ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Mitt Romney”

Politics

Conservative Minority Outreach Panelist Explains Voter Gap: ‘People Of Color Are Being Paid By The Government’

By Zack Beauchamp and Rebecca Leber on Jun 14, 2013 at 7:45 pm

Minority voters are too dependent on the government to understand what’s good for them, and that’s why they don’t vote for Republicans, according to a panelist at the influential Faith And Freedom Coalition Conference’s minority outreach discussion.

On Friday, Rich Thompson, the founder of a Georgia-based 100 Dads — an organization that advocates for “school choice” — spoke on a panel entitled “The True Rainbow Coalition: Building an Organization in Minority Faith Communities.” There, Thompson suggested that the reason Republicans couldn’t make inroads with voters of color “are being paid by the government” with benefits. He argued that the best thing for Republican minority outreach would be understanding this dynamic, and thus figuring out how to cut federal benefit programs and make minority voters more pliable to free-market views:

I learned from a pastor probably over a decade ago, we had a candid conversation, and he said these three things. He said there’s only three things on this Earth that defy logic [...] One is who’s friends with who. Number two is who’s related to who. And number three is who’s paying who. So before we leave today I would like each of use to contemplate when it comes to reaching out to diverse minority communities, let’s think about asking those three questions before we do anything further.

If we speak to the latter, who’s paying who, right now an extremely disproportionate number of people of color are being paid by the government. Therein lies a serious problem. We can’t just cut everybody off instantaneously. But we have to have a serious conversation about how we get people to being producers and not receivers. So I thank you for coming this evening to find out how we can better message to people of the black community, the Latino community, and the Asian community.

Watch it:

Of course, not all public programs go exclusively, or even largely, to minority populations. What’s more, receiving public benefits doesn’t determine one’s voting patterns. Seventy percent of food stamp recipients, for instance, are white, and the vast majority of counties with the fastest-growing food stamp rolls voted Republican in 2008.

The results of the 2012 election — when minority voters rejected the Republican presidential ticket in record numbers — do not bode well for Thompson’s approach as a political message. Polls of black, Latino, and Asian voters suggest that stepped-up opposition to social welfare will only further alienate these growing sectors of the American electorate. Mitt Romney, for one, didn’t learn this lesson — in comments after the election that strongly resembled his 47 percent remarks, the former Governor suggested that the GOP lost the minority vote because President Obama gave them “gifts.”

Other Faith and Freedom conference attendees included Republican presidential hopefuls like former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Senator Marco Rubio.

Economy

GOP Congressman Says Poor People Don’t Pay Enough Taxes

By Adam Peck on Apr 15, 2013 at 11:45 am

Representative Rob Woodall (R-GA)

When the history books are written about the 2012 presidential election, the leaked video of Mitt Romney disparaging half of the country as a bunch of lazy, greedy, government moochers may very well have its own chapter, and yet Republicans are quick to forget just how damaging the remark was.

The latest is Congressman Rob Woodall (R-GA), who leapt to the defense of Romney during a town hall meeting last month, doubling down on the 47 percent comment while also proposing that Americans should have to pay taxes in order to vote in elections:

“You know, folks mock Mitt Romney for what he said, but he’s right. Forty-seven percent of American citizens pay zero in income taxes. It’s just true,” Woodall said, according to remarks recorded by Georgia Fair Share.”
[...]
“In fact, the bottom 30% of American citizens profit from the tax code because they’re getting refundable tax credits back,” Woodall says in the video. “I don’t care if you’re paying a dollar. You need to believe that you are involved in the process, and you need to have skin in the game.”

The comment was flagged by the Huffington Post, which points out that the statistic is deeply misleading. Included in Woodall and Romney’s broad dismissal of 47 percent of the electorate are millions of retired seniors who no longer have an income and millions more low-income families and individuals who do not meet the $20,000 liability threshold for federal income taxes. And all of these people still pay into government programs through sales taxes and, in many cases, payroll taxes.

Woodall’s comment that “the bottom 30% of American citizens profit from the tax code” conveniently neglects to mention that most of the tax credits in question were shepherded through Congress by Republican administrations.

