LOS ANGELES - It's the meme cycle that ate
this city - and the nation, for that matter. No
one can escape the attack of Binders Full of
Women; from Tumblr to a tsunami of tweets, from
the coolest Facebook
page in ages [1] to a 2 Live Crew
impersonation (2 Live Mitt?) and onwards to mashup
wasteland.
A Roving Eye informal poll
with a binder full of California women from Malibu
to Hollywood via Beverly Hills has revealed
unmitigated disgust/derision towards Feminist
Mitt's latest outburst. To quote that great
geopolitician of the soul Brian Wilson, we wish
they all could be California girls. The verdict
though is still open on eminently catchable,
undecided women voters in crucial swing states
Colorado, Virginia and Ohio.
For those of
you who may have been unaware of this social
earthquake worthy of a Britney Spears wardrobe
malfunction, on Monday's presidential debate
Republican candidate Mitt Romney swore that, as
governor of Massachusetts, "We took a concerted
effort to go out and find women who had
backgrounds that could be qualified to become
members of our cabinet. I went to a number of
women's groups and said: 'Can you help us find
folks?' and they brought us whole binders full of
women."
Way beyond the fact that Mitt's
new fable has already been debunked [1] - he never
asked for the Binders Full of Women in the first
place - the rest of his feminist rant implied that
the new (male) job creators in Mitt's New American
Dream will be so god-damned desperate that they
will hire anyone in sight. Including women. For
his part, President Barack Obama has talked about
abortion rights, health care and equal pay. It
doesn't take a NASA scientist to figure out how
the Binders Full of Women who are paying attention
will vote.
Hubbard, what's the
plan? Way beyond the meme cycle, the
problem is actually Mitt's Binders Full of
Baloney. OK, California is the future, for better
or for worse - the possibility of physically
seceding and navigating the Pacific towards Asia
(or the bottom of said Pacific) included. But how
could any sentient US being believe in Mitt's
"plan" for a New American Dream featuring less
taxes, an even freer hand to the very wealthy and
a currency and trade war against China starting on
"day one"?
Show me the money. And while
we're at it, be afraid, be very afraid of the
world according to Mitt (or rather his neo-con
advisers). Russia is a strategic enemy. China is a
commercial enemy. And the US must raise hell -
again - all across the Middle East; so expect the
Return of the (Medieval) Dead, as in "you're
either with us or against us", part II.
Back to the economy, Obama did try in the
debate to force Mitt to point out all the
deductions and credits he would get over with
under his "plan" to cut taxes by 20% without
reducing overall revenues and without reducing the
minimalistic taxes paid by the wealthy. Yet even
the coyotes in the Mojave desert know Mitt's
numbers don't add up. It's as if Mitt the Binder
is selling a dodgy second-hand Dodge but will only
reveal the vehicle's true condition after
clinching the sale.
Instead of trying to
compete with China, Mitt wants a trade/currency
war. From 2002 to 2011 the US created a mere
48,000 new jobs for architects and engineers.
Moreover, Mitt simply refuses to admit that the
root of all the malaise boils down to US
corporations "exporting" American jobs offshore,
wholesale. Obama at least admitted "some" (in fact
all) of these jobs will never come back. And by
the way, a conga line of bipartisan economists -
wishful thinking or not - has been arguing that up
to 2016 the US will come up with 12 million jobs
anyway, no matter who's on Pennsylvania Avenue.
Instead of Binders Full of Women, Mitt
could well try to explain his Binders Full of
Economic Promises, asking for much needed help
from Glenn Hubbard, the dean of Columbia Business
School, a former chairman of the Council of
Economic Advisers under Dubya, and arguably Mitt's
top economic adviser. Essentially Mitt cannot
offer any specifics about his plan because even
Hubbard can't. [2]
No surprises on the
plan's key objectives; "Stopping runaway federal
spending and debt, reforming our tax code and
entitlement programs, and scaling back costly
regulations."
Hubbard does not explain how
Mitt's plan would reduce federal spending as a
share of GDP to 20% (thus Mitt cannot explain it).
Hubbard does emphasize the cut on corporate income
tax, and a vague "broadening" of the tax base so
"tax reform is revenue-neutral". Once again, no
specifics, so Mitt gives no specifics.
The
end of "regulatory impediments to energy
production and innovation" essentially means the
old Republican theme song Drill, Baby, Drill.
Hubbard also believes in the 12 million new jobs
mirage, plus an extremely vague "millions more
after that due to the plan's long-run growth
effects."
So if the dean of Columbia
Business School, for all his expertise and good
intentions, is this vague, talk about Mitt The
Binder.
Does this sea of vagueness matter?
It does. Poll-cruncher extraordinaire Nate Silver
has remarked, sharply, that "the candidates were
roughly tied when Public Policy Polling asked them
how the debate swayed their vote, with 37% saying
the debate made them more likely to vote for Mr
Obama, with 36% for Mr Romney." So it's dead heat
all the way - no matter the binders in question.
Hollywood would call it a cliffhanger. Still
Binders Full of Women will likely cast Minerva's
vote - not those perky California girls, but a few
quiet ladies in Colorado, Virginia and Ohio.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
