Mitt Romney’s recent speech at the military school, The Citadel, revealed that “American Exceptionalism” likely would be a major theme of a Romney candidacy, with a campaign built around a slogan, “Believe In America.”

A “white paper” — AN AMERICAN CENTURY — A Strategy to Secure America’s Enduring Interests and Ideals — released in connection with the speech, makes clear that a big part of the campaign effort will be to belittle President Obama as an apologizer for America. It says,

“The sins President Obama has repented in our collective name are American arrogance, dismissiveness, and derision; for dictating solutions, for acting unilaterally, for acting without regard for others; for treating other countries as mere proxies, for unjustly interfering in the internal affairs of other nations, for committing torture, for fueling anti-Islamic sentiments, for dragging our feet in combating global warming, and for selectively promoting democracy. …A President who is so troubled by America’s past cannot lead us into the future.”

In contrast to Obama’s supposed apologies, in his Citadel speech, Romney declared, “I will not surrender America’s role in the world. This is very simple: If you do not want America to be the strongest nation on Earth, I am not your President. You have that President today.”

The white paper and the Citadel speech emphasized again and again that this century should be “An American Century,” using the same term that defined those advisers of George W. Bush, the designers of the preemptive Iraq War doctrine, known as “Neoconservatives.” As it turns out, Romney has recruited some of the same “American Exceptionalism” cheerleaders to work for his campaign.

If the Citadel speech is any indication, it is clear that a Romney candidacy will preach fear, fear, fear — and will attempt to make the case why a “USA. USA. USA” must acquire an even bigger military. “The American Conservative” calls itself, “The magazine for thinking conservatives,” and in response to the Citadel speech, Rod Dreher writes in “Romney’s Project For A New American Century” that the speech boils down to: “USA is No. 1! God commands us to be, for we are a chosen people, and if the rest of the world doesn’t like it, tough, we’ll do what we want to do to advance our mission of spreading our values universally.”

Dreher writes, “So it goes with Mitt Romney’s project for a new American century. It’s as if the Iraq War never happened, that there were no lessons to be learned from it. It’s as if Romney hadn’t noticed the dire fiscal straits our nation is in. Nothing here but stale old thinking (tip-off: using Cold War phrasing with “the free world”), rhetorical bombast, and implacable faith in the imperial project. None of this is surprising. It is all depressing.”

There are a lot of the interesting comments in response to Dreher’s post. I had to chuckle at the first one:

• This isn’t foreign policy. This is a speech delivered by a man on a balcony…
• It’s long been Mormon doctrine that the Constitution is “divinely inspired.” With this comes a heaping helping of American exceptionalism.
• No candidate, in either party, who fundamentally disagrees with this American exceptionalism has any chance at a major-party nomination.
• This speech doesn’t bother me in the least. Just more Romney pandering to get the red-state rednecks to vote for a guy from Massachusetts.
• The neo-cons believe there remains a committed core of Republican activists who bought into the American Century project and believe it is only the defeatist, un-American Democrats that never have loved this country, who undermine morale, and keep us from the greatness that God intends us to have. This cadre may have been demoralized by the latter Bush years, but they remain the key to the nomination. They can be courted, and with the right words, convinced to believe once again.
• I am astonished that the neo con perspective has not been utterly discredited. Their hubris, naiveté, ignorance and arrogance has cost this country plenty and I suspect those costs will play themselves out for a long time. Yet here we have their ideas being resurrected again. So discouraging.

Lawrence S. Wittner in “Romney’s Neocon Foreign Policy Plan”, writes, “One wonders what citizens and statesmen of other nations think of this potential world leader who argues that his country is confronted everywhere by malignant enemies, must forever be militarily supreme, is exempt from following international law, can do no wrong, has been created by God, and must dominate the planet for the rest of this century.”

A recent debate concerning Ohio’s Senate Bill 5 featured two articulate experts sharply defining two opposing points of view. The video of the debate is copied below.

The question of the debate is whether SB5 should be sustained, as outlined in the statewide referendum, Issue 2, on the November ballot. Republican State Senator Keith Faber argued “Yes,” saying it provides a “reasonable reform” that will help the state and local governments. Innovation Ohio spokesperson, Dale Butland, argued, “No,” saying that SB5 is politically motivated, unnecessary, and is “wildly extremist.”

Interestingly, as the debate developed, Senator Faber, urging “Yes” to maintain SB5, quoted Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt to support his view, and Mr. Butland, urging “No,” quoted retired Republican Governor Voinovich to support his view.