Economy

House GOP Blocks Welfare Reform Waivers Republican Governors Requested

By Travis Waldron on Mar 14, 2013 at 12:00 pm

From a Mitt Romney campaign ad

During the 2012 presidential election, Republican nominee Mitt Romney assailed a policy from the Obama administration that would have granted states waivers to improve their welfare programs under the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program. Even though the waivers were requested by a host of Republican governors, including Romney himself, Romney alleged that the policy was an attempt to “gut welfare reform.”

Those claims were blatantly untrue, but that didn’t stop Romney and Republicans in Congress from repeating the claims throughout the election. Now, those false claims have reached the legislative level, as House Republicans included a provision to bar the administration from issuing waivers in a bill that reauthorized funding for TANF Wednesday. In a statement on the legislation, the White House noted that not a single governor had requested a waiver under the program, in part because of the GOP’s false claims:

Ultimately, no States formally applied for State waivers, deterred in part by inaccurate claims about what the policy involves; therefore, the limiting provision would have no practical effect on any pending application. The Administration is disappointed that the bill includes this unnecessary bar to innovative welfare-to-work strategies.

At the time of election, two Republican governors supported the waiver program the Obama administration had outlined. The House GOP legislation, meanwhile, aims to prevent waivers that would do away with the 1996 welfare reform law’s work requirements, which the administration policy would not do. It would simply give states more flexibility in determining how to meet those requirements.

Welfare reform has largely failed over its 16 years of existence despite Republican claims to the contrary. It has not gotten benefits to children who need them the most, and it fell especially short during and after the Great Recession.

Health

What One ‘Conservative’ Approach To Health Care Reform Looks Like — And Why It’s A Bad Idea

By Sy Mukherjee on Feb 22, 2013 at 5:30 pm

Avik Roy — who advised Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on health care policy — and Doug Holtz-Eakin published an op-ed for Reuters earlier this week in which they outlined their vision for a “free market” approach to health care reform. It’s a serious proposal, albeit one that makes the same fallacious argument as Whole Foods CEO John Mackey’s assertion that Switzerland’s health care is more “entrepreneurial” than Obamacare is. Unfortunately, that claim is simply the least worrying aspect of a plan that is riddled with benefit cuts and shifting health care costs onto consumers.

First of all, mentioning Switzerland in the piece at all is essentially a red herring, as the duo’s proposal doesn’t actually shift American health care in the direction of the Swiss system — quite the opposite, in fact. While Switzerland shares important aspects with Obamacare, particularly its federally-subsidized health insurance marketplaces — a fact that Roy and Holtz-Eakin acknowledge, to their credit — the country’s health care program can hardly be described as a less regulated system, since it actually provides more generous insurance subsidies, requires insurers to offer at least one “nonprofit plan” akin to a public option, and imposes stricter price controls and negotiations between the government, drug makers, and health care providers.

Instead, what Roy and Holtz-Eakin want to see is a modified, and far more regressive, version of the proposal that Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and former Sen. Michael Bennett (R-UT) proposed first in 2007 and then again in 2009 during the health care reform debate. Under Roy-Holtz-Eakin, Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries would be shifted away from public insurance into private plans on Obamacare’s insurance marketplaces, consumer protections and regulations governing the marketplaces would be rolled back to encourage “innovation,” federal insurance subsidies would be limited to Americans up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) instead of the Obamcare-mandated 400 percent FPL, and the Medicare eligibility age would be raised by three months every year indefinitely.

These are really poor ideas that would shift costs onto consumers and force many to forgo care, cut Americans’ health benefits by depriving them of Medicaid’s unique benefits, and create costlier private insurance premiums by siphoning seniors out of Medicare — all while doing absolutely nothing to lower the actual cost of American health care, which is the only real way to reduce national health expenditures.

Roy-Holtz-Eakin also caps federal insurance subsidies at 300 percent FPL rather than 400 percent FPL in an effort to contain government expenses. In the op-ed, the authors implicitly justify this by citing the example of Massachusetts — the birthplace of Obamacare — where reform has been working pretty well. But that ignores the fact that Massachusetts is a relatively wealthy state with unemployment and poverty below the national average. For the rest of the country, that cap would be pretty devastating, pricing millions of Americans out of the health care system. Roy and Holtz-Eakin also do not want subsidies to increase faster than inflation, even though that provision is meant to address the well-established reality that health care inflation tends to accelerate faster than regular inflation.

