World Politics

[Anonymous]

Bonus question.. What (former)congressman was associated with the words "suitcases full of cash"?

Hmmm. That's a tough one.....

William J. Jefferson?

 

[redtreviso]

Hmmm. That's a tough one.....

William J. Jefferson?

Pretty close.. but that was just a few stacks in a freezer.. We're talking SUITCASES OF CASH.. and couldn't have gotten off scott free more than he did.. (scott free) he he

http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/2006/10/ellsberg-hastert-got-suitcases-of-al.html

 

[VeloCity]

I seriously think that a Perry-Ryan/Bachman/Santorum ticket has a 50% chance of beating Obama, no matter how radical or absurd anything comes out of Perry's mouth.

This Perry?

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/24/139781021/the-evangelicals-engaged-in-spiritual-warfare?sc=fb&cc=fp

One election away from a theocracy like Iran, really (ok that's a bit of hyperbole, but not by much).

Perry, imo, doesn't stand a chance one stuff like this starts to go mainstream - he basically looks like a nutjob. Correct that: he is basically a nutjob.

 

[redtreviso]

This Perry?

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/24/139781021/the-evangelicals-engaged-in-spiritual-warfare?sc=fb&cc=fp

One election away from a theocracy like Iran, really (ok that's a bit of hyperbole, but not by much).

Perry, imo, doesn't stand a chance one stuff like this starts to go mainstream - he basically looks like a nutjob. Correct that: he is basically a nutjob.

There was a 6.0 EARTHQUAKE IN TEXAS TODAY-----------------------
-
-
-
-
-
-
-never mind it was just a bunch of Hookers at Rick Perry's door asking for hush money,,.word is they were female

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Pretty close.. but that was just a few stacks in a freezer.. We're talking SUITCASES OF CASH.. and couldn't have gotten off scott free more than he did.. (scott free) he he

Be nice.

This Perry?

That's the guy. You think I'm kidding but I'm not. He will have plenty of cash, will bring out the base of Christians and TP's. Plus he will sweep the south and midwest. This will leave him battling against Obama essentially for three key states. Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. All three of which elected TP governors last time around. Look at the map of the 2000 election. Picture that repeating itself. It's definitely possible.

As to Romney, he has a few things working against him. He's Mormon. He looks like a slick CEO about to downsize you. He's been around the block a few times now. And he's going to have to campaign against his own health care plan - even though it's not really a failure, even with the recession, and he's going to get labelled a flip-flopper. But, he's intelligent, connected, we already know all the dirt there is t know about him, and he can easily shift to center-right for the general election.

Huntsman would be a big danger if facing Obama. He's very well spoken, doesn't have much negative track record, and has plenty of cash. He may not get past Super Tuesday though.

These factoids about these candidates can all play in their favor against a wishy-washy Obama in a bad economy with a lower liberal turnout, absolutely.

Against Bachman or Ron Paul, I think Obama wins somewhat handily, similar to 2008.

I'm still hoping that Michael Bloomberg changes his mind and runs as an independent. I'd vote for a Bloomberg-Scarborough (or Bacevich would be my ideal) ticket in a heartbeat. Sadly, I don't see this happening.

 

[Anonymous]

Oh wait...

Scott Walker's Collective Bargaining Bill Is Working

Despite early criticism from city officials, new figures show Milwaukee will gain more than it will lose next year from the state's controversial budget and budget-repair legislation.

The city projects it will save at least $25 million a year - and potentially as much as $36 million in 2012 - from health care benefit changes it didn't have to negotiate with unions, as a result of provisions in the 2009-'11 budget-repair measure that ended most collective bargaining for most public employees.

That saving would be partly offset by about $14 million in cuts in state aid to the city in the 2011-'13 state budget, down from earlier estimates of more than $17 million.

As a result, the city would come out with a net gain of at least $11 million for its 2012 budget, slicing into the "structural deficit" created by costs rising faster than revenue, and reducing the spending cuts that Mayor Tom Barrett and the Common Council must impose.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/scott-walkers-collective-bargaining-bill-working_582151.html

Wisconsin governor Scott Walker’s critics are also loath to put numbers on stats — numbers that show his public-sector collective-bargaining reforms are benefiting the state. Wisconsin is replete with examples of cities and school districts that are reforming their finances to finally balance their books — and doing it without significant cuts to services.

