Mitt Romney a Socialist?
Mitt Romney might not have realized it but in the first three paragraphs of his editorial in today's New York Times, he makes a strong case for nationalized universal health care and stronger social security entitlements. After all, health insurance costs and retirement pensions are the two biggest burdens the US automakers must shoulder that their foreign competitors do not.
Advertisement
Absolutely. And maybe this is just the kind of "long and deep" play the Obama team is preparing to run? They will be helping many US companies tremendously if they shift some of these costs from business responsibilities to government responsibilities. But in exchange, they will need the companies to get out there and support a package that calls for greater nationalization of health care benefits.
November 20, 2008 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
You make a great point. Wouldn't it be ironic (and poetic) if major industrial corporations began lobbying congress for nationalized health care and a national pension system? I'd wager GM would win against even the largest HMO.
November 20, 2008 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
GM has been pushing for this for a decade now. This is the first time they think there is chance of it happening.
November 20, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
You also have to realize that Romney went along with universal coverage as Mass. governor. This is not a new position for him.
November 20, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Romney is a snake.
Otherwise, corporations have been coming around, slowly, to the realization that it is (1) essential that their employees have health care, and pensions, and that (2) it would be more efficient and wiser were the gov't to handle those rather than the corporations.
It isn't a long step from A to B on those points, but there sure are a great many years between them because of the far-right lunatic fringe which insists upon dictating to the taxpayers what the taxpayers should and should not do with the taxes they pay.
That lunatic fringe runs on the promise to the taxpayer, "That money is yours" -- but once elected, they refuse to do with those tax dollars that the taxpayer wants done with them.
"Nasty" is a polite critique of them.
November 20, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink