Blog Archive

Total Pageviews

Sunday, September 30, 2012

Paul Ryan Explains Miit Romney Budget Program

 
 


Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan on Sunday insisted that GOP hopeful Mitt Romney had provided specifics for his tax plan, but refused to say which deductions would need to be eliminated or provide any math to prove that the scheme works.
During an interview on Fox News, host Chris Wallace noted that a recent study showed that the Romney-Ryan plan would cost nearly $5 trillion over 10 years.
“Not in the least bit true,” Ryan insisted. “That study has been so thoroughly discredited.”

“How much would it cost?” Wallace wondered. “The cut in tax rates.”
“It’s revenue neutral… Lower all Americans’ tax rates by 20 percent,” Ryan replied.
“Right, how much will it cost?” Wallace pressed. “It’s not revenue neutral unless you take away the deductions.”
“I won’t get into a baseline argument with you because that’s what a lot of this is about,” Ryan explained. “We’re saying, limited deductions so you can lower tax rates for everybody. Start with people at the higher end. … And every time we’ve done this — whether it was Ronald Reagan working with Tip O’Neil, the idea from the Bowles-Simpson commission on how to do this — there’s been a traditional Democrat and Republican consensus: lowering tax rates, broadening the tax base works.”
“But you haven’t given me the math,” the Fox News host pressed.
“I don’t have the time,” Ryan laughed. “It would take me too long to go through all the math. But let me say it this way, you can lower tax rates by 20 percent across the board by closing loopholes and still have preferences for the middle class for things like charitable deductions, for home purchases, for health care. So what we’re saying is, people are going to get lower tax rates.”
 
“If — just suppose — that the doubters are right, President Romney takes office the math doesn’t add up… what’s most important to Romney?” Wallace asked. “Would he scale back on the 20 percent tax cut for the wealthy?”
“No,” Ryan said.
“Would he scale back and say, ‘OK, we’re going to have to raise taxes for the middle class?’” Wallace continued. “What’s most important to him in his tax reform plan?”
“Keeping tax rates down,” the vice presidential candidate remarked. “That’s more important than anything.”
During an event in Ohio last week, President Barack Obama said that Romney and Ryan had refused to provide details because it was impossible for them to reduce the deficit and cut taxes for the wealthy without also raising taxes on the middle class.
“No matter how many times they try to reboot their campaign, no matter how many times they try to tell you they’re going to start talking specifics really soon, they don’t do it, and the reason is because the math doesn’t work,” Obama asserted.
Watch this video from Fox News’ Fox News Sunday, broadcast Sept. 30, 2012.
Share this story >>






 
                  


Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Mitt Romney Flip Flops on Emergency Rooms

http://news.yahoo.com/mitt-romneys-mind-bending-flip-flop-emergency-rooms-112431074--politics.html
Pop quiz: The following two statements both argue that mandatory health insurance is important to avoid "free riders" getting care on the public dime at the emergency room. Match the statement with the 2012 presidential candidate who delivered it.
"When uninsured people who can afford coverage get sick, and show up at the emergency room for care, the rest of us end up paying for their care in the form of higher premiums."
"If somebody could afford insurance, they should either buy the insurance or pay their own way. They shouldn't be allowed to just show up at the hospital and say, somebody else should pay for me."
Stumped? Don't feel bad: They're basically indistinguishable. (Although if you must know, the first is Barack Obama and the second is Mitt Romney.)
The free-rider problem is pretty straightforward. Because we as a society have decided that it's inhumane to let sick people die on the steps of our hospitals, we require those hospitals to care for those who show up, whether they can pay or not. But someone has to pay for their care, and when hospitals don't get government reimbursement for indigent patients, they have to absorb the costs themselves, which they manage by raising prices for everyone else. The solution devised by Romney, as Massachusetts governor, and the U.S. Congress, in "Obamacare," was to require anyone who could pay for insurance to buy it up front or pay a fine, and to provide a government subsidy for insurance to those who can't afford it. Even when the public pays for the subsidy, it turns out to cost less than having people to use emergency rooms as their primary-care facilities. Romney made the same point in his book No Apology and a half dozen other venues.
Now, here's Romney on 60 Minutes on Sunday night:
PELLEY: Does the government have a responsibility to provide health care to the 50 million Americans who don't have it today?
ROMNEY: Well, we do provide care for people who don't have insurance, people--we--if someone has a heart attack, they don't sit in their apartment and--and die. We--we pick them up in an ambulance, and take them to the hospital, and give them care. And different states have different ways of providing for that care.
PELLEY: That's the most expensive way to do it.
ROMNEY: Well, the...
PELLEY: In the emergency room.
ROMNEY: Diff--different, again, different states have different ways of doing that. Some--some provide that care through clinics. Some provide the care through emergency rooms. In my state, we found a solution that worked for my state. But I wouldn't take what we did in Massachusetts and say to Texas, "You've got to take the Massachusetts model."
Wrenchingly, this stance is turned 180 degrees from his earlier position. To please conservatives wary of his record, Romney has said for some time that other states need not imitate Massachusetts' system--though that was also a reversal from 2009, when he wrote in USA Today that the Bay State should be a model for reforming the national system. That may have been a flip-flop, but it was in response to actual concerns about the authority of the federal government.
His more recent comments appear to be something different: Romney is basically saying that the cost savings don't matter. And that's a strange perspective, as both the pragmatic technocrat and the disciplined fiscal conservative he insists he is. Candidate Romney doesn't provide an alternative explanation for how he'd keep the public from paying for free riders (you can read a brief summary of his plan here), and that's a huge chunk of taxpayer dollars: a 2004 Kaiser Family Foundation survey calculated that free riders cost the federal and state governments almost $35 billion per year.
This reversal is awfully reminiscent of the fabled $716 billion Medicare cuts that came as part of Obamacare. Those aren't cuts to service, but rather reductions in the growth of the payments the government gives to providers. In his own budget, Paul Ryan assumed those reductions would stay in place. But Romney quickly disavowed that (and Ryan got in line), saying that he didn't want the federal government instituting the cuts. That means that President Romney would have to reach the same spending levels he pledged before, but do so while cutting nearly a trillion bucks more. As Derek Thompson pointed out, that's simply not going to happen.
On both the free-rider question and the Medicare question, Romney has effectively taken a position that leads to the government spending more money. In the first case, he was unwilling to challenge the notion that Americans shouldn't be allowed to die in the streets. In the second, he was unwilling to challenge the notion that senior citizens ought to receive government care. Both those stances are rational, but they point to a central irony of the tea party era: You can either be for smaller government, or you can be fiscally conservative--but it's nearly impossible to do both

Ann Coulter the Loose Cannon Right Winger Radical

 
Very Dangerous
 
 
 

Saturday, September 22, 2012

Paul Ryan get Boo at AARP Meeting


 
 
 
Radical Paul Ryan
 
Romney/Ryan will destroy America. Can you imagine the day after election night and they win. Sarah Palin the new defense Secretary, Michelle Bachmann as Secretary of State, Rush Limbaugh as head of Homeland Security and maybe Bill O'Reilly as head of the FBI. The American Taliban running America. Be scared be very scared.
Ryan's constant, smirking expression is so condescending it makes me want to wipe it off his face. It doesn't matter what he says, what you know he's thinking is that all those old people are as dumb as a box of rocks. Well, guess what, Paul, not all of us are and quite a few of us know a viper when we see one.
 
Paul Ryan
A portrait shot of Paul Ryan, looking straight ahead. He has short brown hair, and is wearing a dark navy blazer with a red and blue striped tie over a light blue collared shirt. In the background is the American flag.
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from Wisconsin's 1st district
Incumbent
Assumed office
January 3, 1999
Preceded byMark Neumann
Chairperson of the House Budget Committee
Incumbent
Assumed office
January 3, 2011
Preceded byJohn Spratt
Personal details
BornPaul Davis Ryan
(1970-01-29) January 29, 1970 (age 42)
Janesville, Wisconsin, U.S.
Political partyRepublican
Spouse(s)Janna Little
ChildrenLiza
Charles
Samuel
ResidenceJanesville, Wisconsin
Alma materMiami University
ReligionRoman Catholicism
WebsiteCongressional website
Paul Ryan official portrait.jpgThis article is part of a series about
Paul Ryan
Paul Ryan
Paul Ryan
Paul Davis Ryan (born January 29, 1970) is the United States Representative for Wisconsin's 1st congressional district and the nominee of the Republican Party for Vice President of the United States in the 2012 election.[1][2]
Born and raised in Janesville, Wisconsin, Ryan is a graduate of Miami University in Ohio. He worked as an aide to legislators Bob Kasten, Sam Brownback, and Jack Kemp, and as a speechwriter before winning election to the U.S. House in 1998. He is currently the chairman of the House Budget Committee.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Mitt Romney the 47% who BUG him and not pay federaal income taxes

