Romney Strives to Stand Apart in Global Policy

In a speech he gave at the Virginia Military Institute, Mr. Romney declared that “hope is not a strategy” for dealing with the rise of Islamist governments in the Middle East or an Iran racing toward the capability to build a nuclear weapon, according to excerpts released by his campaign.

The essence of Mr. Romney’s argument is that he would take the United States back to an earlier era, one that would result, as his young foreign policy director, Alex Wong, told reporters on Sunday, in “the restoration of a strategy that served us well for 70 years.”

But beyond his critique of Mr. Obama as failing to project American strength abroad, Mr. Romney has yet to fill in many of the details of how he would conduct policy toward the rest of the world, or to resolve deep ideological rifts within the Republican Party and his own foreign policy team. It is a disparate and politely fractious team of advisers that includes warring tribes of neoconservatives, traditional strong-defense conservatives and a band of self-described “realists” who believe there are limits to the degree the United States can impose its will.

Each group is vying to shape Mr. Romney’s views, usually through policy papers that many of the advisers wonder if he is reading. Indeed, in a campaign that has been so intensely focused on economic issues, some of these advisers, in interviews over the past two weeks in which most insisted on anonymity, say they have engaged with him so little on issues of national security that they are uncertain what camp he would fall into, and are uncertain themselves about how he would govern.

“Would he take the lead in bombing Iran if the mullahs were getting too close to a bomb, or just back up the Israelis?” one of his senior advisers asked last week. “Would he push for peace with the Palestinians, or just live with the status quo? He’s left himself a lot of wiggle room.”

In his remarks, Mr. Romney addressed the Palestinian issue, saying, “I will recommit America to the goal of a democratic, prosperous Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the Jewish state of Israel.” And he faulted Mr. Obama for failing to deliver on that front.

But while the theme Mr. Romney hit the hardest in his speech at V.M.I. — that the Obama era has been one marked by “weakness” and the abandonment of allies — has political appeal, the specific descriptions of what Mr. Romney would do, on issues like drawing red lines for Iran’s nuclear program and threatening to cut off military aid to difficult allies like Pakistan or Egypt if they veer away from American interests, sound at times quite close to Mr. Obama’s approach.

And the speech appeared to glide past positions Mr. Romney himself took more than a year ago, when he voiced opposition to expanding the intervention in Libya to hunt down Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi with what he termed insufficient resources. He called it “mission creep and mission muddle,” though within months Mr. Qaddafi was gone. And last spring, Mr. Romney was caught on tape telling donors he believed there was “just no way” a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could work.

Mr. Romney’s Monday speech called vaguely for support of Libya’s “efforts to forge a lasting government” and to pursue the “terrorists who attacked our consulate in Benghazi and killed Americans.” And he said he would “recommit America to the goal of a democratic, prosperous Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security” with Israel. But he did not say what resources he would devote to those tasks.

The shifts, a half dozen of Mr. Romney’s advisers said in interviews, partly reflect the fact that the candidate himself has not deeply engaged in these issues for most of the campaign, certainly not with the enthusiasm, and instincts, he has on domestic economic issues. But they also represent continuing divisions.

Some are on the way to resolution. Over the summer, an “inner circle” of foreign policy advisers emerged, with Richard S. Williamson, a former Reagan administration official who briefly returned to government to serve President George W. Bush, playing a leading role. Another central player is Mitchell B. Reiss, the president of Washington College in Maryland and a veteran of Mr. Romney’s 2008 campaign. And Jim Talent, the former Missouri senator, has taken a major role in defense strategy.

Liz Cheney, who served in the State Department during the Bush administration and is the daughter of Mr. Bush’s vice president, has begun to join a weekly conference call that sporadically includes Dan Senor, who served as spokesman for the American occupation government in Iraq. Since the Republican National Convention, Mr. Senor has been assigned to the staff of Mr. Romney’s running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan, who in recent weeks has made Mr. Obama’s foreign policy a particular target.

View the original article here

Republicans show rare discord over tax policy (Reuters)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Republican brand, built on a rock-solid "no new tax" pledge to voters, is showing a few cracks as internal party divisions erupt in the face of rapidly escalating U.S. government debt.

Republicans have hopes of capturing control of the White House and both chambers of Congress in November 2012 elections, and tax policy looms as a central issue.

But in these early days of the campaign, Republicans have been debating an unlikely opponent: themselves.

The most immediate battle finds rank-and-file members fighting over whether to follow party leaders and back an extension of President Barack Obama's payroll tax cut, which would put more money in the pockets of millions of Americans.

But the internal debate affects tax policies far larger than the payroll tax cut.

"There is kind of a revisitation by the party in terms of where they are on tax policy," said Dean Zerbe, a former tax counsel for Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee and now managing director of alliantgroup, a tax consulting firm.

BEYOND THE PAYROLL TAX ISSUE

Republicans are pushing for a major overhaul of U.S. tax law, which is riddled with loopholes and special interest breaks. The last such review was done in 1986 by then-President Ronald Reagan, an idol to conservatives.

They argue a streamlined tax code would help boost the economy and create jobs. But with U.S. debt now topping $15 trillion, some are starting to entertain an idea they vehemently rejected in the past: devoting some of the revenue generated by closing loopholes to deficit reduction and not just lowering income tax rates.

"There is a debate internally about what the appropriate level of tax burden is," said Alex Brill, an American Enterprise Institute tax expert and former chief economist for the House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee.

For years, Republicans have bristled at any notion that tax cuts needed to be offset by revenue increases elsewhere in the code. Lower taxes, they argued, would generate enough economic growth to pay for themselves.

Lately there are doubts. The huge debt has led to a fundamental change in thinking, said conservative Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss.

"As to whether or not we're going to have to pay for any tax cuts, I think we're going to have to pay for everything," Chambliss told Reuters. "These are very difficult times. If you don't pay for it, you're adding to the deficit."

'YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN, KID'

During deficit-reduction negotiations in November, which ultimately failed in a "super committee" of Congress, Senator Patrick Toomey opened the door to Republicans accepting new revenue for deficit reduction. He floated a plan to limit certain special interest tax breaks in return for lowering the top tax rate to 28 percent from 35 percent.

Democrats rejected it saying it would raise too little revenue from taxes and provide a net tax cut for the rich while raising taxes for the middle class. And for other reasons, so did many Republicans including Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, a group that advocates a single low, national income tax. ATR asks candidates for office to sign a pledge to "oppose and vote against tax increases."

Norquist has been a powerful force within the Republican Party in recent years, and almost all congressional Republicans have signed the so-called "Taxpayer Protection Pledge." Some now seem willing to take a step back, at their peril.

"The people who brought it up, all they did was open the door to thinking about tax increases," Norquist said during a Reuters Insider TV interview last month of ideas such as Toomey's. "The good news is the rest of the Republican Party said, 'you're on your own, kid.'"

Recent polls show public backing for tax increases to bring down the deficit - if they are twinned with spending cuts. But supporting higher taxes of any kind is dangerous for Republican lawmakers, who could draw primary challenges in 2012 from Tea Party movement conservatives.

Many conservatives argue that President George H.W. Bush lost his re-election bid in 1992 because he broke his "no new taxes" campaign pledge.

One lawmaker's expendable tax perk is another's essential service, as Republican House Speaker John Boehner was reminded in November when he proposed ending a corporate jet tax break as part of deficit reduction package.

"I mentioned to the Speaker: 'quit picking on us. In Wichita (Kansas) we've come through a rough time,'" veteran Senator Pat Roberts told Reuters. The Kansan was referring to aircraft makers in his home state that could feel the impact of ending the jet tax break, which would save an estimated $3 billion over 10 years -- a relatively small savings given deficits of around $1 trillion a year.

Obama appears to have seized a political advantage with his demands for a balanced approach to deficit reduction that includes spending cuts as well as tax increases.

After years of Republicans painting Democrats as wanting to tax and spend the country into bankruptcy, the president has turned the tables somewhat with polls showing support for his call to increase taxes on the very rich to help shrink the debt.

As Obama pushes to extend a temporary payroll tax cut for wage earners, Republicans find themselves in the awkward position of debating whether to block a tax cut.

