Well folks, the campaign has fully begun, launched by female drama; one woman publicly attacking another. However, it didn’t turn out quite the way Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen apparently hoped. Some say she got her talking orders directly from the White House when she attacked Ann Romney Wednesday night on CNN. But my guess is she didn’t need directions, she seemed comfortable in her strident remarks.
In case you’ve been on an island, Rosen proclaimed that Ann Romney “hasn’t worked a day in her life,” thus, Rosen claimed, Ann had no business telling Mitt Romney anything about the economy (see Ann’s bio at citizensforromney.org). Ann, who has traveled with her husband this past year on the campaign trail, reports women everywhere say their number one concern is the economy.
For some reason that riled Rosen and though she eventually apologized to Ann -- well, sort of -- she continued to insist that Mitt should not listen to his wife.
Huh?
Oh, dear. Can we bear the next six months?
Rosen may have done all women a favor with that gut punch. It’s an opportunity to determine if we pile on or stay in the professional, political mode of assessing both candidates’ qualifications, while leaving the families out of it. When the Rosen-types show up, on either side, women have the choice to insist on legitimate debate. Taking it to the higher road is where our strengths are, anyway.
We stay-at-home moms and we working-moms all have experience in demanding fair play. It’s what moms do. It’s who we are. Further, something to think about when a woman attacks another woman:
Some of the most powerful parts of a woman’s world are her girlfriends, her mother and daughters, and her ability to nurture and contribute to a strong community. Women notably pull together in crisis, we stabilize and comfort.
Thus, women who understand and use their power to promote peace will eventually build a world- family we all yearn for. When we ignore our power and go with a primal response, when we allow ourselves to be controlled by the political edge, we produce poison. You’d think that by the century 2000, women would have mastered their amazing strengths.
Why would we choose to fail? There are more ways to prevail than through attack. Women have always known how.
Mothers negotiate good behavior every day in their homes, yet in the public arena, some choose to act like a bully.
It’s a child’s game, in this case, to second guess another woman’s life, her choices and her wisdom. And how does one determine what a person knows, whether there’s money in the bank or she’s living on food stamps?
There is no need to denigrate Ann in order to elevate Michelle or Barack. Nothing, not one bit of good will come from such tactics. I’m absolutely certain about this: Every woman, no matter which economic level she lives on, loves her family and suffers sorrows. When she cries herself to sleep at night, it doesn’t matter what the thread count is in her sheets. In so many ways, we are all the same.
Women can take the lead by refusing to pile on. Those who demand fair play will pull winners into their circle.
In that circle will be the strength we need to create healthy families, communities and especially heal a troubled nation.
But, right now, there are two candidates who need to focus on truth. Women’s rational input in that process can make all the difference.
East Valley resident Linda Turley-Hansen (turleyhansen@gmail.com) is a syndicated columnist and former Phoenix veteran TV anchor.
mnjcpa posted at 9:26 pm on Tue, Apr 17, 2012.
@samkat - it's well known in financial circles that Mitt revoked his family wealth. He also started at the bottom and worked his way up in corporate finance, a feat that I respect. Used to be those accomplishments were something you admired - not held with contempt. Contrast that with someone that had a golden path laid for them - the messiah - the one who's probably never been told no in his life.
What difference does it make who Mitt gave his money to? The Mormon church is a heck of a better place for it go than to Obama's crew who squanders money that doesn't belong to them.
And I'm with Slabside - let's see some proof on the contraceptive statement. It's a phony non-issue that's been made one by Obama's camp.
Slabside posted at 6:19 pm on Tue, Apr 17, 2012.
@ samkat, "He would also do away with contraceptives which definitely is a strike against women of all walks of life."
Post a link to the facts that prove this is true samkat.
samkat posted at 6:10 pm on Tue, Apr 17, 2012.