 Just which 47 percent of Americans was Mitt Romney talking about? It's hard to say. He lumped together three different ways of sorting people in what he's called less-than-elegant remarks.
Each of those three groups — likely Obama voters, people who get federal benefits and people who don't pay federal income taxes — contains just under half of all Americans, in the neighborhood of 47 percent at a given moment. There's some overlap, but the groups are quite distinct.
Confusingly, Romney spoke as if they're made up of the same batch of Americans.
A look at the three groups:
___
OBAMA VOTERS
What Romney said: "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what."
He's right on the nose, according to the latest Associated Press-GfK poll: Forty-seven percent of likely voters say they support Obama. And 46 percent say they support Romney, essentially a tie. This number fluctuates from poll to poll and week to week and could shift substantially before Election Day.
Who they are:
—Most are employed: Sixty-two percent of the Obama voters work, including the 10 percent working only part time. A fourth are retired. Five percent say they're temporarily unemployed.
—Most earn higher-than-average wages. Fifty-six percent have household incomes above the U.S. median of $50,000. Just 16 percent have incomes below $30,000, and about the same share (20 percent) have incomes of $100,000 or more.
—They're all ages but skew younger than Romney's voters: Twenty percent are senior citizens and 12 percent are under age 30.
—They're more educated than the overall population: Forty-three percent boast four-year college degrees or above; 21 percent topped out with a high school diploma.
___
PEOPLE WHO GET FEDERAL BENEFITS
What Romney said: "There are 47 percent ... who are dependent on government ... who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it."
Whether they are dependent and believe they are entitled to anything is arguable, but Romney's statistic is about right — 49 percent of the U.S. population receive some kind of federal benefit, including Social Security and Medicare, according to the most recent Census Bureau data. Looking only at people who receive benefits that are based on financial need, such as food stamps, the portion is smaller — just over a third of the population. Many people get more than one type of benefit.
The biggest programs and their percentage of the U.S. population:
—Medicaid: 26 percent
—Social Security: 16 percent
—Food stamps: 16 percent
—Medicare: 15 percent
—Women, Infants and Children food program: 8 percent
___
THOSE WHO PAY NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX
What Romney said: "Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax."
Romney's about on target — 46 percent of U.S. households paid no federal income tax last year, according to a study by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Most do pay other federal taxes, including Medicare and Social Security withholding. And they're not all poor. Some middle-income and wealthy families escape income tax because of deductions, credits and investment tax preferences.
Why they don't pay:
—About half don't earn enough money for a household of their size to owe income tax. For example, a family of four earning less than $26,400 would owe no taxes using the standard exemptions and deductions.
—About 22 percent get tax breaks for senior citizens that offset their income.
—About 15 percent get tax breaks for the working poor or low-income parents.
—Almost 3 percent get tax breaks for college tuition or other education expenses.
Who they are:
—The vast majority have below-average earnings: Among all who don't owe, 9 out of 10 make $50,000 or less.
—But some of the wealthy escape taxes, including about 4,000 households earning more than $1 million a year.
___
 

Mitt Romney Macaca TRAP September 20-2012

It’s 864 miles from Boston, Mass., to Breaks, Va., but by one measurement—mine—a six-year old incident in that small town had a huge impact on the presidential prospects of the Massachusetts governor that still resonates today—to Mitt Romney’s distinct disadvantage.

As the 2006 midterm campaign began, Virginia Republican Senator George Allen seemed well on his way to a big re-election victory—the prelude to his all-but-certain campaign for president in 2008. Allen’s strong appeal to the Religious Right promised to provide him a huge advantage in Iowa, where more than half the Republican electorate is self-identified evangelicals.

Then, on Aug. 11, while campaigning in Breaks, Allen spied S.R. Sidarth, who was video recording Allen on behalf of his Democratic opponent, Jim Webb. Turning to Sidarth, Allen said:
“This fellow here over here with the yellow shirt, Macaca, or whatever his name is. He's with my opponent. Let's give a welcome to Macaca, here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia.”

While Allen later said he had simply made it up, “macaca” is a racially insulting term used by colonial whites in Northern Africa. (“Monkey” is the translation from the Portuguese.) The fact that Allen’s mother is of French Tunisian descent made it implausible that he had, by some incredible coincidence, made up the term.

The existence of YouTube meant that the video recorded by Sidarth became a permanent feature of the campaign coverage. That November, Allen lost his seat by less than one half of one percentage point—and with that loss, his presidential campaign disappeared.

For then-Governor Mitt Romney, who was preparing his own presidential campaign, Allen’s absence from the field seemed to open up a whole new opportunity. None of the other GOP prospects—New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Senator John McCain, former Senator Fred Thompson—had any special appeal to evangelicals, and Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee was virtually unknown, with no financial resources to speak of. With Romney’s enormous financial advantage, the thinking went, Romney could win in Iowa, capture his neighboring state of New Hampshire a week later, and effectively cinch the nomination in its opening weeks.