Many Republicans argue that the payroll tax cut has done little to stimulate the economy and over the long-term could weaken the Social Security retirement fund that the tax supports. But Republican leaders - fearing the party will be accused of protecting tax cuts for the rich, but not workers - said they will push for the extension as long as the cost is covered by spending cuts.

Not all Republicans are happy with that decision, arguing another one-year extension will do nothing for long-term U.S. economic growth.

"I just think they're wrong," Republican Representative Jeff Flake said of his own leaders in the House and their drive to extend the payroll tax cut.

(Editing by Vicki Allen)

View the original article here

Perry: Obama's lost standing on foreign policy (AP)

WASHINGTON – GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry says President Barack Obama hasn't listened to his commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that's cost him credibility as commander in chief.

Obama has announced that U.S troops would leave Iraq by the end of the year, effectively ending the war that began under the administration of President George W. Bush.

Perry tells "Fox News Sunday" that making those plans public endangers troops still in Iraq. The Texas governor says Obama has "lost his standing" as a commander in chief.

The president has said the death of Libya's Moammar Gadhafi and the end of the Iraq war are reminders of America's renewed leadership in the world.

View the original article here

Republicans call Obama trade policy "schizophrenic" (Reuters)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Top Senate Republicans on Tuesday accused President Barack Obama of a "schizophrenic trade policy" and urged him to send free trade deals with South Korea, Colombia and Panama to Congress without further delay.

In back-to-back speeches on the Senate floor, Republican leader Mitch McConnell and Senator Orrin Hatch blasted the White House for refusing to submit the agreements until lawmakers agree to renew the federal Trade Adjustment Assistance program at or near 2009 levels.

"At a time when 14 million Americans are looking for work, they actually want to hold off on these known job-creating agreements in exchange for a green light to spend more money. It's astonishing," McConnell said.

The five-decade-old TAA program, which was expanded in 2009 to around $1 billion a year, provides retraining and healthcare benefits for workers who have lost their job because of import competition or their workplace relocating overseas.

Many Republicans argue the program is a waste of taxpayers' money as Congress looks for ways to cut the huge budget deficit. They also say it is unfair that workers who lose their jobs because of foreign competition get more generous unemployment benefits than most other workers.

"We need to separate these issues, deal with them independently, and move ahead with these trade deals," which the White House itself has estimated would create tens of thousands of U.S. jobs, McConnell said.

He said Democrats were holding up the pacts to get a better deal for union groups that oppose them.

At a news conference, McConnell told reporters Republicans "would be happy" to consider TAA if it was coupled with legislation to give Obama trade promotion authority to negotiate new trade agreements.

That authority, which expired during the second term of former President George W. Bush, allows the White House to negotiate trade deals that Congress must approve or reject without making any changes.

Obama has not asked for the authority, but his administration is negotiating a regional trade agreements with eight countries in the Asia Pacific region.

APPROVAL THIS YEAR

Carol Guthrie, a spokeswoman for the Trade Representative's office, said Obama was "committed to passing all three trade agreements this year as well as extending Trade Adjustment Assistance."

The administration has been moving toward the first step in congressional consideration of the agreements, the so-called "mock markups" held by the Senate Finance Committee and the House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee before the White House formally submits the pacts, she said.

"Congress can keep faith with America's workers by reaching an agreement on TAA by the time that work is done, so that these agreements are not delayed," Guthrie said.

Hatch, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, accused the White House of professing to support the trade agreements while coming up with one excuse after another not to send them to Congress for a vote.

"This schizophrenic trade policy is doing nothing but hurting American workers and undermining our recovery," Hatch said, adding he believed each pact would pass with bipartisan support if Obama submitted them.

He said he feared the 2012 elections could doom the trade agreements if Obama does not send them to Congress soon for a vote.

"I'm afraid that if these agreements aren't submitted this summer, they never will be," Hatch said.

"If the expanded TAA program can stand on its own merits, as each of the FTAs can, then it should be introduced and voted on separately from the FTAs," he said, referring to the free trade agreements.

(Additional reporting by Andy Sullivan; editing by Mohammad Zargham)

View the original article here