Kevin D. Williams (and William R. Barker) on Taxes, Costco, the Democrats... and Gaming the Fiscal Cliff

Read it and weep, my friends...

The so-called fiscal cliff is one installment in a series of manufactured crises, the purpose of which is to provide the political establishment with small problems it can solve (or pretend to solve) while steadfastly refusing to address the much thornier problem of the long-term non-sustainability of U.S. public finances.

Watching the melodrama unfold, I sometimes think I should be reviewing it in my theater column over at The New Criterion rather than analyzing it for National Review.

The fundamental unseriousness of the fiscal cliff debate can be appreciated by examining the Corker plan - which probably is very close to the best that deficit hawks could hope for in terms of a bipartisan compromise.

(Which is to say, precious little.)

At best, the Corker plan would reduce the growth of U.S. federal debt by about $4.5 trillion over the next decade, but it would not eliminate the deficit or reduce the debt, and it would allow for trillions of dollars to be added to the wrong side of the national ledger.

AGAIN, FOLKS... THIS IS SUPPOSEDLY "THE BEST" THAT CAN BE REASONABLY HOPED FOR... THE BEST THE GOP ESTABLISHMENT MIGHT... MIGHT... BE WILLING TO SUPPORT AS "THEIR" PLAN.

The Democrats give every indication of being interested in using fiscal cliff hysteria to achieve nothing but a modest, almost symbolic increase in federal income tax rates for taxpayers earning $250,000 or more, which would do very little to reduce the deficit but would confer a measure of emotional satisfaction on the Left.

A fair number of small-business owners, managers, and professionals would see their taxes go up, but the actual rich - the Wall Street types, CEOs, Silicon Valley princelings, etc. - would continue to have the bulk of their income taxed at the lower capital gains rate.

(*SIGH*)

That rate will go up (from 15% to 20%) absent a fiscal-cliff deal, but the hedge-funders and such still will be paying a rate about half the top income-tax rate.

(*CLAP...CLAP...CLAP*)

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

President Obama wants that tax increase to happen, but only for taxpayers earning $250,000 or more.

FOLKS... AS MANY OF YOU KNOW OR MAY REMEMBER... MY WIFE WORKS AT A SMALL CPA/INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP. THE NATURE OF TRUSTS - ESPECIALLY GENERATIONAL TRUSTS - ENSURES THAT THERE ARE PLENTY OF PEOPLE OUT THERE RECEIVING ANYWHERE FROM "ONLY" TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS A YEAR IN CAPITAL GAINS GENERATED TRUST INCOME TO THAT QUARTER-MILLION-DOLLARS A YEAR WHO WILL BE "PROTECTED" UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF OBAMA'S CLASS WARFARE ECONOMIC POLICIES.

(*SIGH*)

If the president gets his way on investment income, that will produce at best about $240 billion over a ten-year period: chump change when compared with deficits running $1 trillion or more every year.

FOLKS... YOU KNOW HOW I FEEL ABOUT THESE DECADE-LONG PROJECTIONS... BUT SOMETIMES THEY DO ILLUSTRATE THE POINT AS NOTHING ELSE COULD.

It would take a decade to offset the debt run up in just one of President Obama’s many recovery summers. And that assumes that the economy does not slip back into recession and that investors do not change their behavior very much in response to the new tax regime.

The latter of course is unlikely and if the president doubts that, he should have a conversation with Democrats’ new favorite tycoon, Jim Sinegal of Costco.

Democrats suddenly are in love with Costco.

Mr. Sinegal, founder of the company, spoke at the Democratic National Convention, and current CEO Craig Jelinek has been an ally of the president during the fiscal cliff debate.

On Thursday, Mr. Sinegal and Mr. Jelinek were visited by Joe Biden, who came by to commemorate the opening of the chain’s first Washington, D.C., store. That is a remarkable thing: The country is on the edge of a fiscal crisis, war is burbling in the Middle East, the president’s hometown is in the grip of a horrific wave of violent crime... and the Vice President of these United States is going to Costco ribbon cuttings.

Beyond getting the Biden treatment, Mr. Sinegal was the subject of a fawning New York Times profile and now has his very own Internet meme, which features his beaming face above the caption: “Costco CEO pays his employees $17/hr on average, plus benefits, earns less than $500K, refuses Wall Street demands to cut employee salaries and benefits.”

