My friend, Thers (he's been around the liberal blogosphere forever, and he's a damned good writer), chief blogger and brilliant proprietor at Whiskey Fire, poses a question about Romney's math. He speaks the truth.
I've wondered why the campaigns are spending billions of dollars to elect a president when there are people starving and others who are out of work. Infrastructure needs to be rebuilt, too. I've wondered why they want to piss away extreme money on whether or not a Democrat or Republican lives in the White House.
Let's focus on what matters.
Crazy.
I've kept a log of advertisements in Michigan. I've also kept a log and a journal on the proposals. And I've voted differently than to the conclusion the state and local ads have directed me. (The national level ads are cynical; the state ads are embarrassing in the way they pander to the uninformed.) Although: NOTE TO SELF: Get into political advertising. (I kid. I'm in marketing, but I'm too true to my belief system to do that.)
Here's Thers' post, at Eschaton.
Says he:
A sincere question. Take Sheldon Adelson, for instance. Suppose the math is true, and Romney loses. Adelson spent x trying to install politicians who would save him tax money. Let y = the money he would have spent if he'd just shut up and paid the tax bill Obama actually proposed. I don't imagine this is an easy question to answer once you get into the weeds of it, but I'd offer the hypothesis that in the end, it's very possible that the absurdly wealthy are paying more for pointless advocacy than they would ever pay under an historically moderate tax regime.
Thers' point is: Why spend the obscene amount of money for "pointless advocacy" when (b)/(m)illionaires like Adelson would pay less under the current tax structure? I wonder about this, too.
Seems crazy to me. What's the motive?