Last week Mayor Bloomberg introduced the creation of his own Super PAC as a way to goad politicians into taking favorable positions on issues like gay marriage, gun control, and obesity, using the only tool that he and other politicians understand: money. The mayor plans to donate around $15 million this cycle to Republicans and Democrats through his Super PAC. But don't look for him to chip in for either presidential campaign. "Their economic plans are not real. I think that's clear," Bloomberg told the Times. So which one is the turd sandwich and which one is the giant douche?
In his most expansive interview regarding the presidential campaign yet, Bloomberg questioned Mitt Romney's record at Bain Capital ("I do think that Romney’s business experience would be valuable, but I don’t know that running Bain Capital gives you the experience to run the country”) and the president's willingness to ask the country's richest to shoulder more of the tax burden ("Who are you to say ‘Somebody else’s fair share?’ ”).
"If you listen to what they say, they never get explicit," Bloomberg said, presumably forgetting that a few days earlier he told New Yorkers that we "won't be safe anymore" if the NYPD is subject to the scrutiny of an inspector general, without giving any specific reasons why.
The mayor did give hints that he may be leaning towards Obama: “I am more in sync with President Obama’s views on social issues,” he said (although he complained about Obama's inaction on many of them, including gun control). And he even invoked "reputable" economists when dissing Romney's tax plan:
“You cannot balance the budget without raising revenue and cutting expenses. There is no reputable economist that remotely thinks you could do this without doing those two things—one of which is anathema to the Republicans, and one of which is anathema to the Democrats.”
Hmm, what do "reputable" people think of the theory that rich people would pack up and leave if they're taxed at the same rate as they were when Bill Clinton was president?