The opening statements of the two speakers (transcript shown below) outlined the themes of the debate. Later in the debate Sen. Faber claimed that Columbus lost $40 million to pension pick-ups that SB5 would eliminate and that other communities also lost significant money. Mr. Butland’s retort was that much of the pension pick-ups go to school administrators who are not part of a union. He failed to address the $40 million claim, however.

Senator Faber: We Need Reasonable Reform To Turn Ohio Around. Vote “Yes.”

It was not long ago, just a few decades, that Ohio had more than 20 congressional districts. We just finished the redistricting process to go from 18 congressional districts to 16, and I think that summarizes probably more than any other statistic exactly what is happened in Ohio in the last few decades in relation to the rest of the country. One of the messages that is clear is that if we keep doing what we are doing and expect different results, then shame on us.

If we keep doing more of the same, business as usual, we will end up in ten years probably redistricting not for 16 congressional districts, but for 14. And Ohio’s place in the rest of the country will continue to be diminished. And that’s largely because of jobs and the state of Ohio’s economy. A major component, a major component, of turning that around is reforming the way Ohio and our local governments do business.

Senate Bill 5 is all about reasonable reform. Senate Bill 5 reforms are reasonable.

• It is not unreasonable to ask government workers to pay 15% of the cost of their health care. It is not unreasonable to ask government workers to pay10% towards their very generous, guaranteed pensions.
• It is not unreasonable to ask government workers to have their performance be a bigger dictator on their compensation than just how long they’ve sat in chairs.

The other thing, Senate Bill 5 is necessary. The reality is, we are out of money. As state and local governments, we are out of money. We can’t keep affording to pay for generous benefits for government workers that far exceed those of the private sector.

Senate Bill 5’s probably most important components deal with reclaiming our schools. It is important that in education we change the dynamic to improve the quality of education. This is an area where Barack Obama and conservative Keith Faber agree. We need to move towards performance based compensation and merit in the determination of the success of our public education.

Finally, Senate Bill 5, Issue 2, is all about protecting the taxpayers. It’s all about helping to insure that taxpayers have a seat at the table. For far too long, the people sitting at the table have been the unions, their union bosses and often the politicians the unions helped elect with their contributions. Taxpayers were left out. It’s time for us to level that playing field. It’s time for us to put taxpayers back at the table and not award government employee contracts with wages and benefits that taxpayers simply can’t afford. And what that’s led to is an overall reduction in the number of government employees. We’ve seen that in your community and we are seeing that all around Ohio.

Ultimately, I’m going to ask you for a “Yes” vote on Issue 2, and as we go through this debate I will ask you to try and separate the difference betwwen the facts from the hype and hyperbole. Let’s get to the facts

Mr. Butland rejected Sen. Faber’s argument saying, “None of these claims are true.” He tied SB5 into an overall Ohio Republican tax policy — benefiting the wealthy and needlessly maintaining costly tax loopholes — saying that the Republican tax policy has caused the crisis in state funding to local communities and schools and it is not true that overly generous wages and benefits to government employees should be blamed. Later in the debate, Butland developed the idea that the 1983 collective bargaining law benefited the state and resulted in fewer strikes by public workers. He quoted Republican George Voinovich’s comments defending and praising the 1983 legislation.

Dale Butland: SB5 Is Wildly Extremist, Political. Don’t Be Fooled. Vote “No”

Let me be very concise. Senate Bill 5 will hurt us all. It is unfair. It is unsafe. And, it is wildly extremist.

Senator Faber just told you that we need Senate Bill 5 because our state, our schools and local governments are out of money which he blames on overly generous worker wages and benefits. Senator Faber also told you that Senate Bill 5 won’t destroy collective bargaining, and if he didn’t tell you that in his opening, he will tell you that. He want us to believe it is only about a few reasonable reforms like asking public workers pay 10% of their pensions and 15% health insurance premiums.

Don’t let Sen Faber fool you. None of these claims is true. In Ohio, 94% of all public workers already pay the 10% of the pensions called for by Senate Bill 5. The 6%, who pay less than that 10%, don’t do so at their own request but at the request of their employers who sometimes find picking up some of that pension to be cheaper for them than raising wages. Roughly 90% of public workers contribute to health insurance. All state employees already pay the 15% for health insurance demanded by Senate Bill 5.

What about wages? Senator Faber didn’t tell you that over 90% of all contracts bargained this year contained a freeze on wages.