WELL... THAT ACTUALLY DOES SOUND PRETTY GOOD...

Almost none of that is true, of course...

OH...

(*CRESTFALLEN EXPRESSION*)

...but it hasn’t stopped the Left from holding up Costco as the ideal progressive alternative to Walmart.

Mr. Sinegal, like many corporate executives, took a relatively small salary, true enough, but received the majority of his multimillion-dollar annual income in equity-based compensation, meaning that he, like Mitt Romney and many a hedge-fund guru, paid 15% on most of his money.

(*SMIRK*)

And while at least one Wall Street analyst has been critical of the firm’s generous compensation for its employees, Wall Street has hardly demanded anything of Costco other than continuation of its very profitable operations. This is partly out of appreciation for the fact that Costco’s customers are relatively wealthy - many are small businesses, and their average income is more than $80,000 a year - and that affluent shoppers have different expectations than do the relatively poor people who shop at Walmart. That’s Costco’s interesting niche: It’s a discount store for rich people, Starbucks to Walmart’s Dunkin Donuts. That strategy has been paying off: Institutional investors such as Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway are among Costco’s top shareholders, and Buffett has never been shy about making his demands known to management.

I'M GLAD COSTCO IS MAKING MONEY... I'M GLAD THEY PAY THEIR EMPLOYEES WELL...

I'D BE "GLADDER" IF COSTCO (AND WALMART!) WOULD PROACTIVELY STOCK, MARKET, AND SELL MORE AMERICAN-MADE PRODUCTS...

I'D BE "GLADDER" IF RELATIVELY REASONABLE COSTCO EXECUTIVE SALARIES REPRESENTED ACTUAL TOTAL COSTCO EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION...

In fact, Buffett’s company, along with Mr. Sinegal, Mr. Jelinek, and other shareholders such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, are about to see a big payday from Costco - courtesy of Democrats and the fiscal cliff. As noted before, if the president gets his way, the capital-gains tax rate will go up to 20% for investors earning $250,000 or more. If nothing is done, the rate will go up to 20% for most investors; and more important, income from dividends will be taxed like ordinary income, meaning a top rate of 39.6%. That’s a big hit, so Costco is paying a big dividend - right now! Before the new rates kick in!

BUT, FOLKS... THERE'S MORE TO IT THAN THIS... JUST KEEP READING!

In fact, Costco is set to pay out some $3 billion in a special year-end dividend this year to evade a January tax hike. The biggest single beneficiary will be Mr. Sinegal, the firm’s largest individual shareholder. He stands to gain $14 million.

(*CLAP...CLAP...CLAP*)

Institutional investors such as Berkshire Hathaway and the Gates Foundation will bring in many millions.

(*CLAP...CLAP...CLAP*)

That dividend will be made possible in part by a special debt offering.

BINGO...!!! (AIN'T AMERICA GREAT, FOLKS...?!?!)

When a firm run by Mitt Romney does this, Democrats call it “vulture capitalists loading up companies with debt in order to write themselves big paychecks.” When companies that make friendly noises about Barack Obama do it, they get a personal visit from the Vice President.

GOD... HELP... THIS... ONCE... GREAT... NATION...

There is nothing unethical or illegal about what Costco is doing. In fact, there is a very good argument that this probably is the right thing to do: There is no need to inflict unnecessary costs on shareholders, the company is superbly managed, and its strong financials mean that it can borrow money at very low cost.

It is taking a bet that the Obama administration and its friends in the Fed will be keeping borrowing costs low, but that is a fairly safe bet.

Other companies offering unusual year-end dividends to beat the taxman include Las Vegas Sands, Movado, and Sturm Ruger. It is widely assumed that George Lucas had the fiscal cliff in mind when he sold Lucasfilm to Disney; by closing the deal this year he’ll save some $400 million in taxes.

When conservatives talk about “uncertainty,” this is precisely what we mean.

We have Costco and Warren Buffett and George Lucas jumping through all sorts of hoops because nobody knows what exactly is going to happen with taxes in the next month or two. They are dedicating their energy to anticipating and reacting to politics, rather than to improving their retail operations, seeking out new opportunities, or destroying beloved cinematic trilogies, respectively.