Although Roy-Holtz-Eakin may be an honest proposal for curbing costs, it is largely based on the dishonest notion that relinquishing more responsibility — a euphemism for shifting costs — onto consumers and making them pay more for their care will somehow magically curb the cost of health care. It won’t — but it will make Americans avoid receiving treatment, leading to a form of self-rationing that is particularly ironic given Roy and Holtz-Eakin’s goal of preventing government rationing of health care.

Election

Meet The Romney Protégé Who Wants To Be Massachusetts’ Next Senator

By Josh Israel on Feb 13, 2013 at 3:41 pm

Massachusetts State Rep. Dan Winslow (R)

Massachusetts State Rep. Dan Winslow (R)

Massachusetts State Rep. Dan Winslow (R), who announced last week that he will seek the Republican nomination for Secretary of State John Kerry’s now-vacant U.S. Senate seat, was general legal counsel to Mitt Romney (R) during his time as governor. And while he claims “Massachusetts Republicans are a different kind of breed from the national Republicans,” Winslow’s record is one of a Romney-style national Republican: more interested in fighting for the wealthiest one percent than advancing policies that help the rest of the country.

Perhaps because of successful state services like Romneycare, Winslow does not think Massachusetts is a capitalist state. Though a 2012 CNBC study showed Massachusetts is the state with the highest access to capital in the country, at a 2012 campaign rally, he told Republican activists, “People ask us our plans for jobs, we’ve got this amazing idea, it’s a new concept in Massachusetts: we call it capitalism. We ought to try it sometime.”

To that end, Winslow has supported:

  • Tax cuts for yacht-buyers. Winslow is chief sponsor of HD1965, a bill to repeal the sales tax on the sale of boats built or rebuilt in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Among the potential beneficiaries of this tax cut: the members of the Pamet Harbor Yacht & Tennis Club, on whose board of directors Winslow recently served.
  • Radical transportation cuts that could drastically increase motor vehicle deaths. In an effort to save money, Winslow proposed HD 1751, a bill to “prohibit mandates on cities and towns by the Department of Transportation to construct or reconstruct public ways which exceed local speed limits.” He reasoning: state law regulations often “require roadway design speeds that are faster than the posted speeds on the roads.” This, he argues, “results in a huge waste of money since construction costs increase as design speeds increase.” While he claims this change would “result in millions of dollars of savings,” he highway safety experts note it would more likely result in more deaths. Engineer David L. Harkey, director of the Highway Safety Research Center at the University of North Carolina, told ThinkProgress that speed limits are intentionally set lower than the “design speed,” often by 5 to 10 mph, to “provide a safety factor for the roadway.” Shaun Kildare, research director for Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, agreed, nothing that a road’s design speed is the fastest a driver can safely drive under ideal conditions. If Winslow’s idea of limiting design speeds to the legal speed limit, Kildare told ThinkProgress, “everyone that speeds is going to be going off the road.” He notes that that would mean more death for those speeding even slightly — but also passengers in their cars and non-speeders in nearby cars. In a state like Massachusetts which is often hit by winter weather, having the speed limit at the “design speed” would be especially problematic.
  • Stopping government’s handouts of “free stuff.” Much like his former boss Romney, who lamented that he lost the 2012 election because President Obama gave “big gifts” to minority voters, Winslow thinks the government wastes too much money on giving out “free stuff.” In a 2010 position paper, he proposed a crackdown on “‘poor’ people in the underground economy” who under-report income and cheat on their state tax payments, so they won’t have access to “all that free stuff that Massachusetts hands out (and taxpayers pay for) each year.”
  • Massive budget cuts that would further hurt local governments. Winslow thinks massive cuts are the solution to economic downturns — and that cutting state spending won’t hurt local governments. He wrote on his campaign website: “State spending is out of control. Instead of tightening its fiscal belt like all families have done, our state government has hiked taxes, depleted the stabilization fund, and shifted hardships to towns by cutting local aid. I will propose to cut taxes by cutting state spending. We can stop waste and fraud, create cost-effective reforms, and encourage entrepreneurial government. The worst thing to do in a recession is to increase tax burdens.”
  • Union-busting laws. Winslow has proposed Wisconsin-style legislation to strip public workers of collective bargaining rights. The president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO told the Boston Globe in 2011 that Winslow was labor’s biggest foe in the legislature. The paper reported, “Winslow filed a bill to remove all but wages, hours, and working conditions from the bargaining table for public employees. [The AFL-CIO's Robert J.] Haynes noted Winslow’s close ties with Romney and called him the face of the national Republican Party in Massachusetts, bent on replicating the measure in Wisconsin that stripped public employee unions of collective bargaining rights.” He believes no one would want to go into public service, claiming the “vast majority of Americans don’t go through school hoping that they can become an agency worker.” And he wants to make significant cuts to public workers’ pensions and benefits.
  • No revenue increases, ever. Winslow promised “never to support an increase in tax burden while I serve as your State Representative.” A similar pledge proved an albatross to then-Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) and Romney last year, as opponents successfully hammered them for their short-sighted oaths to Grover Norquist.