Even more to the point, schools and local government aren’t struggling because public workers have refused to sacrifice but because Governor Kasich and his allies, like Senator Faber, refused to close any of the $7 billion in tax loopholes we have on the books, and also refused to ask the wealthy Ohioans to make any sacrifices at all. Instead they chose to cut $ 3 billion from schools and instead cut local government by 50%. Here in Fairfield you lost $ 2.8 million.

As for bargaining, let’s get real. Under stage bill 5, collective bargaining would be gutted, and would exist in name only. It takes away the right to strike. It removes binding arbitration for safety forces who we aren’t allow to strike anyway. In cases where agreement can’t be reached it lets management to simply impose a its own contract offer, thereby removing any incentive to argue in good faith in the first place.

Public worker aren’t the only victims. It will will hurt you and your familes too. Let me close — If none of senator Faber’s works are true, why on earth would Governor Kasich impose such a law? Three words: power, politics and payback. And I’ll look forward to expanding on that in the debate ahead.

The Senate Bill 5 Debate starts at about the 1:33:00 mark

The first paragraph in an article, by Jill Kelley, in today’s DDN states, “Kettering and Oakwood each have a levy on the ballot for Nov. 8. Both are renewals, and neither would increase taxes.” The DDN would do a service to its readers to more fully explain how renewal levies actually work, and, explain that current trends indicate that the approval of these renewal levies will mean the effective rates for property taxes in Kettering and Oakwood will increase.

In Kettering, the school district is urging voters to renew a 0.6 mill “permanent improvement levy.” This levy was originally approved in 1987. According to Ohio law, a levy can never raise more tax revenue than its original amount. Because the total property value in Kettering has increased since 1987, to avoid generating revenue in excess of the legal limit, over the years the effective rate of this 0.6 mill levy gradually decreased. It is now .458860 mills. But the total property value in Kettering is now decreasing, and, if the levy is renewed, to maintain the same tax revenue, this effective rate may be increased, if necessary, back to its original 0.6 mill amount — an increase of 31%.  (It can never exceed the original ratified amount of 0.6 mills.)

The total increase over the last four years in the effective rate of this levy has been only about 1%, but voters should understand that the trend is upward. Voters should understand that, by approving this renewal, they are agreeing to further increases in the effective rate of this levy.

In Oakwood, voters are being asked to renew a 2.72 mill levy, originally ratified in 1991. Its effective rate is now 1.449251 mills, so renewal means, if total property values in Oakwood sink to the 1991 level, the effective rate of this levy could go back to 2.72 mills — potentially, a whopping increase of 88%.  Such a big change seems highly unlikely. But the trend is upward. Since 2008, the effective rate of this tax has increased 1.4%.

In July, 2009,  I officially complained to the Ohio Election Commission that false advertising was being used to illegally promote a renewal levy in Kettering. I was offended that the leaders of the Kettering school district, who knew better, seemed intent on deliberate deception when they went way overboard in urging voters to support a 6.9 mill operating levy renewal with phrases like “not a penny more,” and, “absolutely zero increase.”

Ms Kelly probably didn’t do enough research to understand the matter. But, when she wrote, about the current Kettering and Oakwood renewal levies, that “neither would increase taxes,” she was misinforming the public. Once a levy is established, its effective rate is on a sliding scale. In order to maintain a fixed amount of tax revenue, when the total property value in a district decreases — as is the established trend in both Kettering and Oakwood — the “effective tax rates” must increase.

If officials want to guarantee voters that their effective tax rates will not increase, instead of renewal levies, they could offer replacement levies, pegged at the current effective rates. If Kettering offered a 0.46 mill levy to replace the current 0.6 mill levy that is expiring, the revenue to the school would not change in the first year. Likewise, Oakwood could offer a 1.45 mill levy to replace the current 2.72 mill levy that is expiring. Then, if the total property value of the community decreased, tax revenue for those levies would also decrease. A system of tax revenue instability may not be in the public interest. But, if our elected officials want the revenue stability provided by renewal levies, they should show transparency, they should educate the public. They should not hide the fact that, in a time of economic downturn, renewals cause effective tax rates to increase and thus increase the tax liability for individual property owners.  And our local newspaper, rather than misinforming, should explain the details of these tax issues.

See: OEC Says “Absolutely No Increase In Taxes” Is Not A False Statement — Dismisses Kettering Complaint, July 17th, 2009