(*AMUSED SMILE*)

In a stable, predictable environment, Costco might have found a more productive use for that $3 billion.

THREE BILLION DOLLARS THAT IT'S BORROWING! THREE BILLION DOLLARS IT'S TAKING ON IN NON-INVESTMENT DEBT! THERE'S NO HOPE OF MAKING MONEY ON THE BORROWED MONEY BECAUSE IT'S NOT BEING INVESTED IN ACTIVITIES THAT MIGHT GIVE COSTCO A RETURN ON INVESTMENT!

[P]olitics, not production, is in the driver’s seat here.

Washington gets to have its little opera, and businesses have to react or try to influence the process.

And what about Costco’s small-fry competitors, the ones without the scale to tap the credit markets on easy terms in order to cash out ahead of the tax hike?

(*PURSED LIPS*)

The political churn just gives them that much more of a disadvantage in the marketplace, without even the cold comfort of a visit from Joe Biden.

Meanwhile, the debt piles up. Washington kicks the can down the road - oblivious to the fact that the road has an end.

WE... ARE... SO... SCREWED...

Rand Paul's Thoughts On Tax Policy... and Mine

Rand Paul's op-ed in today's WSJ... along with my thoughts and comments:

*  *  *  *  *  *

Americans are told that they face a "fiscal cliff" if automatic federal spending cuts and tax increases occur at the end of the year. I'm not in favor of jumping off a cliff, but the logic of the supposed threat needs to be questioned.

The fiscal-cliff narrative assumes that spending cuts are bad for the economy.

MEANING... IT ASSUMES THAT LESSER DEFICITS... LESS DEBT... IS BAD FOR THE ECONOMY. (ABSOLUTE NONSENSE! MAD HATTER ECONOMICS 101!)

It follows, then, that more spending (and therefore more government debt) are good for the economy.

YEP... MORE NONSENSE! (GREAT MINDS THINK ALIKE! GO RAND!)

Didn't we try that with President Obama's trillion-dollar deficit-spending spree? You remember the stimulus—the one that created or "saved" American jobs at a cost of $400,000 per job. The one that left the unemployment rate over 8% for 43 consecutive months, the longest span since the Great Depression.

THE LIKES OF PAUL KRUGMAN WILL TELL YOU THAT THE PROBLEM WAS WE DIDN'T GO MORE DEEPLY IN DEBT... RUN HIGHER DEFICITS... SPEND (AND WASTE) MORE BORROWED MONEY! (MAD HATTER ECONOMICS 102!)

So is it good for the federal government to borrow more and spend more, or is it good for the economy to spend less and borrow less? These questions might need to be addressed before we wring our hands in despair at the possible fiscal cliff.

FOLKS... THE GOP BLEW IT. ROMNEY BLEW IT. OUR CAMPAIGN SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABOUT BALANCING SPENDING WITH REVENUES. PERIOD. INSTEAD THE STUPID PARTY GOT SUCKERED INTO BATTLE OVER TAX GIVEAWAYS AND THEORY AS OPPOSED TO ARGUING FOR MAJOR TAX CODE REFORM THAT PEOPLE COULD ACTUALLY COMPREHEND.

Now let's consider the assumption that raising taxes could lead to "taxmaggedon." The implication here is that raising taxes — that is, extracting and confiscating more income from workers and businesses — is harmful to the economy. I am easily persuaded of this truism. As Milton Friedman said, nobody spends someone else's money as frugally or as wisely as they spend their own.

But if raising taxes would lead us toward trouble, why would raising taxes only on some people ("the rich") not have some of the same harmful effect?

Since the top 1% of income-earners pay about 40% of the income tax, raising taxes only on the 1% still significantly increases the tax burden on the private sector.

Any notion that it matters whom you tax is simply a parlor game played by the class-warfare crowd. There are only two repositories of money — the private sector (which efficiently distributes goods) and the public sector (which doesn't distribute anything well). No central planner possesses the omniscience to assign fairness. The only guide to fairness of distribution that I can imagine is the minute-by-minute vote of the most exacting and direct democracy ever known: the marketplace.

None of this is to say that we don't need government or that government doesn't strive to do good things. It is to say that government doesn't do anything very well, and that government should be limited — confined to those duties that absolutely can't or won't be done by the private sector.