What none of you have mentioned is that Linda is giving Mitt more credit than he deserves. His stated objectives will actually set women back 50 years or more. His promise (the same as our own flat earth religious extremists) is to roll back Roe vs Wade. He would also do away with contraceptives which definitely is a strike against women of all walks of life.
What exactly is is old Mitt going to do to further the well being of women? Now, as far as Anne's struggles raising her children, my wife and I had our children while I was in the military and the pay was lousy to say the least back in those days. We literally lived from payday to payday when we were paid once a month. My wife worked before we were married and up until we had our first child. She reentered the workforce after our youngest entered grade school out of necessity. I forgot to mention that the first time I deployed for a one year remote tour, we had three children. Due to the Vietnam escalation, I was involuntarily extended for yet another tour. I came back and was deployed again a hear and a half later since I was in a critical skill set needed to support the war effort so it was back to South East Asia again. Now, that was a hardship that Anne never had to endure. Military families contend with these kinds of hardships daily.
Now mnj, you say Mitt gave all of his money away. Who did he give it to and how does he still manage to have far more wealth than the average multimillionaire? Who did he give his wealth to? I am guessing it was to the Mormon Church for a hefty tax write off. PS: I seriously doubt that Mitt started off with no assets when his Dad was a high placed executive.
Mike: I don't always agree with you but you did an excellent job of laying out the facts in this piece.
Mike McClellan posted at 1:29 pm on Tue, Apr 17, 2012.
No, too simple-minded.
Here's why: You write, "If you don't have the money, don't have the kids."
Which is true -- if you're poor and can barely scrape by, adding kids to the mix is stupid.
But what about the folks who worked hard, saved money, didn't go crazy with spending. And then lost their jobs. And their health care.
What do you tell them?
Don't worry, we'll cut taxes and jobs will appear?
Nice sentiment, but I notice that in today's paper uber Republican Andy Biggs says that job growth lags about 18 months behind cutting taxes.
Besides the fact that there is no study that shows tax cuts in and of themselves are "job creators," what do we do in the 18 month interim, debtor's prison?
VofReason posted at 1:12 pm on Tue, Apr 17, 2012.
Or is that too conservative for you?
VofReason posted at 1:12 pm on Tue, Apr 17, 2012.
Yes, probably becuase Az has concealed carry and others why so many people get killed here. This is because all people who would kill people wait until gun laws change so they can start killing. Makes perfect sense. And yes, the AZ government needs to do something to get people working. The thing they need to do is stop doing things that make businesses not want to hire and go elsewhere. That is the only thing they can do without putting people on their payroll- right? How about this, if you don't have money to pay for your kids- don't have kids. This would require some forsight which is easier not to deal with when someone else picks up the tab.
Mike McClellan posted at 9:27 am on Tue, Apr 17, 2012.
Yes, we've seen how "rational, conservative minds" here in Arizona have governed -- lots of guns but not so many jobs. And plenty of gun deaths -- We're Number 2! That darn Mississippi outkills us each year, but we'll catch 'em, right? And plenty of poor people. And plenty of kids with inadequate medical care. Oh, and the creation of the Arizona Commerce Authority, which gets to decide which private businesses are winners and losers, doling out money -- our money -- to the winners.
Yep, Arizona is the petri dish of all things conservative.
k33j88 posted at 6:56 am on Tue, Apr 17, 2012.
It's become quite obvious, mike, that you're of the minority opinion. Let not your heart be troubled, rational, conservative minds will rise to the top and bestow greatness and pride back to this fledging nation. The alternative, the Marxist/liberal agenda, isn't an option.
k33j88 posted at 6:47 am on Tue, Apr 17, 2012.
Thank you Linda for that beautifully written letter. All over this great land of ours, mothers/wives are the glue that holds families together. They are, without a doubt, angels. Thank you, Lord Jesus, for the moral fabric and love these creatures bring into our daily lives. Rosen has just played the "attack mode" card. It's part of the lib playbook.
mnjcpa posted at 5:54 pm on Mon, Apr 16, 2012.