To do that, however, Romney would have to accelerate his efforts to move to the political Right. His essentially centrist moderate tenure as governor—pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control, pro-environmentalism—was always going to be a problem with the increasingly conservative base of the Republican Party. Had Senator Allen won his race and entered the presidential race, Romney might well have chosen the path that McCain took: skip Iowa and concentrate his efforts in New Hampshire, where evangelicals represents a far smaller element of the GOP. But with Iowa now a target of opportunity for Romney, his move Rightward became more like a lunge.

That has haunted him for six years.

It’s not just that the tactic failed as Huckabee leveraged his strong support among evangelicals to win the Iowa caucuses, and McCain reminded New Hampshire folks why they’d fallen in love with him in 2000.

It’s that Romney had to so completely redefine himself that it stamped him as a candidate who cannot tell us who he is and what he stands for. Despairing conservative pundits keep urging him to “tell America who you really are,” and it brings to mind Robert Kennedy in 1965 entreating New York mayoral candidate Abe Beam to “tell the voters why you want to be mayor!”—to which Beame replied: “Great—what do I say then?”

For me, Romney always seems in perpetual fear of saying the wrong thing, finding himself trapped between the governor he was, and the candidate he has been and still is. If my memory is correct, there has never been a moment when Romney has said to his party’s base, “I have a different view than you do about’’ about, well, anything, as Bill Clinton did on welfare and free trade, as George W. Bush did on the federal government’s role in education.

It may well be true that Romney running on his record in Massachusetts could not have won the Republican nomination in 2008, nor in 2012. But had Allen not uttered that infamous “macaca” phrase, Romney might well have had no choice. And it would, I believe, have made him a far more formidable candidate.

http://news.yahoo.com/mitt-romney-and-the-%E2%80%9Cmacaca%E2%80%9D-trap.html


 http://www.themudflats.net/?paged=4



Bad one or Two Weeks for Repubcan Mt Romney

 
 
Rather, Romney has had another bad week.
Prior to this week was the well received Democratic National Convention.
The week before was the less well received Republican National Convention, forever to be remembered by an address to an empty chair.
In the weeks prior to the conventions there was a lack luster response to Paul Ryan’s selection to the ticket and the sorting out of what it was in Paul Ryan’s record Romney was embracing and what he was rejecting.
There was a dizzying back and forth on Medicare, the budget and a woman’s ability to get an abortion after being raped. Little, if anything, was actually settled.
It should also be pointed out that the lackluster reaction to the Paul Ryan was on the Republican side as Democrats were overjoyed that Romney made it easy for Democrats to pin Republicans to the Ryan Budget.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/election.html


http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/09/17/mitt-romneys-terrible-week/

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Mitt Romney had Problem Stating his Opinion about the Poor Elegantly




Romney stands by comments in video but says they were ‘not elegantly stated’
COSTA MESA, Calif. — Mitt Romney held a hastily arranged press conference here to engage in damage control hours after a video surfaced that showed him at a private May fundraiser describing 47 percent of the country as “dependent upon the government.”
The GOP nominee for president defended his remarks — first printed in the liberal magazine Mother Jones — while conceding they were not “elegantly stated.”

I am sure I can state it more clearly and effectively than I did in a setting like that,” he told reporters assembled quickly at the Segerstrom Center for the Arts before attending a fundraiser.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81312.html#ixzz26tTr01Ob

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81312.html#ixzz26tTfgz3r



Mitt Romney total Contempt for the Poor Video Leak September 2012

video
 
Phoney Smile

Romney adviser Bay Buchanan on Tuesday declared that the release of leaked campaign videos showing the Republican presidential nominee writing off 47 percent of the country as "dependant" and "entitled" was just a "bump in the road."

In an edited video published by Mother Jones on Monday, Mitt Romney had told wealthy donors that almost half of the country "pay no income tax" and were going to vote for President Barack Obama.

"My job is is not to worry about those people," Romney asserted. "I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

On Tuesday, Buchanan had the unenviable task of trying to do damage control while being grilled by CNN host Soledad O'Brien.

"As a candidate, he can't worry about those he can't get," Buchanan explained, adding that the media should be focusing on "one out of every six Americans are in poverty today and that 47 million are taking food stamps in order to take care of themselves and their families."