And the OMG of all OMG's, public education can now actually pay more for the best teachers. How the **** was that allowed to happen??

Yet many governments are putting the collective-bargaining rollback to good use. In suburban Milwaukee, the Brown Deer school district is implementing a plan to allow performance pay for its best teachers. “No Wisconsin public-school district has ever had the opportunity in any of our lifetimes to even think about these things,” said Brown Deer Public Schools finance director Emily Koczela in an interview with a local television station. “We’re looking at understanding what effective teaching is, how to measure it in the children’s point of view, and how to reward teachers that consistently turn in a performance that’s better than the norm,” added Koczela.

And reforms that bust the union scam of re-directing public funds to campaign coffers;

In Appleton, the collective-bargaining reforms allowed the school district there to save $3 million by bidding for health care on the open market. Previously, the district had been required to purchase health insurance from WEA Trust, which is affiliated with the state’s largest teachers’ union. When the Appleton School District put their health-insurance contract up for bid, WEA Trust magically lowered their rates, saying they would match any competitor’s price — a sign they had been fleecing local taxpayers for years.

There's more;

Other governments are implementing similar reforms. In Manitowoc, County Executive Bob Ziegelbauer altered overtime procedures for county employees, saving taxpayers $100,000. After dealing with a $400,000 deficit last year, the Kaukauna School District expects to see a $1.5 million surplus once they implement performance pay and benefit reforms.

And more;

In February, if you had told a public-school teacher that Walker’s reforms were actually a job-retention program, they would have looked at you as if you’d just tried to stuff a live lobster down your pants. But all over the state, teacher jobs are being spared due to the increased benefit requirements in Walker’s plan. The Wauwatosa School District, facing a $6.5 million shortfall, anticipated needing to cut 100 teacher jobs — yet they were able to spare those teachers through shared sacrifice. “When students come to school in the fall, they’re going to see the same things, have the same teachers, and they’re going to see new things as well,” said Wauwatosa School District board member Phil Kroner upon passage of next year’s district budget.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/274360/wisconsins-reforms-are-already-working-christian-schneider#

Looks like there will be a State budget surplus this year too. Oh, and they are creating new jobs at twice the national rate (which still sucks).

I thought Walker was a lunatic and none of this stuff would work or was even the problem.... maybe I'm being lied to??

 

[VeloCity]

That's the guy. You think I'm kidding but I'm not. He will have plenty of cash, will bring out the base of Christians and TP's. Plus he will sweep the south and midwest. This will leave him battling against Obama essentially for three key states. Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. All three of which elected TP governors last time around. Look at the map of the 2000 election. Picture that repeating itself. It's definitely possible.

No, I didn't think you were kidding, I just think that the surface has barely been scratched on Perry and once stuff like that becomes more widely known, he'll disappear as quickly as Guiliani and Palin did (as presidential candidates, I mean). For one thing, as soon as the GW Bush comparisons REALLY start, Perry's done. Second, the conservative Republican/Teabagger base Perry appeals to is vocal and motivated, but it's also a pretty small group of people, and he can't possibly win without attracting a sizeable number of independents - notice that he's already trying to distance himself from the positions he put forth in that ridiculous book he wrote just 9 months ago.

Did you see that recent poll where the Tea Party was less popular than Muslims and atheists? That's why Perry can't win - he holds no appeal to anyone outside that comparatively small group.

 

[Cobblestones]

Savings don't offset state aid cuts for most WI school districts.

 

[Anonymous]

Savings don't offset state aid cuts for most WI school districts.

From your article;

The Madison Capital Times sent questionnaires to all 424 Wisconsin school districts. None of the state’s largest systems responded, and about 17-percent did reply. Of those, two-thirds of schools say they’ll have smaller staff levels this fall than last – 27-percent will have fewer programs and activities – and 32-percent will have larger class sizes.

So, of the 17% of respondents, 67% of the 17% say they will have smaller staff levels. Was that not going to happen anyways... with or without Walker's reforms?

27% of the 17% will have fewer programs and 32% of the 17% will have larger class sizes. Same follow up question, was this not going to happen anyways? What would the percentages have been with no changes or reforms? Worse maybe?

