There's a couple of major flaws here. The first and most obvious one is that there were no recommendations from the Simpson-Bowles commission -- at least no official ones. The report released was a draft that failed to gain the support of a sufficient number of commission members. That makes it a recommendation of a minority of the commission.

Secondly, if Romney started recommending tax increases, he'd be committing suicide. It would be tantamount to throwing in the towel. All those anti-tax people won't vote for Obama, of course, but many of them won't vote for Romney either.

Maybe you wrote the column as a joke and I misunderstood.

Just a little problem Scot.  Paul Ryan voted against the report.  Going back to it now looks like the gang that can't shoot straight.

If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner. In other words, Simpson-Bowles was doomed before it ever convened.

Scot, Romney has boxed himself into a corner he can't support Simpson-Bowles without a riot on the right over taxes.  He can't back off of his statement regarding the 47% even if it contradicts his own policies.  Mitt says these people won't support him because his "tax cuts" don't help them.  Really what happened to trickle down.  Now Mitt admits trickle down only trickles up. He is boxed in on the right a place where he doesn't belong.  Mitt cares for his class, worries about his class and believes they are the rightful heirs to the city on the hill.  Mitt has to fight and win on the turf he has created.  From where I sit.  He loses.

Attaturk:

I know, but it's roll the dice time. That or go over the falls, I think.

Attaturk:

I know, but it's roll the dice time. That or go over the falls, I think.

"Simpson-Bowles would end the preferential tax treatment of capital gains and dividends."

What does he want more, to be the president or to keep his entitlements? Romney's head could explode.  

I think Scot makes a good point.  The polls right now are very close to even, so I do not think it needs to be time to throw a hail Mary pass.  But the bigger point is that a bold move like that would force the press to cover it, and stop trolling for "gaffes" they can exploint.  If Romney came out with serious policy pronouncements, they would stop covering him the way they have been, at least temporarily.

Romney's biggest challenge is getting through the hostile media.  Their coverage of the embassy attacks, which focused on Romney, and not Obama was very telling.  They will never critique the president, and will lie in wait for the next chance to pounce on Romney, no matter how UNnews worthy it is.  The Globe story on Romney's "47%"  speech in a private fundraiser was at the top Globe headline today.  That is the perfect metaphor for how hostile this media is.

A bold policy pronouncement would force them to act more like journalists.

Richmond: It must make you nervous when you agree with me ... Beck: Don't get me wrong, I doubt he would ever do it, but if he's to have a shot, he desperately needs to change the campaign trajectory.

It wouldn't be difficult to run to the left of Obama on several issues.Romney could come out against the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act and propose to separate the big banks from the major hedge-fund and"investment"markets. He could propose to really close Git-mo, he could make a case to tie any subsidies for oil companies to promises not to raise gas prises, or at least to stabilize the market, he could propose special business incentives for companies with Hispanic (Latino) ownership.Mitt could come out with several suggestions at once for running to the left of Obama and it would be easy because Obama's policies are way right of center for the most part.

The problem for the Mittster would be the howls from his base and the millions who might stay home on a certain night in November.

I remember when I was in grade school, there was this one kid who, though obnoxious and oblivious, continually tried to insert himself into my circle of friends.  He thought himself clever and amusing, but he was actually totally un-self-aware and pretty openly disliked due to his bizzare and off-topic comments and observations.  I wonder why that memory would happen to come to mind...

Reading the comments of Mitt's supporters reminds me of James Carville in a way.  They talk about policy or changes and Carville would say, "It's Mitt, stupid."  I don't use "stupid" as an insult there so let's not go off on me.  The problem is who Mitt and his ilk are as people and that is not very likeable.  Not a good quality for a public person. 

Would anyone believe  anything he says now?

This isn't just about money. He doesn't even know who is in the "47%" because he is so out of touch on policy issues.He is not even aware of the elderly and students who pay little to no income tax. They aren't on his radar. He is not interested in the young or the old, only in the rich.

He blunders on the international stage. Whether he is talking about Palestine, Libya, or the Olympics, he insults people with his arrogance.

I was not in favor of the auto bailout but I can say I was wrong adn thank God it was not my decision to make. Had it been his, Detroit and Ohio would be history.

The Presidency is not a CEO position. CEO's just have to deliver profit in the short term and, whether or not they do, they move on to somewhere else, often leaving someone else to clean up thier mess. Hate to use the phrase but the guy just isn't Presidential material.