I don't care to get involved in the war/defense tussle because the spending in defense, regardless of whose in office, is a fraction of GDP - the real anchor of what's happening economically. Since it's a non-issue I'm uninformed on that topic. I do know that jobs will solve most everything, not penalizing people for their success, and you've got the wrong crew in office that know how to make that happen.
Mike McClellan posted at 5:32 pm on Mon, Apr 16, 2012.
mnj, we agree on the entitlement attitude. As a Boomer myself, I'm willing to pay more for Medicare when I get there, and I'm willing to wait for Social Security.
But the CEO's -- how does government minimize that wealth? Sounds socialist to me! Yikes!
But forget your knowledge of defense. If you have two wars that cost billions each year eliminated because the wars -- at least for us -- end, why would defense costs actually increase? That's what the Ryan/Romney plan calls for.
I don't get it.
Cerulean posted at 4:28 pm on Mon, Apr 16, 2012.
What are businesses going to do with $46 billion in tax breaks?
Are they going to sell more stuff? How? How is Ryan’s plan going to bring business more customers? Are they going to create more jobs? The bill does not require them to. Are they going manufacture more stuff that no one can afford to buy? What are they going to do? Are they going to reduce the deficit? NO! Ryan’s tax breaks would increase deficits upwards of $46 billion over ten years.
I think Mike McClellan has hit the bulls-eye.
mnjcpa posted at 4:19 pm on Mon, Apr 16, 2012.
I know enough about the military to be dangerous - it's not my strong suit.
This taking away and adding again is what has made the tax code a nightmare to navigate. So when I hear Congress yelling at each other all I know is there will be another layer of complexity. I already answered the question about tax - I would ditch it altogether and start fresh. But only AFTER, major modifications were made to eliminate government agencies (maybe start with the GSA), social security and medicare, and absolutely repeal Obamacare. When spending is curtailed, then the language of tax reform makes a lot more sense.
What I would change? American's entitlement attitude -
Boomers - Great lifestyle without the hassle of paying for it
Wall Street - Risk the entire financial system without recourse
Public CEO’s - Extreme personal wealth without personal risk
Farmers - Massive subsidies regardless of need
Big Oil - See “Farmers”
Politicians - Say or do whatever will get them elected
Americans - See “Boomers”
Mike McClellan posted at 2:56 pm on Mon, Apr 16, 2012.
First, I'd agree with your sentiment about some of the wealthy being "the kindest, most compassionate, giving people I know" -- I've had the same experience.
Second, everything else you write -- well, everything you write -- ignores the question, which is the devil in the details of the Ryan/Romney plan:
1. Do you agree with the annual increase in defense budget expenditures that the plan calls for? Why or why not?
2. What loopholes should be closed? Romney apparently mentioned one last night -- mortgage deductions on second homes. I guess that's a start, but as you know, eliminating that puts hardly a dent in the deficit or debt.
You're a CPA, so you should have a handle on this -- what would you cut?
mnjcpa posted at 1:56 pm on Mon, Apr 16, 2012.
Mitch McConnell said it best - "The problem is, we've got a president who seems more interested in pitting people against each other than he is in actually doing what it takes to face these challenges head-on and to solve them in a bipartisan manner."
Our number one problem isn’t tax reform Mike– it’s spending and debt. The Obama administration is aggressively perpetuating this denial stirring up class warfare everywhere you turn. But since you asked, I would scrap the tax system altogether and start over again where EVERYONE is expected to pay tax. The tax code is a monstrosity that has been used for years to solve social issues. I could list the number of breaks that would fill this column for both rich and poor.
We must have serious significant reform done at all levels of social security, medicare, and government agencies. So you need someone in office and Congress that together agree this is the first order of business no matter what. But the majority of the population listen to media that aren't journalists - they have an agenda to spread. So we hear about the faux war on women, or the children, or the school teachers and police officers or that the Republicans are evil and nothing gets accomplished.
