Absurd Mitt Romney Defense Number One: “First of all, my investments are not made by me. My investments for the last 10 years have been in a blind trust, managed by a trustee.”  - Mitt Romney, Florida Republican Debate

• Two problems: One, it can be argued (i.e. former Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist) that blind trusts are not always as blind as they appear to be; two, it is not a valid excuse to say, “we’ve learned about this as we made our financial disclosure.”
•  Governor Romney is contending that until he was pressured into financial disclosure, he did not deem it important to know which companies he was investing in and ultimately making money from. Blaming platform conflicting investment decisions on anyone other than himself is disingenuous. If elected president, “it was someone else’s fault” will not pass with the American people.

Absurd Mitt Romney Defense Number Two: “Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you.” – Mitt Romney, CNN Debate

• Really? The responsibility for a huge Republican no-no in RomneyCare is attributed, not to Governor Romney who created and passed into law, but to Newt Gingrich?

Absurd Mitt Romney Defense Number Three: “If illegal immigrants are getting access to additional healthcare in Massachusetts, its liberal Gov. Deval Patrick that has made it easier for them to do so. All of the regulatory activities involving the Health Safety Net Fund, including who could get care, were made long after Mitt Romney left office.” – Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul

• Here Governor Romney blames the illegal immigrant loopholes in his healthcare bill as well as it’s blowing a hole in the state’s budget on his successor. My question is, if assuming it is true that his successor’s implementation of the bill caused these catastrophic problems, isn’t it equally true that responsibility for crafting a bill explicitly denying illegal immigrants care other than emergency (the federal mandate) and ensuring that the new program could be fiscally sustained lies with Governor Romney?
• Passing a fatally flawed law is Governor Romney’s blunder. If he will take credit for the program’s successes, he must also take responsibility for its failures.

Absurd Mitt Romney Defense Number Four: “I did not have a super PAC run an ad against you (Rick Santorum). That’s, as you know, that’s something which is completely out of the control of candidates.”  “Mr. Speaker, the super PACs that are out there running ads with Ron Paul’s, mine, yours, as you know, that is not my ad. I didn’t write that ad. I can’t tell them how to.” – Mitt Romney in GOP debate

• Mitt Romney’s responding repeatedly that he has no control over the content of a super PAC’s ads have been unending fodder for the media, left leaning and right. Romney’s a Harvard Law graduate; he’s a smart guy. Did he really believe laying responsibility on a surrogate would satisfy the American people? Own up to your attacks, Governor.

Absurd Mitt Romney Defense Number Five: Wolf Blitzer (CNN debate, January 26):” You had an ad running saying that Speaker Gingrich called Spanish ‘the language of the ghetto.’ What do you mean by that?”   Mitt Romney: “I haven’t seen the ad, so I’m sorry. I don’t get to see all the TV ads.”

• Ok, so let me get this straight, Governor Romney. It’s not your fault if a super PAC running ads promoting your campaign misleads the American people; and, it is not your fault if your very own campaign runs misleading ads even when they end with “I’m Mitt Romney and I approve this message”  Does he seriously think that we’re all daft? How does that work in Romney-land?

Absurd Mitt Romney Defense Number Six: Fox News Debate, 2012, Gerald Seib: “America Pad and Paper is a company that Bain Capital bought with $5 million, took on more debt to expand, couldn’t pay back the loans, went bankrupt and several hundred people lost their jobs. Bain Capital though, took $100 million in profits and fees. Does that show a flaw in the Bain Capital model? Or is that just the rough and tumble of America capitalism?”  Mitt Romney: “At the time I was at Bain Capital, the business was still going and didn’t go bankrupt.” “Ultimately, do I believe that free enterprise works?  Absolutely.”

• “The job losses are not my fault,” I imagine Romney saying, “I wasn’t around when the company went belly up.” Question: For every job gained, how many thousands of jobs were lost? And where jobs were lost, how many of those companies stayed in business because of the job cuts?
• Jobs gained? Proof Romney is job creator. Jobs lost? Blame American Capitalism.

Absurd Mitt Romney Defense Number Seven? Coming soon from a Mitt Romney campaign event near you!

Federal law does not prohibit illegal immigrants from attending a state funded college or university. If only a student photo id can be used to vote, as some states have passed, an illegal immigrant could vote, thereby declaring voter fraud legal.

As an example, Wisconsin recently enacted a bill permitting polling places accept a student identification card as proof of voting eligibility. The law specifies that the student id must include:

• the student’s name
• the date the card is issued
• the date the card expires, which cannot be more than two years after the date the card is issued
• a photo of the student
• the student’s signature
• independent proof of residency such as inclusion on the institutions housing roster

It is oddly off topic. Isn’t the greater question, why are illegal immigrants allowed to attend our public institutions? The rest is simply the Texas taxpayer’s response to the federal government failing its duty to protect its citizens by protecting its border. By passing their in-state tuition law, Texas is demanding the federal government commit to obey its own law and deport those who have entered the country illegally.

This is my interpretation of the Texas response to Texas’ illegal immigration problem. And , instead of leaning on fiction to make my point, I will use actual facts.