The media is doing more than attacking Romney now. They, including the Boston globe are DESPERATELY covering for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton by accepting WITHOUT QUESTION U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's PREPOSTEROUS comments that the murders of our Libyan ambassador and 2 Navy Seals were caused ENTIRELY by a video. --A much more accurate nes source, the President of Libya says these events and the protests were all PREPLANNED by al Qaeda.--In revenge for the killing of bin Laden, al Qaeda strikes again, on American soil (the embassy is American soil) On 9/11, on Barack Obama's watch. ---Barack Obama put the Muslim brotherhood in power, and they are coming back to BITE him.

And also, Libyan president says that Libyan government and Egypt WARNED the US government that an attack on the U.S> embassy was imminent. On 9/11. But Barack Obama was too busy partying and fundraising to notice.

Mitt's character is truly emerging as the central issue, not policy, and not even taxes.  He has no ability to empathize with just about anybody.  The reason he stays cool is probably because he simply doesn't process feelings.  His lack of feelings about the human condition let him sleep at night while he shipped jobs oversees and padded his bank account.  It's not the kind of person that makes a good public servant, which is really what the president is.  Mitt thinks that being president means getting to wear the crown.  He doesn't understand about serving the country, because serve is not in his vocabulary.  All along he wanted to be king, not president.

I must say, I'm still waiting for the conservatives to denounce his waging of class warefare. When do you guys think that will happen? We've have been warned so often about its invidious dangers that I expected the denunciation to commence almost immediately.

Scot I don't think we will hear that from "conservatives".  Mitt has put them in a very difficult position. Everytime a "conservative" says "a rising tide lifts all boats", which is fundamental to their beliefs, people will hear Mitt Romney's words.  Some like to think the average citizen isn't hearing this noise, but it is everywhere and people are attacking or defending those words.  What Mitt has done is to portray every person receiving a VA check, an SS check, anthing from govt.  as bacially a moocher.  He has in effect put "conservatives" in the unhealthy position of either saying grandma is a bum or they have to defend grandma and the program.  Mitt in one fell swoop made the whole argument on entitlements personal, real and impactful instead of merely being a theoritcal discussion.  He has given a face to the entitlement programs and that is bad news for "conservatism".

Sorry, but the only people who think the deficit is the defining issue of the day are so-called centrist politicians and the pundits who love them. Everybody else is either trying to figure out ways to get the economy moving or looking for more ways to give tax cuts to the well to do.

The biggest puzzle is the shift in the GOP.  When Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986, he gave a speech saying, "Millions of the working poor will be dropped from the tax rolls altogether, and families will get a long-overdue break with lower rates and an almost doubled personal exemption."  It was a signature accomplishment.  The Nordquist/Tea Party GOP seems to favor prisons and workhouses.  I just don't get it.

Scot Lehigh:

There is another big risk if Mitt Romney were to TRY to endorse Simpson-Bowles at this late date, in addition to running the risk that right wing conservatives would get disgusted and bolt.

The risk is that, because Mitt Romney has a long and well-documented history as a flip-flopper, any attempt on his part to endorse Simpson-Bowles would also run the risk that it would be DISMISSED as "just another Mitt Romney flip-flop."

That would leave him with his naked posterior in the wind, and NOBODY taking him seriously.

But I guess that is where he is today anyway.  At least he can proudly say that he was loyal to the Republican mantra of 2012, which is:

"I DID IT MYSELF."  Because he did.  With his MOUTH.

Scot, were you looking for me? Busy day, just got to my Globe. No inside information here, but my assumption is that Mitt combined two valid talking points: one that 47% of people don't pay income taxes, which we fiscal conservatives use to counter the argument from the left that those of us who do pay taxes should pay more. The second, that there is a growing section of voters (it's not 47%) who depend on government, so we are reaching the point we were warned about early in the Republic, that democracy falters when people learn they can vote themselves largesse from the public trough, and vote only for those politicians who will protect their "entitlements" and offer them more. Somehow he blurted them out in combination, which was a mistake; Mitt has his awkward moments, like Obama attacking people who cling to their religion and guns. It happens. As for supporting Simpson-Bowles: I thought it made sense except for my concern that, as in the past, as with the Reagan pk. you mentioned. Once the politicians have a tax increase, they move on, forgetting about the loophole closings, never getting to the reforms. The new money is happily spent on new programs that increase the deficit and the national debt, which explains the $16 trillion.