Quinton said Wisconsin’s school funding problems came over decades. And he said it was unduly harsh to tackle them all in a single budget year.

Fair criticism, but at least they are being tackled (instead of ignored).

 

[Amsterhammer]

so here is my question.

where will We be in 2 years?

In even deeper doo-doo than we are now.

Logic would indicate we will be heading in the same direction we are, regardless of who wins the election.

The recession for the bottom half of the country will continue. Very little if any meaningful change in the tax code. Wages will remain flat. Unemployment the same. Health care costs will increase, both private and public. The top 1% will continue to reap the majority of profits. Bank lending will remain stifled. Bankruptcies and foreclosures will continue about the same rate, perhaps slightly higher. Housing prices will remain flat. The wars will continue to one degree or another, as will our military presence across the globe, with perhaps a very slight decrease. Crime will slightly increase. Education will slightly decrease. Gas prices will remain high. Trade issues and deficits will very slightly increase. Most significant of all, campaign finance and lobbying rules will not change, and continue to have a huge impact on elections, and dictate the nuts and bolts of a lot of day to day Congressional bills (and state bills).

Very few true policy changes = very little change.

Anyone really disagree?

You're an optimist.

 

[usedtobefast]

looks grim, based everyones assessment. the same or worse.

 

[Anonymous]

looks grim, based everyones assessment. the same or worse.

Right now, cash is king. Preserve your cash, pay down debt if you have any and don't buy anything you can't write a check for.

That's good advice.

 

[Cobblestones]

Right now, cash is king. Preserve your cash, pay down debt if you have any and don't buy anything you can't write a check for.

That's good advice.

I thought you were expecting hyperinflation just around the corner? In that case, what you suggest is wrong. You should take out a fixed low interest mortgage, and borrow as much money as possible (always at fixed rates). Put your money where your mouth is, Scott.

 

[Anonymous]

I thought you were expecting hyperinflation just around the corner? In that case, what you suggest is wrong. You should take out a fixed low interest mortgage, and borrow as much money as possible (always at fixed rates). Put your money where your mouth is, Scott.

You are making the assumption ordinary people can still borrow money. Usedtobefast lives in Cali, which means if he bought a home anytime in the last 15 years he owes more on his home than it is worth. The real estate market is still in decline here. Even at a current 80% LTV, good luck with that fixed low interest mortgage.... Unless of course you are lending the money... in which case please send me a PM as I'd like to ReFi my house.

I think I just put my money where my mouth is.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Did you see that recent poll where the Tea Party was less popular than Muslims and atheists? That's why Perry can't win - he holds no appeal to anyone outside that comparatively small group.

I'm aware of what you are implying. However, keep some things in mind, unlike Scott I didn't say Obama would lose, guaranteed. I just think against Perry or Romney it's 50/50.

Look at it this way, the TP as nuts as some are, vote in droves. They were able to get very far right TP governors elected throughout the rust belt in four states just over a year ago. If it happened then, it could happen with Perry. Couple this with the fact Perry can raise probably $1b to run. Coupled with a lot of bitter liberals who are may not even vote they are so upset with Obama. Coupled with many independents who may agree a little more with Obama than either Perry or Romney, but view Obama as being a gumby. Will all this mean Obama loses and Perry can run as a TP candidate in the primary, soften his rhetoric in the general election (it worked for Scott Walker) and win in 2012? I don't know, maybe.

Part of the issue is that I don't really know what stand or issue Obama is going to run on. Do you? He's flip flopped on wars, Gitmo, SS, Medicare, taxes even. He's caved on several other issues. He's been very poor at using the bully pulpit. What's he going to campaign on? I'd like to know.

FWIW, don't confuse me here. I will vote for Obama over Perry. I'll probably vote for Obama over Romney, but may change my mind come debate time if Mitt gets that far. I'd seriously consider Huntsman over Obama simply on what I see in Huntsman now, as he seems very capable of the job and not very extreme in his thinking, if he somehow got the nomination. I wouldn't vote for Bachman for dog catcher.