AND FOLKS... ABOUT THE CLASSIC REFRAIN "WHAT ABOUT THE MILITARY?!" WELL... HOW "WELL" HAVE WE DONE WHEN WE'RE STILL IN AFGHANISTAN 12 YEARS AFTER 9/11 AND SO IS THE TALIBAN... AND SO IS AL-QIADA... AND... WELL... YOU GET THE IDEA.

When evaluating any government expenditure, legislators should be forced to acknowledge the "Bridge to Nowhere," the roughly 10,000 FEMA trailers bought but never delivered to Katrina victims, and the thousands of pounds of ice that never made it to New Orleans and required a new contract to have someone come melt it and dispose of it.

(*SNORT*)

Apologists for big government say that we must raise taxes, that there simply isn't enough spending to cut. Maybe these legislators ought to look at the $100,000 that the State Department spent this year to send comedians to spread American culture in India (part of a $600 million program). Or the $2.6 million spent by the National Institutes of Health to teach Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly. Or the $947,000 spent by NASA studying what type of food we should serve on Mars. Or the $100 billion ($115 billion last year) that is improperly spent across the federal government each year, according to the White House Office of Federal Financial Management.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

Many Republicans are beginning to cave on the tax front. Some say to hell with the Taxpayer Protection Pledge they made to voters (drafted by Americans for Tax Reform) not to raise taxes. Some say they'll eliminate some undeserved loopholes. But the truth remains: If taking more money from the private sector is harmful, it doesn't matter whom you tax or what form the revenue increase takes. Taking more money out of the private sector is injurious to economic growth.

Where are the Republican calls for reducing revenue to government?

I'M HERE! HERE I AM!

Where are the calls for lowering taxes?

TAX REFORM! INDEED, I ACTUALLY WANT TO RAISE TAXES ON THOSE WHO CURRENTLY PAY NO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES! I WANT EVERYONE TO PAY "THEIR FAIR SHARE" EVEN IF IT'S DECIDED THAT THIS "FAIR SHARE" IS ONLY GONNA BE 1% OR 2% OR 5%.

If you want to stimulate the economy, leave more money in the economy. When Republicans give in on this argument, we doom not only the economy but our party as well.

AGREED... BUT... YOU CAN'T CHAMPION LEAVING MORE MONEY IN THE ECONOMY WHILE DEFICIT SPENDING IS OVER $1 TRILLION PER YEAR... YEAR IN, YEAR OUT DURING THE OBAMA YEARS.

Some Republicans are saying that if the tax rates expire, taxes will go up $2 trillion, so any increase in revenue less than $2 trillion is really a tax cut. I don't think that fuzzy Washington math will mollify the conservative grass roots.

ONE MORE TIME: WE NEED TO ALIGN SPENDING WITH AVAILABLE REVENUE AND THE OBJECTIVE IS TO CUT BOTH AND SHRINK THE SIZE AND SCOPE OF GOVERNMENT.

Even for believers in wealth redistribution and big government, the facts militate against higher tax rates. As Stephen Moore recently pointed out on this page, in the 1920s, 1960s and again in the 1980s, lower tax rates increased the percentage of taxes paid by the wealthy. And the economy grew.

YEP. ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

BUT BY THE SAME TOKEN... IF MEMORY SERVES REVENUES ALSO WENT UP AFTER THE CLINTON TAX INCREASES. (BUT I COULD BE WRONG... MY MEMORY MAY BE FAULTY...)

Any legislator considering capitulating on the Taxpayer Protection Pledge should remember that revenue is down now because of the recession and slow economic growth, not because of the lower tax rates that have been in place for almost a decade.

THAT'S TRUE! JUST LOOK AT THE FIGURES DURING BUSH'S FIRST TERM MIDWAY THROUGH HIS SECOND TERM!

Raising revenue by increasing rates or ending deductions won't spur the economy.

BUT ENDING DEDUCTIONS SIMPLIFIES THE TAX CODE AND MAKES IT FAIRER... WHICH DOES ULTIMATELY SPUR ECONOMIC GROWTH!

It may even depress the meager economic growth we have and raise less tax revenue.

THE WAY OBAMA AND THE DEMS WOULD DO IT... YEAH... PROBABLY. THE WAY EVEN MOST RINOs WOULD DO IT... YEAH... PROBABLY. THE WAY I WOULD DO IT? NO!