Barring any last minute "October surprise", those potential voters who remain undecided or who are disappointed in Obama  have at this point only two choices:  1) cross their fingers and vote for Obama, or 2) stay home on election day and don't vote.  For a while there was a third choice, which was to take a chance on the new guy, Romney, and vote for him.  But, these potential voters are rapidly crossing that third choice off their lists.  It isn't so much a matter of ideology or plans for the future that will win over these voters.  At this point, it's the character and personal views of the candidates.  If Romney can convince voters that their sense of personal dissatisfaction is because of the millions of moochers who are getting away with everything, then he might have a chance.  But, the potential voters are profoundly suspicious of Romney, and Romney's most recent statements and actions may have been the final straw for his faltering campaign.

It seems no matter how often it is pointed out that the majority of Mitt's 47% is grandma, grandpa, veterans and little kids Mr. Romney's supporters or at least those who support the dismanteling of the safety net, (which I consider a misnomer) continue to fall back on the old and tired "entitlement" bromide.  If one wishes to take the position that these "entitlements" are somehow welfare, Social Security, Medicare etc. then have the courage to say so.  Have the courage to say they must go.  Have the courage to say you want them ended.  These are the programs, these are the entitlements that make up the expenditures that you lament.  However, most of the conservative, the fringe end of it lacks this courage simply because to say it is, is to be crushed at the polls.  the fact that Mitt didn't misstep is confirmed by his continuing backing of his statement.  He believes it.  He won't say it but he wants those programs to end.  What my greatest objection to the conservative position is - they won't really say it, they shade it, they say we'll fix it, we'll privatize it as if the actions they take won't end it.  Show some guts, show a little Romney, you know open mouth and see if the public likes it.

Entitlements are SS, Medicare, veterans benefits, anything that the recipient earned. "Entitlements" (note I used quotes in my first post) are generational welfare; EBT cards used for drugs, tattoos, jewelry, vacation trips, bail for drug dealers, junk food, anything that taxpayers wouldn't choose to have them purchase if asked; extraordinary public employee benefits gained by, for example, teachers who strike in violation of the law to blackmail Obama-supporting mayors into giving moremoremore; paychecks from public housing administrators, lab administrators,and others who don't do their jobs and are outed by Globe investigative reporters-- anything somone hasn't earned that they believe someone else should work hard to provide them. People who use up their unemployment and file for disability even though they aren't, even when there are jobs available. Not in "entitlement" category: Benefits to those who really need them but don't rally in demand for moremoremore, don't think they are entitled, are grateful to taxpayers.

"Barbara" That isn't the 47% Mitt was talking about.  But hey let's leave it at he misspoke and simply take the things you listed.

"generational welfare; EBT cards used for drugs, tattoos, jewelry, vacation trips, bail for drug dealers, junk food," the actual expenditures on "welfare" then is about 190billion this does not count such things as unemployment as those bens are contributed to, SS, Medicare, it is strictly expenditures on food, nutrition, welfare etc.  Now that's a good deal of money but it isn't 47% of the public and in fact some of these folks work and pay FICA, state and local taxes.  The problem with your argument and Mitts argument is your underlying belief that there are millions of people out there looking to do nothing except rip off the system.  Yet you have no difficulty when Mitt hides his money overseas or takes whatever tax credits are possible.  It is not that you are terribly wrong in wanting efficiency in government or for people to take care of themselves.  Where this argument goes off the track is this belief that the vast majority of people receiving any assistance or any aid are bums.  You have to reach out and say "teachers who strike illegally" I don't know was the Chicago strike illegal?  I don't believe so, but I could be wrong and in that particular case your right.  (NP)  The bottom line the great fault line in your argument is that you believe that people are inherently evil, manipulative, well everyone except people like Mitt they're merely following the law.  It is an argument that says to me I'm "entitled" but you're not.  I could be wrong butt to me that is the weakness it is not supported by numbers but merely by feeling.

Scotty Taxes LOVES taxes!

JSSpencer: Good rejoinder! Why, I feel like I'm back in the 3rd grade.

Interesting argument, attaturk, the accusation that I believe people to be inherently evil. I don't, but you hit on the thing that makes you and me see things differently, explained by Thomas Sowell in "A Conflict of Visions", which I recommend to anyone who wants to understand what makes us conservative or liberal.