Let’s be honest...because Romney was not.

Let’s be honest…..because Romney was not.

There has been much written and spoken about the first Presidential debate. Romney came across as a strong, confident, Wall Street executive, in full sales mode. Obama’s style was more staid, flat, and professorial. Clearly the former style can be more interesting and attractive than the latter. It explains why more people watch Jersey Shore than PBS, the network that Romney wants to stop funding.  

But besides the style you have to actually evaluate the meaning and intention of the words spoken.

Because Obamacare is a hot topic a fair amount has been written about that part of the debate. Romney once again misrepresent that under his plan people with pre-existing conditions will be able to get insurance and misleadingly said that “up to 20 million people will lose their insurance as Obamacare goes into effect next year”.

Under Obamacare, which goes fully into effect in 2014, insurers can’t reject people for having pre-existing conditions. Under Romney’s health care proposals people would be protected from denial only if they have been continuously insured. So Politifact.com labeled Romney’s pre-existing conditions statement ‘Mostly False’. Romney has made and been criticized for this same claim before but refuses to be restrained by fact checkers or the truth.  

Politifact.com labeled Romney’s 20 million uninsured statement ‘False’ and said that many of those 20 million will be leaving employer coverage voluntarily for better options. They also said that Romney ignored the fact that under the status quo many more people than that "lose" coverage today.

Obama claimed that Romney’s plan would leave 50 million uninsured. And while a recent MIT study said that under Romney’s plan 72 million people would be uninsured in the year 2022, to be fair Politifact.com labeled it ‘Mostly False’ because Obama didn’t mention the projected 2022 date. Also there are various estimates and they reckoned that Romney’s uninsured number might be as low as 30 to 40 million in closer in years.

In total Politifact.com evaluated 18 debate statements, 9 by each candidate. They rated 6 Obama and 4 Romney statements ‘True’ to ‘Half true’ and 3 Obama and 5 Romney statements ‘False’ to ‘Half False.’

But, as a former accountant, I was struck by a more mundane debate exchange over the tax and accounting effects of shipping plants/factories overseas.

Romney heard, understood, and repeated almost exactly Obama’s point on the subject.  Obama said “you can actually take a deduction for moving a plant overseas.” Romney repeated with “you said you get a deduction for taking a plant overseas. Look. I’ve been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you’re talking about.”

Romney has a Harvard MBA and Law degree, has been in business 25 years, and has tens of millions of dollars invested overseas. Yet every first year accounting student knows that you can deduct business moving expenses from your taxes. It really can’t be any simpler and he certainly knew it.

Obama added, “I think most Americans would say that doesn’t make sense.” I agree. If you are moving a plant out of the country to improve your profits or take advantage of a lower foreign tax rate than you ought to take the deduction in that foreign jurisdiction, not here and against US profits and taxes. 

Romney was strong and confident in his presentation and substantively dishonest.

However polished the presentation I can’t help but think that Romney would have been laughed out of the room in almost any business meeting that I can remember.     

Brian Froelich, Democratic Candidate for US Congress (NJ, 4th Dist.)
http://www.froelich4congress.com/
https://www.facebook.com/BrianFroelichForCongress