"Listen, I fully understand the strategy is to turn to the 'real problem' and talk about something else, but I'm going to keep you on this," O'Brien said. "He says 47 percent of Americans pay no tax. That's not correct. ... Forty-seven percent of those people who pay no income tax -- look at that chart there -- 61 percent of those folks, they're paying payroll tax, and money is coming out of their paycheck. It's being described as the myth of sort of the deadbeat nation."

Mitt Romney NEW Leaked Video: Barack Obama Voters LAZY & POOR Freeloaders # 47%



1. "Corporations are people, my friend… of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People's pockets. Human beings, my friend." —Mitt Romney to a heckler at the Iowa State Fair who suggested that taxes should be raised on corporations as part of balancing the budget (August 2011)

2. "I like being able to fire people who provide services to me." –Mitt Romney, using an unfortunate choice of words while advocating for consumer choice in health insurance plans (January 2012)

3. "I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there." —Mitt Romney (January 2012)

4. "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. ... My job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." -Mitt Romney, in leaked comments from a fundraiser in May 2012

5. "It's hard to know just how well [the 2012 London Olympics] will turn out. There are a few things that were disconcerting. The stories about the private security firm not having enough people, the supposed strike of the immigration and customs officials, that obviously is not something which is encouraging." –Mitt Romney, insulting Britain on the eve of the Olympics by suggesting the country is not ready, NBC News interview, July 25, 2012

6. "He [Obama] says we need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It's time for us to cut back on government and help the American people." —Mitt Romney at a campaign event in Council Bluffs, Iowa, June 8, 2012

7. "I'll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry's come back." –Mitt Romney, –Mitt Romney, on the American auto industry, despite having written a New York Times op-ed in 2008 titled "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt," in which he said if GM, Ford and Chrysler got a government bailout "you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye"

8. "No one's ever asked to see my birth certificate. They know that this is the place that we were born and raised." —Mitt Romney, speaking about his Michigan roots during a rally in Commerce, Michigan, Aug. 24, 2012

9. "I should tell my story. I'm also unemployed." —Mitt Romney, speaking in 2011 to unemployed people in Florida. Romney's net worth is over $200 million.

10. "I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that's the America millions of Americans believe in. That's the America I love." –Mitt Romney (January 2012)

Bonus Quotes:

"My dad, as you probably know, was the governor of Michigan and was the head of a car company. But he was born in Mexico... and had he been born of, uh, Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot at winning this. But he was unfortunately born to Americans living in Mexico. He lived there for a number of years. I mean, I say that jokingly, but it would be helpful to be Latino." -Mitt Romney, in leaked comments from a fundraiser in May 2012

"The embassy in Cairo put out a statement after their grounds had been breached. ... An apology for America’s values is never the right course. ... The statement that came from the administration was — was a statement which is akin to apology and I think was a — a severe miscalculation." –Mitt Romney, attempting to politicize the killings of American diplomats in Libya by falsely accusing President Obama of apologizing for America and getting the facts of the situation backwards (Sept. 12, 2012)

"Is $100,000 middle income?" -George Stephanopoulos
"No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less." -Mitt Romney, ABC's "Good Morning America," Sept. 14, 2012

"When you give a speech you don't go through a laundry list, you talk about the things that you think are important." –Mitt Romney, when asked about failing to mention the troops in his nomination speech at the Republican National Convention, Fox News interview (Sept. 7, 2012)
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/mittromney/a/Mitt-Romney-Quotes.htm



 

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Mitt Romney and Obamacare Afordable National Health Plan



