did that when I was governor; I met with the ratings agencies and talked about our future and tried to instill confidence in our future because, look, how they rate our debt and how they rate our future as a nation will affect the interest costs that we end up paying and will affect homeowners and borrowers all over the country," he told the San Diego station KCBQ.

The agency was duly impressed: “Over the last few years, Massachusetts has taken certain actions that have reduced budget uncertainty, reined in spending, and prudently managed resources during a difficult national economic slowdown,” Standard & Poor’s said in the March 2005 report in which it upgraded Massachusetts to AA from AA-.

Read more: Taxes key to Mitt Romney's '04 pitch to Standard & Poor's - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

Flip-flop - Flip-flop - Flip-flop...

WallyWager · #2 (**permalink**) 08-11-2011, 12:26 AM

President Obama can talk to S+P all he wants, but his rousing rhetoric will mean little in light of our ****ty Congress and the utter inability of both parties to drop their petty differences and pass real debt reform which puts us on the path to a surplus budget through spending cuts (No sacred cows, whether it be Medicare or defense or whatever) and tax reform (Closing loopholes, new taxes, raising rates, everyone gets to take a bite of the sandwich.) and a return to fiscal sanity. Yes, I said surplus, because even a balanced budget leaves us with a multi-trillion dollar debt and we ought to pay that off. This bill that was signed into law was wholly inadequate for what we need to stay strong through the 21st century; it won't give us a surplus much less send us anywhere close to a zero-deficit situation.

As for Romney, typical of the man. You know, what he ought to do is not only embrace the "flip-flop" charges, but use them to his advantage. He should go on the next debate and tell the American people that he is a pragmatist at heart and understands that even though he tries to hold true to his principles, life, and the trials and tribulations that go with it, sometimes force us to think about what we believe and why and perhaps change course in order to secure a better solution for the problem and for the American people. It's okay to change your mind and try something different if the situation calls for the need. If going in a new direction is wrong, then no President has ever been right.

Although admittedly for Willard, he's so far into the flip-floppery and the appearance of political opportunism, it may be too late for him to try that angle.

Gordon Shumway · #3 (**permalink**) 08-11-2011, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WallyWager

President Obama can talk to S+P all he wants, but his rousing rhetoric will mean little in light of our ****ty Congress and the utter inability of both parties to drop their petty differences and pass real debt reform which puts us on the path to a surplus budget through spending cuts (No sacred cows, whether it be Medicare or defense or whatever) and tax reform (Closing loopholes, new taxes, raising rates, everyone gets to take a bite of the sandwich.) and a return to fiscal sanity. Yes, I said surplus, because even a balanced budget leaves us with a multi-trillion dollar debt and we ought to pay that off. This bill that was signed into law was wholly inadequate for what we need to stay strong through the 21st century; it won't give us a surplus much less send us anywhere close to a zero-deficit situation.

As for Romney, typical of the man. You know, what he ought to do is not only embrace the "flip-flop" charges, but use them to his advantage. He should go on the next debate and tell the American people that he is a pragmatist at heart and understands that even though he tries to hold true to his principles, life, and the trials and tribulations that go with it, sometimes force us to think about what we believe and why and perhaps change course in order to secure a better solution for the problem and for the American people. It's okay to change your mind and try something different if the situation calls for the need. If going in a new direction is wrong, then no President has ever been right.

Although admittedly for Willard, he's so far into the flip-floppery and the appearance of political opportunism, it may be too late for him to try that angle.

you are on fire this evening

Spencer Collins · #4 (**permalink**) 08-11-2011, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WallyWager

President Obama can talk to S+P all he wants, but his rousing rhetoric will mean little in light of our ****ty Congress and the utter inability of both parties to drop their petty differences and pass real debt reform which puts us on the path to a surplus budget through spending cuts (No sacred cows, whether it be Medicare or defense or whatever) and tax reform (Closing loopholes, new taxes, raising rates, everyone gets to take a bite of the sandwich.) and a return to fiscal sanity. Yes, I said surplus, because even a balanced budget leaves us with a multi-trillion dollar debt and we ought to pay that off. This bill that was signed into law was wholly inadequate for what we need to stay strong through the 21st century; it won't give us a surplus much less send us anywhere close to a zero-deficit situation.

As for Romney, typical of the man. You know, what he ought to do is not only embrace the "flip-flop" charges, but use them to his advantage. He should go on the next debate and tell the American people that he is a pragmatist at heart and understands that even though he tries to hold true to his principles, life, and the trials and tribulations that go with it, sometimes force us to think about what we believe and why and perhaps change course in order to secure a better solution for the problem and for the American people. It's okay to change your mind and try something different if the situation calls for the need. If going in a new direction is wrong, then no President has ever been right.

Although admittedly for Willard, he's so far into the flip-floppery and the appearance of political opportunism, it may be too late for him to try that angle.

Appearance of political opportunism? No...he's simply a political opportunist. We're all human and we can and should change our minds when new information comes to light. However...Willard does more flipping than a cook at I-Hop.

WallyWager · #5 (**permalink**) 08-11-2011, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordon Shumway

you are on fire this evening

I'm bored, and when I'm bored my brain wanders into coherent thoughts.

Is it just me, or is Romney kind of similar to Obama. I can't describe how, but maybe it's in the way both men have sacrificed alleged principles to accomplish necessitites; although whereas Obama comes of as a pragmatic negotiator (To a fault in some cases.), Mr. Willard gives of the appearance of a opportunistic politician, doing what he must to stay relevant and keep his air of authority amongst his GOP compadres.

Or maybe it's that they both make for suave, handsome executives.

WallyWager · #6 (**permalink**) 08-11-2011, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spencer Collins

However...Willard does more flipping than a cook at I-Hop.

Okay, you win the internet for the night sir. I humbly remove the crown for that one roflmao.

Spencer Collins · #7 (**permalink**) 08-11-2011, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WallyWager

Okay, you win the internet for the night sir. I humbly remove the crown for that one roflmao.

Sadly..Willard doesn't know who he really is but he does know that he wants to be President and he will take (any) position to bolster his chances. If I do vote for a Republican it will be Ron Paul..a man who consistently knows who he is. I've grown weary of "surprises".

dabateman · #8 (**permalink**) 08-11-2011, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spencer Collins

Sadly..Willard doesn't know who he really is but he does know that he wants to be President and he will take (any) position to bolster his chances. If I do vote for a Republican it will be Ron Paul..a man who consistently knows who he is. I've grown weary of "surprises".

I actually like Huntsman myself.

Spencer Collins · #9 (**permalink**) 08-11-2011, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabateman

I actually like Huntsman myself.

I could be tempted by a Paul/Huntsman ticket...

dabateman · #10 (**permalink**) 08-11-2011, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spencer Collins

I could be tempted by a Paul/Huntsman ticket...

I couldn't vote for Paul... He may be consistent, but he's consistently CRAZY.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following User Says Thank You to Spencer Collins For This Useful Post:
saltwn

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to WallyWager For This Useful Post:
Gordon Shumway, saltwn

The Following User Says Thank You to Gordon Shumway For This Useful Post:
saltwn

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Spencer Collins For This Useful Post:
saltwn, WallyWager

The Following User Says Thank You to WallyWager For This Useful Post:
saltwn

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to WallyWager For This Useful Post:
saltwn, Spencer Collins