 

[gregod]

You are making the assumption ordinary people can still borrow money. Usedtobefast lives in California (edited by gregod), which means if he bought a home anytime in the last 15 years he owes more on his home than it is worth. The real estate market is still in decline here. Even at a current 80% LTV, good luck with that fixed low interest mortgage.... Unless of course you are lending the money... in which case please send me a PM as I'd like to ReFi my house.

I think I just put my money where my mouth is.

that is not true everywhere. my house in marin county has appreciated in value even through the worst of the downturn.

also, even without borrowing money there are plenty of ways to hedge against inflation available to ordinary people. however, the likelihood of dramatic inflation is very small. i know that right-leaning economists have been predicting runaway inflation for over two years, but the fact is that inflation has barely nudged up and the markets are behaving as if there will be no major increase in inflation for the foreseeable future.

 

[Anonymous]

that is not true everywhere. my house in marin county has appreciated in value even through the worst of the downturn.

also, even without borrowing money there are plenty of ways to hedge against inflation available to ordinary people. however, the likelihood of dramatic inflation is very small. i know that right-leaning economists have been predicting runaway inflation for over two years, but the fact is that inflation has barely nudged up and the markets are behaving as if there will be no major increase in inflation for the foreseeable future.

I think usedtobefast lives in Orange County. Unless his house is in a town like Newport Beach the value of his home is still going down.

As for inflation, it depends on what data set you are looking at. If you factor in food and energy then the numbers change for the worse.

I'll admit I was predicting QE1 & 2 would have a much bigger effect. I still believe there will be an inflationary effect with the Fed's actions. There are predictions of QE3 being announced as soon as the next few days... will this increase inflationary pressure? Yes, or at least I think so but I'll be perfectly happy to be wrong.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm aware of what you are implying. However, keep some things in mind, unlike Scott I didn't say Obama would lose, guaranteed. I just think against Perry or Romney it's 50/50.

Look at it this way, the TP as nuts as some are, vote in droves. They were able to get very far right TP governors elected throughout the rust belt in four states just over a year ago. If it happened then, it could happen with Perry. Couple this with the fact Perry can raise probably $1b to run. Coupled with a lot of bitter liberals who are may not even vote they are so upset with Obama. Coupled with many independents who may agree a little more with Obama than either Perry or Romney, but view Obama as being a gumby. Will all this mean Obama loses and Perry can run as a TP candidate in the primary, soften his rhetoric in the general election (it worked for Scott Walker) and win in 2012? I don't know, maybe.

Part of the issue is that I don't really know what stand or issue Obama is going to run on. Do you? He's flip flopped on wars, Gitmo, SS, Medicare, taxes even. He's caved on several other issues. He's been very poor at using the bully pulpit. What's he going to campaign on? I'd like to know.

FWIW, don't confuse me here. I will vote for Obama over Perry. I'll probably vote for Obama over Romney, but may change my mind come debate time if Mitt gets that far. I'd seriously consider Huntsman over Obama simply on what I see in Huntsman now, as he seems very capable of the job and not very extreme in his thinking, if he somehow got the nomination. I wouldn't vote for Bachman for dog catcher.

I don't get it. You'd vote for Obama but have no idea what you are voting for. He proved himself to be incompetent and as you say has backed up on nearly everything he's campaigned on.

I can understand a no vote for Perry or Bachmann, but Romney?? He's not a Tea Party candidate, that's for damn sure. He has a record, it's pretty easy to see what he's for and what he's against and other than being a pro-business republican I don't see what your challenge would be if it came down to a choice between Obama and Romney.

We have seen what a business-hostile President can do. I don't think enough people will want 4 more years of economic misery to get Obama elected unless the repubs nominate Ron Paul or possibly Bachmann. My opinion.

 

[gregod]

I don't get it. You'd vote for Obama but have no idea what you are voting for. He proved himself to be incompetent and as you say has backed up on nearly everything he's campaigned on.

I can understand a no vote for Perry or Bachmann, but Romney?? He's not a Tea Party candidate, that's for damn sure. He has a record, it's pretty easy to see what he's for and what he's against and other than being a pro-business republican I don't see what your challenge would be if it came down to a choice between Obama and Romney.