Fact: No federal law exists exempting illegal immigrants from attending any public or private, primary, secondary or higher institution of learning.  And, when states have tried to “block” a federal law that does NOT exist (i.e., Alabama, Louisiana), the Department of Justice sues them.

Fact: The Texas legislature passed the bill regarding in-state tuition overwhelmingly with only 4 objections.

Fact: The child of an illegal immigrant must pay FULL in-state tuition. Continuing their education at the higher level is NOT free for them. Given the expense of attending a university and the general earnings of an illegal immigrant, they will choose to apply to a junior college, not the exponentially expensive university.

Fact: No Texas college or university is required to provide in-state tuition to an illegal immigrant accepted to its institution. It is at the discretion of the policy makers, taxpayers and donors.

• Currently Texas taxpayers pay less than 50% of any public college or university’s annual expenses. That percentage drops yearly.
• The remaining expenses are paid for by donations to the school by benefactors who have complete control over the outlay of those funds.
• It can be concluded that since the tax payers voted for it and the school’s donors can choose not to fund a school with this policy, any “subsidizing” is with the full blessing of the citizens of the state of Texas who fund the school.

Additional Facts:

An illegal immigrant requesting in-state tuition from a Texas college or university must sign an “Affidavit of Intent to become a Permanent Resident” agreement. The document must be signed while under oath (or notary public) attesting to completion of the following four requirements: 1) graduate from a Texas high school or receive a GED certificate in Texas; 2) reside in Texas for three years leading up to graduation from high school or receiving a GED certificate, 3) reside or will reside in Texas for the 12 months prior to the census date of the semester enrolled, 4) filed or will file an application to become a permanent resident of the United States at the earliest opportunity eligible to do so.

The Texas in-state tuition law does not violate or attempt to trump federal law. The Heritage foundation vehemently objects to granting in-state tuition to illegal immigrants referencing on their website a federal law deeming the practice unconstitutional. This is the reason the Federal Dream Act is firmly opposed by constitutionalists and thereby many Republicans.

But here is why the Texas law does not violate the federal law and must be set apart from other states in-state tuition allowance. Texas’ law does not give permission to an institution based solely on residency within the state, but mandates the eligible recipient pursue US citizenship. The remaining three requirements adhere to state residency.

Here’s the thing. I imagine myself a 17 year old teenager of an illegal immigrant sitting down at the dinner table with my illegal immigrant parents beginning to fill out a Texas A & M application for in-state tuition. Remember, if I don’t want in-state tuition, no problem, smooth sailing IN ANY STATE since it is not a crime to attend a public or private institution nor is it a crime to accept a student who is not a legal citizen.

If, as the child of an illegal immigrant, I want to apply for in-state tuition, the residency form must be filled out. So, I go online to the residency form and begin to answer the Core Residency questions. A series of questions are asked of me including am I an US citizen, or permanent resident or foreign national, or is a parent in the military. Federal law does not prohibit illegal immigrants from joining the military. I’m a kid sitting with my in-the-shadows illegal immigrant parents so I’m thinking if I lie and the school thoroughly checks my proclamations, my family could be deported. So, I decide to move further down the application to the last page.

The last page is not just an affidavit of residency for in-state tuition in Texas. It is a signed under oath admission that I am here illegally. Uhmm, so do they have a lot of people filling out that form for in-state tuition? The most important objection for illegal immigrants is well, they are in the country illegally. The moment that agreement is signed and passed on to the school that child and the child’s family are no longer in the shadows. If they agree to the commitment, follow through with obtaining an education, they will become a contributing member of society (i.e., paying income taxes, independent of state and federal programs). Furthermore, the federal government is not just derelict in its obligation to deport illegal immigrants, they are punishing those who try to deport them.

A side note: Rick Perry was recently chastised for, by emergency session, passing a law which declares that a student id cannot be used as identification to vote. See why? If only a student id can be used to vote, as some states are trying to pass, an illegal immigrant could vote, thus voter fraud. Seemed like a smart move to me given that illegal immigrants are not prohibited from attending state funded colleges.

I’ll start with defining “outsider” by using myself as the example. I am someone who has never held public office, never worked for someone in public office, never had a friend in public office and except for noting a county councilwoman’s presence in a parking lot of the local grocers, I’ve never met someone in public office.

Then, there is the “establishment.” Not the dirty word “establishment,” but you know, the Republican establishment, Democratic establishment, Mass Media “establishment” (just go with it) which can be defined, from where I sit as voter, as a group of people with the same or similar ideological opinions (not using a dictionary here, just telling it like I see it). For example, I would group Rick Perry, Karl Rove and Ronald Reagan in to the Republican establishment. Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and Rahm Emanuel in to the Democratic establishment.