Security

President Obama Raised More Military Donations Than Mitt Romney

By Hamed Aleaziz on Dec 14, 2012 at 12:40 pm

President Obama beat Mitt Romney in donations from active and former military donors this past election cycle. The new information comes from the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-profit, money in politics watchdog that tracked donations from military members throughout the presidential campaign. Throughout the presidential campaign, Republicans claimed that the President was anti-military. Some, like Rick Santorum, even said that President Obama was “intentionally trying to degrade our military.” Despite the Republican rhetoric, the President raised nearly $950,000 in donations from former and active military members. That’s compared to $753,000 for Mitt Romney. Here’s the OpenSecrets chart on the donations throughout the campaign:

This is hardly a new trend: President Obama received more donations from military members who donated $200 or more than Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in 2008. The President consistently garnered more donations than Romney from those in the military: last September, President Obama had bested Mitt Romney by more than $50,000 and earlier this year he had raised $100,000 more than the former Massachusetts governor. What’s more, Romney even lost the military donations battle to Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) in the GOP presidential nomination fight.

Security

Meet The Tea Partier Fighting Against The Right Wing’s Islamophobia

By Hamed Aleaziz on Dec 12, 2012 at 10:00 am

Will Coley with his wife Farah Adam (Photo: Illume)

It’s not difficult to find examples of the Tea Party’s Islamophobia problem: there was Tea Party Express Chairman Mark Williams who stated that the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” was meant for “worship of the terrorists’ monkey-god,” the Phoenix Tea Party leader who said that “anyone that is a Muslim is a threat to this country,” and Republican Florida Congressman Allen West, who said that “Islam is a totalitarian theocratic political ideology, it is not a religion.” But now, at least one member of the Tea Party, Muslim-American Will Coley, is fighting the anti-Islam sect of the group in Tennessee with some success.

Coley, a convert to Islam, noticed the shift toward Islamophobia a few years ago: “literally overnight I saw groups devoted to economics and constitutional limits turn into something else. Suddenly there were invites to see anti-Islam speakers. This crazy anti-Islam message was taking over.” Coley co-founded a group called Muslims4Liberty and has confronted anti-Islam activists head on. Illume Magazine documented Coley’s efforts:

“He also began doing outreach to local Tea Party groups. His original intention was to focus on educational basics about Muslim belief and practice, such as the Five Pillars and the Qur’an, as well as Muslim artwork.

The sudden announcement in the press of anti-sharia legislation in the Tennessee House and Senate changed everything.

“[We] changed the format of the Islam Awareness lectures at the library. Since sharia had become the issue, we decided to devote each week to covering a different area or aspect of sharia,” says Coley. “We invited two Tea Party groups. One cursed at me, called me names and said I was Muslim and therefore they had no interest in speaking to me or hearing anything my ‘lying mouth’ had to say. The other invited other Tea Party groups.”

The talks made an impact: during a later meeting of East Tennessee Tea Party groups, 12 out of 14 voted to “abandon attacking Islam as a tactic.”