-- A Romney aide told the National Review that he does not support the Affordable Care Act's ban on discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions, despite suggesting on "Meet the Press" that he supported that part of the law.
Instead, the aide added, there has been no change in the Republican nominee's position. "[I]n a competitive environment, the marketplace will make available plans that include coverage for what there is demand for," the aide said. "He was not proposing a federal mandate to require insurance plans to offer those particular features."
Original Story Below:
WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney said on Sunday that if he were elected president he would keep portions of President Barack Obama's signature health care law, a seemingly abrupt turn on an early campaign promise.
"Well, I'm not getting rid of all of health care reform," the former Massachusetts governor said in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press." "Of course there are a number of things that I like in health care reform that I'm going to put in place. One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage. Two is to assure that the marketplace allows for individuals to have policies that cover their family up to whatever age they might like. I also want individuals to be able to buy insurance, health insurance, on their own as opposed to only being able to get it on a tax advantage basis through their company."
The comments mark the latest chapter in Romney's tortured history with respect to federal health care reform. The Republican presidential nominee once envisioned the health care plan he passed in Massachusetts as a model for the nation. As a candidate for president in 2012, however, he has pledged to repeal the entirety of Obama's Affordable Care Act, a law very much based on Romney's Mass-Care model.
In his "Meet the Press" interview, Romney again pledged repeal of the law. But the suggestion that he would pass some of its individual provisions later in his term complicates that pledge.
"I say we're going to replace Obamacare," Romney said. "And I'm replacing it with my own plan. And even in Massachusetts when I was governor, our plan there deals with pre-existing conditions and with young people."
While that may be true, the Romney campaign has said in the past his federal plan wouldn't include such a provision.
Earlier this election, his campaign laid out a policy that ensures that a person who is covered by an employer and switches jobs could not be discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition during that job switch. The Obama campaign argued that that's already law. But the bigger question left unanswered was: what happens to those people just entering the labor market with a pre-existing condition? Would Romney pass laws prohibiting discrimination by insurance companies against them?
In a statement to The Huffington Post in June, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul confirmed that -- contra what Romney said Sunday -- he would not pass such a law, but rather push reforms to help alleviate the problem at the state level:
Fixing our health care system means making sure that every American, regardless of their health care needs, can find quality, affordable coverage. That is why Governor Romney supports reforms to protect those with pre-existing conditions from being denied access to a health plan while they have continuous coverage. And for those purchasing insurance for the first time, he supports reforms that empower states to make high risk pools more accessible by using cost reducing methods like risk adjustment and reinsurance. Beginning on his first day in office, Governor Romney is committed to working with Congress to enact polices like these that protect Americans’ access to the care they need.

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Monday, September 10, 2012

Hustler's Larry Flynt Offers $1M Reward For Mitt Romney's Tax Returns

Hustler publisher Larry Flynt has offered $1 million for information about Mitt Romney’s tax returns and off-shore assets.

According to The Wrap, Flynt bought two full-page ads in The Washington Post and USA Today this week, offering “up to a million dollars in cash” for Romney’s “tax returns and/or details of his offshore assets, bank accounts and business partnerships.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnclarke/2012/09/08/hustlers-larry-flynt-offers-1m-reward-for-mitt-romneys-tax-returns/

Why Mitt Romney Avoids Paying Full Taxes Cayman Island

Mitt Romney's income taxes have become a major issue in the American presidential campaign. Is this just petty politics, or does it really matter? In fact, it does matter – and not just for Americans.

A major theme of the underlying political debate in the United States is the role of the state and the need for collective action. The private sector, while central in a modern economy, cannot ensure its success alone. For example, the financial crisis that began in 2008 demonstrated the need for adequate regulation.

Moreover, beyond effective regulation (including ensuring a level playing field for competition), modern economies are founded on technological innovation, which in turn presupposes basic research funded by government. This is an example of a public good – things from which we all benefit, but that would be under-supplied (or not supplied at all) were we to rely on the private sector.

Conservative politicians in the US underestimate the importance of publicly provided education, technology, and infrastructure. Economies in which government provides these public goods perform far better than those in which it does not.

But public goods must be paid for, and it is imperative that everyone pays their fair share. While there may be disagreement about what that entails, those at the top of the income distribution who pay 15% of their reported income (money accruing in tax shelters in the Cayman Islands and other tax havens may not be reported to US authorities) clearly are not paying their fair share.

There is an old adage that a fish rots from the head. And if no one does, how can we expect to finance the public goods that we need?

Democracies rely on a spirit of trust and co-operation in paying taxes. If every individual devoted as much energy and resources as the rich do to avoiding their fair share of taxes, the tax system either would collapse, or would have to be replaced by a far more intrusive and coercive scheme. Both alternatives are unacceptable.

More broadly, a market economy could not work if every contract had to be enforced through legal action. But trust and co-operation can survive only if there is a belief that the system is fair. Recent research has shown that a belief that the economic system is unfair undermines both co-operation and effort. Yet, increasingly, Americans are coming to believe that their economic system is unfair; and the tax system is emblematic of that sense of injustice.



The billionaire investor Warren Buffett argues that he should pay only the taxes that he must, but that there is something fundamentally wrong with a system that taxes his income at a lower rate than his secretary is required to pay. He is right. Romney might be forgiven were he to take a similar position. Indeed, it might be a Nixon-in-China moment: a wealthy politician at the pinnacle of power advocating higher taxes for the rich could change the course of history.

But Romney has not chosen to do so. He evidently does not recognise that a system that taxes speculation at a lower rate than hard work distorts the economy. Indeed, much of the money that accrues to those at the top is what economists call rents, which arise not from increasing the size of the economic pie, but from grabbing a larger slice of the existing pie.