While there is no bigger believer than I am in a balanced-budget amendment, I don't want to [simply] balance a $5 trillion budget (which the Congressional Budget Office estimates we will have by 2020). I want to balance a budget that is limited in scope by the Constitution and limited in scope by the understanding that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector.

PUT ANOTHER WAY... "IT'S THE SPENDING, STUPID!"

The Taxpayer Protection Pledge simply codifies what is incontrovertibly true. The economy and all individuals in it thrive when we are allowed to keep more of what we earn.

BUT ONLY IF THE BOOKS BALANCE!

If Republicans give up on that principle, we may as well disband the party.

FRANKLY... I WISH THEY WOULD.

Barker's Newsbites: Friday, November 30, 2012

Folks... I'm tryin'... I really am... tryin' to cheer up!

My life is pretty good. As far as I know I'm healthy... Mary's healthy... Kim's healthy...

We all have roofs over our heads, food in the fridge, freezer, and cupboards...

We all have plenty of clothing... 

I drive a friggin' Inferno Red Dodge Charger with the HEMI... moon roof... spoiler... custom rims...

Mary's car is nothing to be ashamed of either...

We go on great vacations... regularly dine out... 

(*PAUSE*)

Seriously, folks... my life is pretty damn good! I've never denied it! And as to what I don't have... well... when you my friends consider the whole "Barker Package"... is that big house really worth it...??? Is it really all about "the house?"

(*SHRUG*)

No, folks... my blogging isn't about being "disgruntled." Not personally. Not in the sense that I'm "angry" about how life has treated me. No... I'm certainly not angry! I'm grateful as hell!

So why focus on "the bad?"

Two words: "I care."

It really is that simple, folks.

Yeah... it would be easier and less stressful and depressing to ignore "the bad" and focus on "the good," but since I'm never gonna be a "mover and shaker" - let alone a guy whose name will go down in history and be recognized by men, women, and children for centuries to come - I might as well do what I'm intellectually and personality-wise suited to do... namely... chronicle and comment upon the ongoing decline of the United States of America and the American People.

(Hey... it could be worse... I could be an undertaker... or a grave digger... or a North Korean peasant...)

Anyway... Christmas is coming... that always cheers me up!

Oh... and speaking about "cheering up"... it's time that I returned to posting daily newsbite theme videos!

Here ya go, folks!

Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, November 29, 2012

I miss Glenn Beck's television show on Fox.

(Note: The moment "He Whose Name Dare Not Be Mentioned" reads the above line he's gonna freak... so... let's all pray he's not taking a sip of hot coffee at the exact moment the above words register...)

(*HUGE FRIGGIN' GRIN*)

Anyway...

What I like about Beck is that he's one of the few media figures who actually expand my informational horizons beyond mere "details" inherent in the very concept of "news."

Beck's show was not only entertaining; it was informative! (And I'm talking informative at a sophisticated level!)

(Note: "He Whose Name Dare Not Be Mentioned" is right now literally sputtering... talking aloud to himself... let's hope he's not with clients!)

(*CHUCKLING*)

Anyway... at the moment I'm reading Beck's new novel, "Agenda 21".

(Note: It's being claimed that Beck did no writing... that he simply bought the rights to the work of Harriet Parke - who is listed as co-writer. In any case, the book is the book.)

So far it's a pretty good read. A bit over the top, but then again, wasn't Animal Farm, 1984, Atlas Shrugged, and so on and so forth?

No... I'm not claiming that Agenda 21 is an "instant classic" let alone "timeless classic." I'm simply pointing out that thought provoking writing need not be "realistic" in terms of detail, but rather that it must reflect a concept that has roots in reality.

Anyway...

My like-minded friends might wanna read Beck's (Parke's) Agenda 21. 

But pushing the book isn't my point here...

Nope! What I'm actually asking you all to do is to read the following "reviews" - one (poison) penned by Sarah Cypher and carried in Slate; another (poison) penned by "Thinking Blue" and carried in the Daily Kos.

Wow...

Just... wow...

Folks... it's not simply the hatred that shine through. No. It's the totalitarian mindset on review! 

Ya know... I was originally planning on highlighting what I'm referring to... but on second thought... I'm not going to. I'll leave it to you - my readers - to decide whether I have a point or not.