We’ve lived beyond our means for 15 years, without any thought given to the day when the bills would come due. We routinely run annual $1 trillion budget deficits and $500 billion in trade deficits. The Fed pumps trillions of fiat dollars into the system and it barely generates a discussion from the state controlled media.
Spending is the problem Mike - period. Democrats refuse to budge while an out of control government with zero scrutiny or accountability continues to grow. If this doesn’t change soon, we will see economic Armageddon in America. No tax loophole is going to change that.
Families of wealth that I work with are some of the kindest, most compassionate, giving people I know. Give them opportunities to contribute to charitable causes - they're all over it. But send it to Obama so he can blow it - sorry, you're not going to find any cooperation with this commenter.
VofReason posted at 12:57 pm on Mon, Apr 16, 2012.
You must remember that liberals think there is an endless source of money somewhere out there and it is the governments job to take it and save us all. If the Government doesn't give Pell grants, then no one can go to school. If the government doesn't have medicaid then we are all going to fall apart. I think we all agree that there should be a saftey net, just not one that the government expands to people who can and should take responsibility. The Government proves itself at every turn to be the worst stewart of our money. Why do we want to give them more of ours or someone elses?
Mike McClellan posted at 9:27 am on Mon, Apr 16, 2012.
Slow the train wreck down . . . that's a good one.
Anyhow, you're a CPA, so which loopholes would you advise Ryan/Romney to close?
For example, would you close the corporate tax breaks on new machinery? On research and development? Deferral of foreign sourced income?
For the individual, would you close the employer-provided health insurance loophole? Mortgage interest deductions? The tax break for 401(k) contributions?
And as someone much better versed in economics than I'll ever be, can you explain the rationale for Ryan/Romney increasing the defense budget even as we wind down two wars?
I'm for the Bowles/Simpson recommendations, which would flatten taxes and close loopholes and means test Medicare and make changes in Social Security. The commission actually recommended some loopholes to be cut. One of the two great failures of the Obama first term (the other being his focus on health care reform that did little to slow health care costs) is his failure to embrace Bowles/Simpson.
But if you'll recall, one of the few members of that commission to vote against its recommendations was Paul Ryan, who claimed it didn't go far enough.
Then he introduces a budget plan that doesn't go as far as Bowles/Simpson and refuses to name the loopholes to be closed or decreased.
mnjcpa posted at 7:49 am on Mon, Apr 16, 2012.
You really don't get it Mike. Everything for you is a zero sum game as Rich describes.
Do the math. We spend $3.5 trillion a year and take in $2.5 trillion. Ryan's plan slows down the train wreck that's coming - there aren't enough taxes to impose on the "wealthy" to close that gap.
You have two choices. Either keep holding on to your misguided beliefs that you lose while someone else gains, keep voting the way I suspect you do, and have your pension renegotiated for you in a chapter 9 bankruptcy. Or actually study economics and finance and understand that the Republicans are attempting to change the inevitable - a collapse of our economy. Your choice.
Mike McClellan posted at 7:31 am on Mon, Apr 16, 2012.
First, he supports a plan to flatten tax rates by closing loopholes. Just one problem: He either doesn't know or won't say which loopholes.
Now, last night, he said as President, he would eliminate entire agencies. Just one problem: He either doesn't know or won't say which agencies.
Like Nixon Secret Plan to End the War in Vietnam he ran on in '68, apparently Romney's embraced the Secret Plan to Make Our Government More Efficient.
Rich posted at 12:07 am on Mon, Apr 16, 2012.
Your problem Mike is that you believe in a failed system. It has only created an anarchy that allows you a certain freedom because you're a criminal daily. You can only avoid breaking a law if you own nothing and sit in a corner and don't move all day. And even then your dog could be the problem. You continue to trust the worst of us. And worse, you trust them to do the math, they aren't that smart unless ego adds to IQ.
