August 24, 2007

Much talk this morning about the new RomneyCare

OK, so today, Mitt Romney has rolled out a new health care plan (good, because the old one stunk). Everyone seems confused, though.

On my reading of things, this new plan of Romney's is a vast improvement over the old plan of Romney's (which I have criticized here, here and here).

It basically replicates most of the Giuliani health care plan, laid out ages ago, when Romney was still touting the plan he implemented in Massachusetts to primary voters.

And on that basis, I'll say "good" and "about time" to Mitt. I still can't see myself supporting him, since it's taken however many months of people criticizing his original plan for its obvious flaws, him being targeted by a whole host of conservative groups over RomneyCare, and the Democratic candidates basically stealing his plan and calling it theirs (something that tells you a lot about how "conservative" or "libertarian" it is).

But, I'm glad he's finally seen sense-- or at least sense enough to realize he's got to put forward a different health care plan if he's going to win the nomination, after which, well, we'll see (I remain convinced that Romney's wild moving about on a ton of issues suggests that he is totally unpredictable as a leader, and can't be counted on to do anything that doesn't placate whatever the biggest interest group he's trying to satisfy at any given moment).

> Read more & share
August 23, 2007

Romney and abortion: more flipping

I meant to post on this yesterday, but didn't end up having time. In any event, it appears that Romney has flipped again on abortion. From ABC:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Tuesday in a Nevada television interview that he supports letting states "make their own decision" about whether to keep abortion legal.

"My view is that the Supreme Court has made an error in saying at the national level one size fits all for the whole nation," Romney told Nevada political columnist Jon Ralston in a televised interview. "Instead, I would let states make their choices."

Asked by Ralston if it was "OK" with him that Nevada is a "pro-choice state," Romney said, "I'd let states make their own decision in this regard. My view, of course, is I'm a pro-life individual. That's the position I support. But, I'd let states have this choice rather than let the federal government have it."


Hmmm. This YouTube clip from just a couple weeks ago shows that Romney recently said he actually supports a human life amendment to the Constitution, which would nix states' ability to set their own abortion laws by forcing a uniform, pro-life rule upon all fifty states:



So, in just a matter of two weeks, Romney has managed to reverse his position back to what it was just a couple of months ago:

> Read more & share
August 23, 2007

Private equity tax increase won't raise revenue...

... says a report cited by Bloomberg:

Congressional efforts to more than double taxes on managers of private-equity firms will generate little or no additional revenue to help pay for middle-class tax cuts that many lawmakers are seeking, a new study shows.

Buyout and venture-capital firms will restructure their affairs to sidestep any new tax laws aimed at their executives, according to the paper by Michael Knoll, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

At most, lawmakers may generate $3.2 billion a year in added revenue by raising levies on the share of profits, called ``carried interest,'' that executives receive as compensation for managing funds, Knoll wrote.

``Transactional structures are likely to change in response as tax rules change,'' he said in the paper, posted Aug. 16 on the Web Site of the Social Science Research Network, a repository of academic papers sponsored in part by the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business. ``Those changes are likely to reduce additional tax revenues.''


Quite.

"Common good"-oriented legislation targeting smooth operators in the money-raising, and business-expansion realm rarely have the result intended. A good case in point would be Sarbanes-Oxley, which is possibly the most widely reviled piece of legislation ever, so far as a lot of companies seeking to raise capital, and lawyers and accountants, too, are concerned and whose implementation has not led to everyone bowing down and just accepting that they have to put up with the absurdly onerous requirements of the act, but has rather led to moves toward establishing so-called "hybrid marketplaces", which if used, would get around requirements to comply with the hated law. The contem...

> Read more & share