Just last week, the Council on American-Islamic Relations released a letter urging Republicans to move away from the Islamophobic stance that has taken hold of the party. The group pointed out that “mainstream Republican candidates have questioned our loyalty and even threatened to undermine the Constitution in efforts to exclude us from the political process, all without any pushback from party leaders.” CAIR recently detailed that nearly 86 percent of Muslim-Americans they polled voted for President Obama and only four percent voted for Republican candidate Mitt Romney. This discrepancy occurred despite the fact that nearly forty-two percent of those CAIR polled said they were independent voters.

Other Republicans like Coley have rejected anti-Islam extremism as well. Last week, Tennessee’s Republican Governor Bill Haslam told a group of Republicans that a Muslim-American adviser of his had “been incredibly unfairly maligned,” adding, “We believe in people having the freedom in our country to exercise their religion as long as it doesn’t violate the Constitution.” New Jersey Governor Chris Christie made similar comments about critics of a Muslim-American judge he nominated, saying, “it’s just crazy. And I’m tired of dealing with the crazies.”

Security

Muslim-American Group To GOP: Stop Treating Us So Poorly

By Hamed Aleaziz on Dec 6, 2012 at 3:00 pm

The Council On American-Islamic Relations placed an open letter yesterday in the conservative Washington Times newspaper imploring Republicans to move away from the Islamophobic stance that has taken hold of the party. The letter, which was co-sponsored by several other Muslim-American groups, was titled, “GOP Asked to Reassess Its Relationship with American Muslims.” Here’s an excerpt:

“We repeatedly hear — primarily from Republicans — that our faith is a threat to the United States. Such things have been said about Catholics, Jews, Mormons, and other religions as well…Additionally, mainstream Republican candidates have questioned our loyalty and even threatened to undermine the Constitution in efforts to exclude us from the political process, all without any pushback from party leaders.”

The Republican Party has indeed embraced fringe attitudes toward Muslim-Americans. Rep. Peter King’s (R-NY) 2011 hearings on the “Radicalization of American Muslims” were criticized for blaming “all Muslims for the crimes of a few” and demonizing “a whole broad base of human beings.” To make matters worse, since 2010, Republican-controlled legislatures in Kansas, Oklahoma and several other states have passed anti-Sharia laws, effectively legislating Islamophobia (a federal appellate court ruled Oklahoma’s ban unconstitutional). Then, this year, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) topped it all off by pushing an outrageous theory that the Muslim Brotherhood had a “deep penetration in the halls of our United States government,” including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s top aide.

A well-funded Islamphobic network looms in the background of the Republican assault on Muslim-Americans. CAP detailed the network in its 2011 report titled “Fear Inc.”:

“[T]his core group of deeply intertwined individuals and organizations manufacture and exaggerate threats of “creeping Sharia,” Islamic domination of the West, and purported obligatory calls to violence against all non-Muslims by the Quran.

This network of hate is not a new presence in the United States. Indeed, its ability to organize, coordinate, and disseminate its ideology through grassroots organizations increased dramatically over the past 10 years. Furthermore, its ability to influence politicians’ talking points and wedge issues for the upcoming 2012 elections has mainstreamed what was once considered fringe, extremist rhetoric.“

It’s had an impact: only four percent of all Muslim-Americans polled by CAIR voted for Republican candidate Mitt Romney. In contrast, nearly 86 percent voted for President Obama. And it’s not like Muslim-Americans are dedicated Democrats, in fact, nearly forty-two percent of those CAIR polled said they were independent voters.

The CAIR letter notes that not all Republicans buy into bizarre, Islamophobic theories. Republican Governors like New Jersey’s Chris Christie, responding to Islamophobic critics of a judge he nominated, said, “this Sharia law business is crap.” Christie has also said that, “it’s just crazy. And I’m tired of dealing with the crazies.” Tennessee’s Republican Governor Bill Haslam made similar comments yesterday, defending a Muslim-American adviser he nominated earlier this year.

Health

POLL: Key Voters Rejected Romney Because Of His Far-Right Stance On Women’s Health Issues

By Tara Culp-Ressler on Dec 5, 2012 at 1:40 pm

Early exit polling from last month’s presidential election suggested that majorities of voters in key states support legal access to abortion services, and a new poll released today confirms that women’s health issues were a decisive factor in helping voters decide between President Obama and Mitt Romney.