We have seen what a business-hostile President can do. I don't think enough people will want 4 more years of economic misery to get Obama elected unless the repubs nominate Ron Paul or possibly Bachmann. My opinion.

i don't get it, either. i will not vote for obama again. the only way to get politicians to do what they promise is to make them pay at the election booth for failing to keep their word. i give the tea baggers credit. if you break a promise to them, they vote you out. period. although i am not a big fan of romney and he seems to be running against his record in massachusetts, i would vote for him over obama based on his record as governor. or i would just sit this election out. to quote that always quotable texan, "fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — You can't get fooled again."

obama, "business-hostile"?!? WTF?!? dude, you are not paying attention. corporate profits are higher than before the crash. executive compensation, too. there are bailouts for any large company that needs it. who proposed a payroll tax holiday? corporate campaign donations to obama are even higher than in 2008. his administration asked for and got nothing in return for the bank bailouts. his tough, new consumer protection agency will have a business-friendly head and most of the regulations have already been diluted. dodd-frank has been gutted. the list goes on and on.

_______________________________________________
David Frum:"Republican pols fear their base, Dem pols despise it."

 

[redtreviso]

I don't get it. You'd vote for Obama but have no idea what you are voting for. He proved himself to be incompetent and as you say has backed up on nearly everything he's campaigned on.

I can understand a no vote for Perry or Bachmann, but Romney?? He's not a Tea Party candidate, that's for damn sure. He has a record, it's pretty easy to see what he's for and what he's against and other than being a pro-business republican I don't see what your challenge would be if it came down to a choice between Obama and Romney.

We have seen what a business-hostile President can do. I don't think enough people will want 4 more years of economic misery to get Obama elected unless the repubs nominate Ron Paul or possibly Bachmann. My opinion.

You really are mentally ill.. google some rehab centers..

I wish he was hostile.. There'd be an extreme shortage of PRISONS


""Obama Goes All Out For Dirty Banker Deal
By Matt Taibbi
August 24, 2011

A power play is underway in the foreclosure arena, according to the New York Times. On the one side is Eric Schneiderman, the New York Attorney General, who is conducting his own investigation into the era of securitizations – the practice of chopping up assets like mortgages and converting them into saleable securities – that led up to the financial crisis of 2007-2008.

On the other side is the Obama administration, the banks, and all the other state attorneys general. This second camp has cooked up a deal that would allow the banks to walk away with just a seriously discounted fine from a generation of fraud that led to millions of people losing their homes.

This is all about protecting the banks from future enforcement actions on both the civil and criminal sides. The plan is to provide year-after-year, repeat-offending banks like Bank of America with cost certainty, so that they know exactly how much they’ll have to pay in fines (trust me, it will end up being a tiny fraction of what they made off the fraudulent practices) and will also get to know for sure that there are no more criminal investigations in the pipeline.

This deal will also submarine efforts by both defrauded investors in MBS and unfairly foreclosed-upon homeowners and borrowers to obtain any kind of relief in the civil court system.
""

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/obama-goes-all-out-for-dirty-banker-deal-20110824

 

[Anonymous]

i don't get it, either. i will not vote for obama again. the only way to get politicians to do what they promise is to make them pay at the election booth for failing to keep their word. i give the tea baggers credit. if you break a promise to them, they vote you out. period. although i am not a big fan of romney and he seems to be running against his record in massachusetts, i would vote for him over obama based on his record as governor. or i would just sit this election out. to quote that always quotable texan, "fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — You can't get fooled again."

obama, "business-hostile"?!? WTF?!? dude, you are not paying attention. corporate profits are higher than before the crash. executive compensation, too. there are bailouts for any large company that needs it. who proposed a payroll tax holiday? corporate campaign donations to obama are even higher than in 2008. his administration asked for and got nothing in return for the bank bailouts. his tough, new consumer protection agency will have a business-friendly head and most of the regulations have already been diluted. dodd-frank has been gutted. the list goes on and on.

_______________________________________________
David Frum:"Republican pols fear their base, Dem pols despise it."

I'm really not talking about the General Electric's of the world when I suggest Obama to be business hostile. Take a very close look at the the regulatory environment just in the last two years. Between Health Care reform and agencies like the EPA, small business is getting hammered.