One final thought on "Beck hatred": You'll find it all over the web. Google "Beck + Agenda 21" and you'll come across "commentary" that makes Cypher and "Thinking Blue" sound reasonable and measured in comparison!

Anyway, folks... on to newsbites! (As always... found within the Comments section of this post!)

Mitt Romney... Ann Coulter... Two A--holes

Yep... true... the election is over... Obama has been re-elected... no use crying over spilled milk...

(*WIPING A TEAR*)

Still... I just came across a column by Steve Baldwin that I feel is worth sharing with you all...

*  *  *  *  *  *

The GOP establishment and some conservative pundits, such as Ann Coulter, are in full defense mode, claiming that Romney is not responsible for losing to an incumbent responsible for perhaps the most damaging fiscal crises in our nation’s history.

(Indeed, Coulter is leading the charge with her recent column titled, Don’t Blame Romney. It’s sweet to watch Coulter defend her darling Romney, but let’s get real.)

Don’t believe it. Romney is responsible for wasting a billion dollars to carry out an issue-free campaign full of simple-minded platitudes.

Yep! Damn straight! The buck stopped at Romney's (made in China, purchased from Staples?) desk. Period. End of story.

The reality is that Romney was one of the worst GOP presidential candidates in modern times.

No doubt!

He was not the first choice of most conservative voters but he managed to rise through the ranks in the primary due to conservatives being split 4-5 ways, but also due to a slew of endorsements from conservative leaders and groups that had no business endorsing him – such as Ann Coulter.

It's not so much the endorsements in and of themselves...

(*PAUSE*)

No. It was more that "thumb on the scale" placed there by Republican establishmentarians (pro-Romney... pro-Bush... pro-McCain... anti-Tea Party...) who consistently cut Romney slack while highlighting anti-Newt mischaracterizations via National Review, the Wall Street Journal, Fox News... and other "conservative" media organs where they held sway... where "they" - the "establishmentarians" - exercised editorial control.

Repeatedly, Coulter assured conservatives that Romney was one of us and that he would be the “best possible candidate” to face Obama.

Yep...

(*SIGH*)

But as any conservative from Massachusetts knew, Romney was a liberal at heart who, as Governor, led the nation in passing three of the Left’s most sacred issues: Same sex marriage, Cap and Trade, and government control of health care.

(*NOD*)

But the Romney forces were clever. Beginning in 2004, they created a half dozen PACs to give money to conservative and GOP entities all over the country. I’ve reviewed these disclosures and hundreds of GOP and conservative entities benefitted from Romney’s largess. In other words, he bought the support of many “conservative leaders” and used that support to give himself “cred” among conservative voters. It was a phony image though and it’s shameful that so many conservative leaders went along with this ruse.
Not me, baby!

As a result, Romney’s liberal record on taxes (yes, he taxed the corporate world in Massachusetts), Cap and Trade (first in the nation!), gay marriage, gay rights, quotas, gun control, immigration, etc, etc. was little known outside of Massachusetts because many of America’s leading conservatives decided to portray him as someone he wasn’t. Even a number of prominent Right to Life and national "pro-family" groups and leaders made a decision to remake Romney as a conservative even though they knew he was not.

(I should know; I briefed many of them about Romney’s record. Had the conservative leadership told the truth about Romney’s record as Governor, it’s likely he wouldn’t have won the GOP nomination.)

I was with you, dude... but the Sheeple refused to listen.

And why is that relevant? Well, Romney’s liberal record so compromised him that he was unable to attack Obama on a whole range of issues due to fear of Obama using his own positions from just a few years earlier to make him look like a hypocrite. Whether its Cap and Trade, ObamaCare, gun control, gays in the military, religious freedom or even illegal aliens, Romney took these issues off the table because his own record on these issues was not dissimilar to the Obama record.

Listen. Let's say it clear... say it plain: Romney was a phony. All politicians... all people... are to a certain extent. That doesn't excuse the fact that on a scale of "phoniness" Romney was certainly a full-fledged phony.

Coulter goes even so far as to claim Romney lost because “he was too conservative” on immigration issues.

What?

Romney never even hit Obama on his unconstitutional action to grant amnesty to two million illegal aliens because, as governor, he endorsed McCain’s amnesty legislation. Indeed, despite his phony attacks on Gov. Rick Perry’s immigration record during the GOP primary, Romney’s actual record on immigration was quite liberal.