Those at the top include a disproportionate number of monopolists who increase their income by restricting production and engaging in anti-competitive practices; CEOs who exploit deficiencies in corporate-governance laws to grab a larger share of corporate revenues for themselves (leaving less for workers); and bankers who have engaged in predatory lending and abusive credit-card practices (often targeting poor and middle-class households). It is perhaps no accident that rent-seeking and inequality have increased as top tax rates have fallen, regulations have been eviscerated, and enforcement of existing rules has been weakened: the opportunity and returns from rent-seeking have increased.



Today, a deficiency of aggregate demand afflicts almost all advanced countries, leading to high unemployment, lower wages, greater inequality, and – coming full, vicious circle – constrained consumption. There is now a growing recognition of the link between inequality and economic instability and weakness.

There is another vicious circle: economic inequality translates into political inequality, which in turn reinforces the former, including through a tax system that allows people like Romney – who insists that he has been subject to an income-tax rate of "at least 13%" for the last 10 years – not to pay their fair share. The resulting economic inequality – a result of politics as much as market forces – contributes to today's overall economic weakness.

Romney may not be a tax evader; only a thorough investigation by the US Internal Revenue Service could reach that conclusion. But, given that the top US marginal income-tax rate is 35%, he certainly is a tax avoider on a grand scale. And, of course, the problem is not just Romney; writ large, his level of tax avoidance makes it difficult to finance the public goods without which a modern economy cannot flourish.

But, even more important, tax avoidance on Romney's scale undermines belief in the system's fundamental fairness, and thus weakens the bonds that hold a society together.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/economics-blog/2012/sep/03/mitt-romney-tax-avoidance-society

Sunday, September 9, 2012

Anti-Liberals Web Site

http://liberalshateus.com/

Mitt Romney in Kettle November-6-2012

Mitt Romney in Kettle

Despite being overshadowed by a bizarre Clint Eastwood performance and Hurricane Isaac hitting Florida and New Orleans, Mitt Romney managed to make some progress with the American public at the Republican convention last week. But was it enough?
On the eve of the convention, Romney was four points behind Barack Obama nationally and behind the President in all but one of the thirteen personal characteristics we polled on. Following a prolonged and brutal primary campaign, Romney had to use the convention to formally introduce himself to the nation (and not just Republican primary voters). Republicans had one clear aim for the convention, to make Romney seem more "human", more in touch with average Americans and more likeable. Our Ipsos daily convention polling for Reuters in the US shows that in that respect at least, Romney and the Republicans succeeded.
The tone of the Convention was set by the candidate’s wife, Ann Romney, on the opening day of the convention, who told the audience and the millions watching that she didn’t want to talk about "politics or policy" but wanted to focus on "love" and her "American family" with Romney. She went on to explain why she fell in love with the man she met at a high school dance … because he made her laugh. To followers of British politics this may sound trivial, but in Presidential politics, where electors are voting specifically for a candidate to the top job, strategists believe it is very important. It also seems to be seeping into British politics – remember Sarah Brown? The Ipsos/Reuters poll released on Day One of the convention, which showed that just 26% of registered voters thought Romney was likeable, compared with 54% for Obama, highlighted the problem for the Republican candidate.
Romney’s own speech had its fair share of campaign promises and attacks on President Obama, but it carefully interweaved these with stories about his family (he is a father of five and a grandfather to 18) and "American families", his own struggles and success. Following on from his wife’s speech he spoke about the importance of love, the inspiration and lessons he has drawn on from his parents – he even joked about having better music on his iPod than his running mate Paul Ryan. The stand out section of his speech on family life is repeated below which Tim Stanley in the Telegraph described thus: "On the page it probably reads as clichéd. But in person – coming from dull old Mitt and delivered in a voice that quivered with emotion – it was a revelation".
Mom and Dad were married 64 years. And if you wondered what their secret was, you could have asked the local florist – because every day Dad gave Mom a rose, which he put on her bedside table. That's how she found out what happened on the day my father died – she went looking for him because that morning, there was no rose.
Romney also made a direct – and obvious - appeal to women, perhaps trying to counter the accusations that Republicans are waging a "War on Women" with proposals for anti-abortion legislation among other things[1]. The former Governor of Massachusetts quoted his own mother in asking "Why should women have any less say than men, about the great decisions facing our nation?"
So did it work? Romney’s likeability rating went from 26% on day one to 32% at the end of the Convention. A relative success. He also saw improvements in his ratings as eloquent and will protect American jobs (both up five points) as well as: a good person, represents America, has the right values (all up four points).
However, despite these image boosts, among all likely voters Romney and Obama were level pegging, both on 45% of the vote. Candidates are expected to receive bounces after their conventions, and seven days after the beginning of the Republican convention Romney had still not moved ahead of his opponent. With the Democrats gathering in North Carolina this week, the President can expect his own bpunce, once again establishing a small lead in the national polls. There are three Presidential debates scheduled for the 2012 campaign, the first being on 3 October. These are the only remaining scheduled potential game changing moments left in the race for the White House.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/romney-running-out-time-turn-us-election-around

