I'm republishing this diary because I think that if we're going to complain about the answers we get to questions, we should be complaining about the answers we get to questions posed to the presumptive Republican candidate for President. I originally posted this diary under the title ...
Mitt Romney answers "burning question." I have a burning question ...
Evidently, Mitt Romney granted Fortune Magazine an interview. Well, actually it must have been a conference call because it was a telephone interview with Managing Editor Andy Serwer in New York and Editor-At-Large David Whitford in Boston, who introduce the transcript that was edited for clarity with
He touched on gun control, his tax-cut proposal, his five-point (boiled down from 59) plan to fix the economy, and answered this burning question: If you were to start a business today, what would it be?Okay, that's not exactly the burning question I would have asked Mitt Romney. Top on my list would be a question about his income taxes, but since that's the burning question that Fortune Magazine thought was important, I just had to jump right to it:
What sectors of the economy are you most sanguine about? Or put it this way, if you were to start a business today what would it be?First of all, Romney didn't answer the question he was asked. He never said what business he would start. Instead, he changed the question to "if you were to ask me where do I think more jobs are going to come in this coming country over the coming decade?" That's strike one.
My own experience is that there's no such thing as a bad industry. One can be successful by looking to achieve relative competitive advantage in almost any industry. Therefore I don't look for good industries vs. bad industries, I look for good ideas and opportunities to outperform the competition. That being said, if you were to ask me where do I think more jobs are going to come in this coming country over the coming decade, I believe the energy sector will be one of those. I believe if I'm president you're going to see a dramatic increase in the production of gas and oil, as well as continued production of coal, and I believe you're going to see nuclear come back and I believe renewables will continue to grow. So I believe energy jobs will rise. Second, I believe you're going to see manufacturing return to this country over the coming decade, particularly as we take advantage of our low-cost natural gas.
Third, I believe infrastructure is going to see very substantial investments over the coming decade. I'm talking about highways as well as rail and air and communications infrastructure. And of course health care will be an area of growth, not only because of the aging population, but also because if I'm president we're going to go from a government dominated healthcare system to a consumer choice health care system, and in a consumer choice market-driven system there will be enterprises that find ways to deliver better products at lower cost, and they will grow and be successful.
I wonder if Romney's desire to oversee a "dramatic increase in the production of gas and oil" has anything to do with Koch Industries Big Oil interests? Or if there is any truth to the allegations voiced in that diary I read here at DailyKos today, Serious Allegation: Koch Brothers Bought Ryan’s Nomination for $100 Million? And if we are in such a dire need of increased oil produced, why is it that the U.S. exported more gasoline than imported last year? Strike Two is for pandering to his masters.
Strike Three is for saying "I believe you're going to see nuclear come back." Did he see what happened after the 2011 earthquake in Japan? What? He doesn't think we have earthquakes here in the U.S.? I guess he didn't hear about the 11 earthquakes over forty days in June and July in Texas this year. And speaking of those 11 earthquakes, why didn't you mention natural gas drilling and using that fracking technique? Is he planning to put and end to fracking since it's been tied to earthquakes?
What about that interest in the "continued production of coal?" It seems strange that the Koch Brothers Admit Global Warming is Real, Vow to Shut Down Coal Mining Operations in April, and David Koch said:
We don't want to harm the planet. We are now convinced that our coal business should be shut down for the betterment of mankind. We will be shifting our energy business towards producing sustainable and non-polluting energy from sources such as wind and solar energy. We are also going to explore deriving geothermal energy from the heat deep down in our coal mines.Three strikes and you're out, so I guess there's no need for a strike four. But it's interesting that Mitt's so interested coal jobs, because I happened to see Friday night's episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, and the top-of-the-show interview with the director of Carbon Nation, Peter Byck. They were talking about getting people to see Byck's movie, when your name came up, Mitt:
Byck: If we have this big hairy doorman at the front saying, "Do you believe in climate change or not?" to get in, we're screwed. But if we just say hey, you know, it's okay if you don't believe in climate change; it's okay. But "Do you like clean air? Do you like clean water? Do you like solar energy? Do you like wind energy? Do you like efficiency? It's big numbers.Oh Mitt, palling around with coal miners? You're such a regular guy. Did you compliment them on their overalls? But seriously, Mitt, we can talk about your income taxes next time. My burning question about the energy industry is what Mr. Byck asked: If mining coal is such a great economic deal for the people who do it, why is that the the poorest areas in Kentucky and West Virginia are where they mine coal?
Maher: But the other side comes up and they say, do you like jobs? I mean, Mitt Romney spent this week talking about coal. I saw him with all the coal miners behind him. Mitt Romney loves coal. He once put a piece of coal up his ass and it came out a diamond. (laughter)
Byck: That's a cottage industry. That could work.
Maher: But you know these people think they're going to lose their jobs. I mean you make this economic case, but it doesn't resonate really with people who live paycheck to paycheck.
Byck: Well it does if you say, hey would you rather be in a hole digging up coal, or would you rather be in a building doing retrofitting and putting windows in? And there's many, many, many, many, many more jobs to retrofit buildings then there ever are for coal jobs. And when you go to Kentucky and West Virginia ... (long applause) ... It's true. When you go to Kentucky and West Virginia, the poorest areas are where they mine coal. So if mining coal is such a great economic deal for the people who do it, why is that?
Thanks for playing, Mitt. Now that you've answered that burning question, I absolutely know that I prefer President Obama’s Record on Energy and the Environment. I've read enough, and can honestly say that I didn't bother reading your responses to the other questions asked by the editors over at Fortune Magazine. Maybe somebody else will read them and have more burning questions for you.