And remember how he savaged Newt Gingrich when Gingrich tried to deal honestly with the issue... when Gingrich tried to insert reality... compassion... and intellectual consistency into the debate during the primaries...?!?!

The fact is liberal Republicans do not win presidential races.

Nope.

The obvious reason for this is that RINOs do not offer much of a contrast to a Democrat, or at least a contrast so weak it does not motivate voters to support them. You would think we would have learned this lesson from the McCain and Dole debacles. To make things worse, Romney even agreed with Obama on numerous occasions during the debates, missing great opportunities to instead attack the president. With the economy collapsing all around us, voters were simply not looking for Obama-light.

(*NOD*)

Moreover, Romney’s strategy of looking presidential but saying nothing controversial was an asinine strategy. All one has to do is watch the old Reagan/Carter debates to see how Reagan strived to showed contrast with Carter at every opportunity. While Reagan was always civil in the way he stated things, he tore Carter’s head off every chance he got.

Yep...

The list of explosive issues ignored by Romney goes far beyond those that Romney himself was weak on. Take, for example, the Fast and Furious and Benghazi scandals, both of which involved the deaths of Americans and a subsequent cover-up by this administration. The latter scandal, especially, was ripe for Romney to exploit, given the new evidence that Obama refused to assist Americans under attack and then lied to the American public about the reason for the attack. This is an impeachable offense but Romney chose to ignore this issue altogether.

Actually it was worse than that! Romney initially did attack Obama on Benghazi... but then he backed off in the face of media onslaughts which sought to hurt him while defending Obama! By backing down, Romney embraced the worst of all possible positions - that of a man who was unwilling to "put up" but who hadn't had the brains to "shut up" and thus proactively inoculate himself against any criticism!
Romney also ignored, for the most part, a whole pattern of Obama cronyism that permeated TARP, the stimulus program, and many government contracts.

(*NOD*)

Similarly, Romney ignored the details of exactly how Obama was destroying the oil, gas and coal industries.

(*NOD*)

He stuck to generalities instead of hammering on issues such as how Obama gave millions of tax dollars to Brazil to drill for oil while harassing our own oil companies to the point they ceased operations in the Gulf.

Romney was... Romney is... a moron.

The Romney team also chose to ignore the lessons of 2010. Here we have a number of stunning congressional upsets inspired by issues such as ObamaCare and the deficit, but Romney’s campaign team acted like 2010 never occurred. The movement that drove the 2010 victories was, of course, the Tea Party movement, but Romney decided he wanted nothing to do with this powerful movement.

Yep. Pretty much.

Ditto for the Ron Paul movement. It was outrageous how the Romney team refused to sit a number of pro-Ron Paul state delegations at the convention, all because they didn’t want Ron Paul to be nominated so that Romney could enjoy an unanimous nomination.

A*S*S*H*O*L*E*S...!!!
 

The stupidity of this move was astounding. Romney already had the votes to win the nomination overwhelmingly but his team was so fixated on the appearance of a perfect nominating convention that they decided to disenfranchise the entire Ron Paul movement. Romney lost tens of thousands of Ron Paul supporters for that action alone.

And... and... and... further alienated libertarian-leaning conservatives from the establishment GOP!

As someone who has networked with conservative activists for 35 years, I know for a fact that large segments of the Tea Party and Ron Paul movements did not vote for Romney and I also know that many evangelicals refused to support Romney as well.

(*SIGH*)

They knew that Romney was, deep down, a big government, socially liberal Republican and believed that electing Romney would set conservatives back decades. They believed that he would – under the mantle of “conservatism” – carry out a big government agenda instead of taking bold action to tame the deficit or get our economy growing again.

(*DEEPER SIGH*)

We can debate until we’re blue in the face about such a stance, but I believe their fears are legitimate and that their motives are sincere. They had many solid reasons to feel this way – Romney’s actual record being Exhibit #1.

This election was a turning point in American history and undecided voters were looking for new leadership but Romney’s history of flip-flopping on over 30 different issues didn’t give them the confidence they were looking for. Romney was a liberal Republican pretending to be a conservative and that phoniness was detected by the voters.

So yes, Ms. Coulter, Romney does share much of the blame. And so do you.