One might think Obama would be able to see some of these regs as being hurtful to job creation... so the Obama administration announces they are going to relax 'dumb' regulations saving American business $40 billion spread over a ten year period... BFD. Meanwhile, new regs taking effect this year have already added as much as $65 billion (by some estimates) this year alone. So, I think it's reasonable to conclude that Obama is hostile towards the vast majority of American business. Of the several million business entities in the USA very few contribute to Obama's election efforts and very, very few received bail outs. Even fewer are big banks and not very many are making big money overseas. BUT, most if not all of us are feeling the effects of new regs (Obamacare as just one example).

 

[Anonymous]

You really are mentally ill.. google some rehab centers..

I'll leave this out there for the mods to contemplate. We can disagree without this Bull****.

 

[Cobblestones]

As for inflation, it depends on what data set you are looking at. If you factor in food and energy then the numbers change for the worse.

I'll admit I was predicting QE1 & 2 would have a much bigger effect. I still believe there will be an inflationary effect with the Fed's actions. There are predictions of QE3 being announced as soon as the next few days... will this increase inflationary pressure? Yes, or at least I think so but I'll be perfectly happy to be wrong.

You have to remember that during the heyday of the housing bubble, leverage was quite a bit higher than today. Deleveraging and unwinding has decreased the amount of money quite substantially, therefore creating a deflationary pressure. Hence quantitative easing 1 & 2 and probably soon 3. Look at yields of treasuries, still incredibly small despite the downgrade.

I agree on your point concerning actual price increase. Energy and in particular health insurance are still outpacing 'core' inflation. Something has to be done. But the solution to that problem isn't found in monetary policy.


As to the Republican field. How would anybody know what Romney stands for? He has flip flopped on so many occasions. Perry, Bachmann and Paul are obviously nuts. Leaving Romney out, the only sane person so far I've seen in this field is Huntsman (and that may be because he's not that much in the news).

Romney apparently uttered that he can emphasize with the unemployed, because he's currently 'unemployed' himself. All the while he's tearing down one of his (how many?) houses to replace it by a mansion 4 times its size. That's going to go down really well with voters here in the rust belt.

Perry is running away from his book which was published only 9 months ago. What does he stand for exactly? I don't think he knows it himself. He would need a Cheney to tell him.

The pundits are still hoping for more candidates entering the race, because they can see the deficiencies of the current crop.

 

[VeloCity]

I don't get it. You'd vote for Obama but have no idea what you are voting for. He proved himself to be incompetent and as you say has backed up on nearly everything he's campaigned on.

I can understand a no vote for Perry or Bachmann, but Romney?? He's not a Tea Party candidate, that's for damn sure. He has a record, it's pretty easy to see what he's for and what he's against and other than being a pro-business republican I don't see what your challenge would be if it came down to a choice between Obama and Romney.

We have seen what a business-hostile President can do. I don't think enough people will want 4 more years of economic misery to get Obama elected unless the repubs nominate Ron Paul or possibly Bachmann. My opinion.

Because Obama is the only sane one in the entire field? I am as liberal as they come and would be very unlikely to vote Republican no matter who was running, but this field of Republicans - including the wholly incompetent Romney (you do know how he made his fortune, right? Buying companies, splitting them up, laying off thousands of workers, and then selling the bits and pieces - yeah, that'd be a great business model) - is simply insane, from Bachmann and Perry down to Herman Cain and Ron Paul. And while I've been disappointed with Obama - mainly because he hasn't gone far enough to the left and is still trying to play nice with Republicans who clearly don't give a s**t about the country and will do everything they can to sabotage his presidency - I will vote for him again, no question, if only because the alternative of the sheer f**king ignorance (and I mean that in the full sense of the word) of the Perry/Bachmann/Romney set scares the holy bejesus out of me.

 

[redtreviso]

Because wall street was so unfairly maligned???

""Romney: I’d Like To Repeal Wall Street Reform
By Tanya Somanader

With the constant stream of Wall Street donations flowing into his campaign coffers, it was only a matter of time before GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney called to repeal Wall Street’s number one enemy — the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law. Though Congress enacted the law to provide vital consumer protections and to prevent Wall Street from spurring another financial crisis, Republicans have continually attempted to cripple the law piecemeal, either by attacking the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or weakening derivatives regulation. But Romney decided yesterday that a repeal of the law was necessary because, in part, the law’s length is too “overwhelming”: ""