But, there is another “establishment” which is not defined by political party (although, some may be defined as subjective opinion-makers masquerading as journalists). It is defined by actions or, more often than not, as the word establishment connotes, reaction (such as, adding earmarks to a bill because everyone else is doing it: “it’s ok because they’re mine”…think Rick Santorum or “I’m pro choice, no wait, who am I talking to? I mean, I’m pro family.” Or, 2008: “Mexicans? They should all be deported.” 2012:  ”My grandfather is Mexican.”  (whisper) “Do you think that’ll get me the Hispanic vote?” Or, in a recent debate, “I’ve never seen that ad” and seconds later naming 5 things that were wrong in the ad…think Mitt Romney) and sometimes inaction (as in having self-proclaimed big ideas, but never accomplishing a thing…think Ron Paul). I believe the media-types call it, the “status quo?” They should talk, right?

This establishment type, we’ll call establishment type “B,” is someone who is only defined by the group with which they identify themselves and choose to be liked opposed to be effective. They choose to get in line with all the other establishment type B people, instead of exploring the road less traveled.

There is one Republican candidate who is a bona fide, faithful conservative. One who has worked in government, true, Rick Perry has 20 plus years of experience working his way up to leading the 13th largest economy in the world, but he is not defined by his office or swayed to drop his ideals because some “one” may not like him.

I read a great definition of Rick Perry the other day: one whose magnetic personality galvanizes people for some great cause. He can influence others not solely by his words but by his actions. He does what he preaches. He acts as a catalyst and his presence is enough to motivate people.

Rick Perry is an outlier of “establishment B.” Not quite an outsider, but definitely an outlier. He’s assimilated enough to work the establishment without the establishment working him. He is guided by social and economic conservative principles, not Party principles. Although no one in or around government can claim complete autonomic outsider status, Rick Perry is eons ahead of the current crop of Republican and Democratic candidates, from my vantage point.

I believe in the best interest of the voter, Governor Romney should be pressed to elaborate on specific outcomes of Bain’s acquisitions. But, he needs to be pressed in a way that cannot be in any way perceived  as an attack on free market enterprise. I believe overall, most people understand that sometimes in order to save some jobs and pensions, the company must cut some jobs and pensions. Capitalism is awe-inspiring, but unless speaking with a purest, most economists agree capitalism is not a perfect economic system because it cannot stand alone. It is always going to be an economic system within a form of government.

This is how I see it. The US distinguishes itself from other countries by balancing a limited federal government with individual liberties. Our country would not have prospered otherwise.  I believe our economy distinguishes itself from other countries for the same reason. When both sides of the coin (pun intended) are respected, individual liberties and free market capitalism, our economy works. It seems a very delicate balance.

Capitalism without cognizance of the individual is like cancer. Eventually, if left unchecked, it kills its host (our country) and thereby kills itself (no country, no economy). Our founding fathers incorporated checks and balances into the constitution by way of amendments and three distinct branches of government. Capitalism needs checks and balances. Not, however, to be misconstrued as over regulating.

Individualism irrespective of free-market economics will cut a nation at its knees if not counterbalanced, one to the other. Ideologues tending to lead labor organizations are equally at risk of killing its host (the company) if left without limiting its demands.

The image I cannot seem to clear from my thoughts is Mitt Romney and his Bain Capital associates huddled together with money-stuffed pockets. Romney did not choose a photo opportunity with corporate representatives of the companies Bain rescued, or the employees whose jobs were saved, he chose instead to emphasize the large sums of money he made for himself. Is it legal? Absolutely.  Is it capitalism at its best? Absolutely not.

The photo, for me, is a gross example of hubris and greed, not a free market economy with individual liberties. Shifting relevance from one’s freedom to another’s liberty is expected, but there is no choice but to be informed of the other.

Individuals succeed when corporations succeed and vice versa. I believe Mitt Romney’s version of capitalism is a complete misrepresentation of a free market economy within a republic, broadly and in particular, the United States.

This is how I see it. The US distinguishes itself from other countries by balancing a limited federal government with individual liberties. Our country would not have prospered otherwise.  I believe our economy distinguishes itself from other countries for the same reason. When both sides of the coin (pun intended) are respected, individual liberties and free market capitalism, our economy works. It seems a very delicate balance.

Capitalism without cognizance of the individual is like cancer. Eventually, if left unchecked, it kills its host (our country) and thereby kills itself (no country, no economy). Our founding fathers incorporated checks and balances into the constitution by way of amendments and three distinct branches of government. Capitalism needs checks and balances. Not, however, to be misconstrued as over regulating.

Individual freedoms can be taken to the extreme, as well. Ideologues tending to lead labor organizations are equally at risk of killing its host (the company) if left without limiting its demands.

The image I cannot seem to clear from my thoughts is Mitt Romney and his Bain Capital associates huddled together with money-stuffed pockets. Romney did not choose a photo opportunity with corporate representatives of the companies Bain rescued, or the employees whose jobs were saved, he chose instead to emphasize the large sums of money he made for himself. Is it legal? Absolutely.  Is it capitalism at its best? Absolutely not.

The photo, for me, is a gross example of hubris and greed, not a free market economy with individual liberties. Shifting relevance from one’s freedom to another’s liberty is expected, but there is no choice but to be informed of the other.

Individuals succeed when corporations succeed and vice versa. I believe Mitt Romney’s version of capitalism is a complete misrepresentation of a free market economy within a republic, broadly and in particular, the United States.