Post-election polling conducted by Hart Research Associates and Lake Research Partners found that the GOP’s positions on women’s health issues — particularly in regards to eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood, banning legal abortion services, and restricting access to affordable birth control — likely cost them the White House. The poll results confirm that more than 60 percent of all voters disagreed with Romney’s position on each of those major reproductive health issues, and women voters had even higher rates of disapproval.

And when voters were asked how much the presidential candidates’ positions on those issues influenced their vote, they confirmed that women’s health issues were likely to be a deciding factor in casting a ballot for Obama. Nearly 50 percent of voters said that they were much more likely to vote for Obama based on his position on abortion access, whereas just 28 percent said that Romney’s position on the subject swayed them in his favor. Independent voters preferred Obama’s abortion stance by 30 points:

Despite the fact that many GOP politicians attempted to brush aside women’s issues to focus on the economy — as if access to reproductive health services is somehow a narrow special interest that doesn’t also have a significant impact on women’s and men’s economic realities — voters were, in fact, swayed by learning more about the candidates’ stances on abortion, birth control, and Planned Parenthood. Poll results show that 64 percent of all voters saw, heard, or read something during the lead-up to the election about Romney’s goal to strip funding from Planned Parenthood, and 55 percent of voters similarly learned about Romney’s desire to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Politics

Rubio Paves GOP’s Future With Romney’s Policies

By Igor Volsky on Dec 5, 2012 at 12:06 pm

Since President Obama’s re-election, Republicans have distanced themselves from Mitt Romney and sought to revamp their brand, calling for immigration reform and more more moderate positions on women’s health and reproductive rights. Some top Republican advisers even pressed the party to “address the core issue of middle class economics with innovative ideas.”

But policy makers have been reticent to moderate their proposals, ignoring voters’ support for key aspects of President Obama’s agenda. House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-OH) opening offer to address the so-called fiscal cliff mirrored his 2011 position and Romney’s plan to find new revenue by closing tax loopholes and deductions. Congressional Republicans advanced an immigration bill they defeated before the election and won little praise from Hispanics, who criticized the measure for limiting legal immigration.

And on Tuesday night, at the Jack Kemp Foundation Leadership Award Dinner, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who is seen as the future of the Republican Party and a potential presidential candidate, sought to lay out a blueprint for the party moving forward. But he too reached for the policies of the past to lay the road to 2016, echoing policies Romney proposed, campaigned, and ultimately lost on. Here is a comparison:

The New GOP Is The Same As The Old GOP
TAX REFORM RUBIO: “We should keep rates low on everyone…Simplify our tax code by getting rid of unjustified loopholes. And generate new revenue by creating new taxpayers, not new taxes.” ROMNEY: “There are alternatives to accomplish the objective I have, which is to bring down rates, broaden the base, simplify the code and create incentives for growth.”
EDUCATION RUBIO: “We need to allow charter schools and other innovative schools to flourish. The key to that is empowering parents. Parents should be the ultimate decision makers on where their children go to school… All our parents should be able to send their children to the school of their choice.” ROMNEY: “For the first time in history, federal education funds will be linked to a student, so that parents can send their child to any public or charter school, or to a private school, where permitted…To receive the full complement of federal education dollars, states must provide students with ample school choice.”
GOVERNMENT RUBIO: “Big government is not effective government. Big government has never worked. The promise of more government as the answer to all our problems is easy to sell. But when it is put in practice, it fails every time.”

ROMNEY: “What we’re seeing right now is, in my view, a trickle-down government approach, which has government thinking it can do a better job than free people pursuing their dreams. And it’s not working.”
HEALTH CARE RUBIO: “People should be able to buy a health care plan that fits their needs and budget, from any company in America that is willing to sell it to them.” ROMNEY: “I’d just assume not have the government telling me what kind of health care I get. I’d rather be able to have an insurance company. If I don’t like them, I can get rid of them and find a different insurance company. But people make their own choice.”
ENERGY RUBIO: “American innovation has now given us access to massive new deposits of oil and natural gas, making America the most energy rich country on the planet.” ROMNEY: “America is blessed with extraordinary natural resources, and developing them will create millions of good jobs – not only in the energy industry, but also in industries like manufacturing that will benefit from more energy at lower prices.”

Greg Noth contributed substantial research for this post.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up