Mike McClellan posted at 8:19 pm on Sun, Apr 15, 2012.
No, this is not off-topic. The entire conversation that Rosen made herself an idiot about was the effect of a Romney presidency on women. Let's examine that:
So what loopholes should be eliminated to make the tax cuts revenue neutral?
Ryan -- the author of the plan -- ain't sayin'
Romney -- who embraces the plan, calling it "marvelous" -- ain't sayin'
No Republican House member -- all of whom voted for it -- ain't sayin;
No, here's what they DO say: Pass this budget, give the wealthiest huge tax cuts, and then we'll decide which loopholes are closed.
And the dirty little secret of Ryan/Romney plan: It neither balances the budget nor reduces the debt. At its best, the deficit under the Ryan plan will have an average deficit of about $270 billion a year.
And the debt continues to rise under the Ryan/Romney plan, too: It just slows down how fast the debt grows.
Here's the link to that info -- http://www.nysun.com/national/ryan-budget-may-be-best-gop-can-produce-but-it/87760/
And what is the one discretionary area Ryan/Romney adds a big chunk to in budgeting:
Defense. Which has -- because of the two wars -- already had a huge increase over the last decade.
So even as we wind down the two wars, Ryan/Romney increases the defense budget.
So cut taxes dramatically for the wealthy, cut social programs for the working women (and others), promise that loopholes will be closed (we're just not saying which ones), and add to an already inflated defense budget even as the budgetary requirements drop due to the ending of two wars, grow the debt and never balance the budget.
That's what you call a "fantastic first step."
Of course.
mnjcpa posted at 4:56 pm on Sun, Apr 15, 2012.
I've never read as much of a hate filled comment as posted by downtown resident. You would be wise to seek counseling.
This post had nothing to do with how the Romney's live their lives. It has to do with the radicals in office and what their actions tell us. I guess it doesn't matter to you downtown that Romney earned every bit of his wealth on his own and he gave all of his wealth away. No to you he's shameless - how dare he use the freedoms available to Americans (or at least what's left of them) to grow a business and achieve success! To you that's sacrilege! My gosh what has happened to us that we can't admire and respect someone for achievements that you had the same opportunity to do but chose not to? Pathetic.
And Mike you just gotta find something completely off topic to take a shot at Romney. Someone's got to make an adjustment to the run-a-way train wreck that is our national debt. Obama sure has proven he's not going to do anything about it because it's folks like you that keep libs like him in office. I don't want to continue to repeat myself about what we face shortly because it's a fiscal cliff that we're all about to fall off. My hats off to Paul Ryan for producing a fantastic first step to intelligently curb the problem.
Rosen exposed herself for who she is - a radical feminist completely out of touch with women.
Mike McClellan posted at 12:00 pm on Sun, Apr 15, 2012.
Let's stipulate that Hilalry Rosen made an idiotic comment; and let's also stipulate that Ann Romney's experiences in life have been challenging, but not economic challenging.
So let's examine her husband's embrace of the Paul Ryan budget and its effects on women:
The budget would cut Pell Grants -- a huge percentage of those receiving those grants are women:
The budget would cut Medicaid -- the greatest population receiving that aide is single mothers
The budget would give tax breaks for the wealthiest that would cut their taxes by 13%, giving them an average tax cut of$265,000. The same budget would give the lowest earners -- disproportionately women -- a tax cut of .9%, with an average cut of $129.
The budget would offset the cuts to social programs that help the poor working women by closing loopholes the wealthiest use to avoid taxes. While the cuts are specific, the budget has yet to name a single loophole that would be closed.
So while Mrs. Romney's life is to be admired -- by all accounts a great mother, a woman who's fought both cancer and MS.
And she should be -- like any family member of a politician -- off limits.
But her husband's embrace of the Ryan budget is not off-limits and his support of that brings into question just how much he understands of women's struggles in America today.