Sunday, September 2, 2012

Mitt Romney Tsunami on Poor People

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/aug2012/romn-a31.shtml

Romney outlines right-wing agenda in acceptance speech


Mitt Romney officially accepted the Republican Party’s nomination for president on Thursday evening, in a speech before the national convention in Tampa, Florida. The speech concluded a three-day convention during which the Republicans put on display the right-wing program upon which they are campaigning.

The Republican platform is significant not simply for what it says about the party—a deeply reactionary organization—but the entire American political system. Amid the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s, the ruling class, represented by both big business parties, is moving to escalate attacks on the working class.

In terms of policy, the main focus of the Republican campaign is the “economy”—i.e., demands for further corporate deregulation, the elimination of all constraints on profit-making, and the dismantling of Medicare and other social programs to further enrich the financial aristocracy. The Obama administration has pursued these policies over the past four years, and the Republicans are working to shift the political debate even further to the right.

Romney, a former CEO of an asset-stripping firm with a personal fortune of some $200 million, cynically expressed his concern for high levels of unemployment, declining wages, and record poverty. This comes from a candidate who personifies Wall Street speculation and is on record declaring that he is “not concerned about poor people.”

To supposedly address the economic crisis, Romney outlined a five-point program that includes: the ending of restrictions on energy corporations; “school choice,” i.e., the further dismantling and privatization of public education; a harder line on China and other competitors of US capitalism; a massive program of austerity; and the reduction of taxes on businesses.

Romney repeated Republican calls for repealing and replacing “Obamacare,” the health care reform that the current administration initiated to cut health care costs for business and corporations. Invoking the specter of Greece, where austerity measures dictated by the banks have thrown the country into Depression-level conditions of poverty and unemployment, Romney said: “We will cut the deficits and put America on the path to a balanced budget.”

In his speech on Wednesday, vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan elaborated on this theme, declaring, “In this generation, a defining responsibility of government is to steer our nation clear of a debt crisis while there is still time.” He called for limiting federal spending to 20 percent of GDP, which will require massive cuts to social programs—in fact, the virtual elimination of non-defense discretionary spending.

Neither Romney nor Ryan spelled out the devastating impact their proposals would have on Medicare. Instead, they have criticized the Obama administration over its $700 billion in cuts to the health program for the elderly, claiming that their alternative will “save” Medicare. This involves the transformation of the program into a subsidy for private insurance—a program that is, in fact, similar to Obamacare’s own “universal” health care, in that it requires individuals to purchase insurance from private firms.

Little was said by Romney on foreign policy, aside from a brief attempt to outflank Obama on the right in support for Israel and hostility to Iran and Russia.

The New York Times pointed to the basic unanimity between the two parties on the expansion of American militarism, writing: “For decades, starting after the Vietnam War, the Republicans were able to present themselves as the tougher party on foreign and military policy. Mr. Obama has robbed them of that by being aggressive on counterterrorism and by flexing military and diplomatic muscle more successfully than President George W. Bush.”

A notable feature of Romney’s speech and of the entire convention was the heavy dose of identity politics, particularly Romney’s insistence that he favored greater access for women to positions of power and privilege. “Half of my cabinet and senior officials were women,” he said, “and in business, I mentored and supported great women leaders who went on to run great companies.” Amid ever greater social inequality, such appeals have become an institutional element of American politics, not limited to the Democratic Party.

In general, if the Republicans can present themselves as offering something better for the American people, it is because of the record of the Obama administration, which has been one of complete subordination to the dictates of the financial aristocracy. If anything can be said to be true in Romney’s remarks, it is his comment that “You know there’s something wrong with the kind of job [Obama has] done as president when the best feeling you had was the day you voted for him.”

To the extent that such comments resonate, it only underscores the complete disconnect of the entire political system from the aspirations of masses of people.

Apart from this, Romney’s speech, like the convention as a whole, was filled with the vacuous sophisms and insipid rhetoric that are universal in American politics. The speech was broken up by chants of “USA! USA!” from the assembled gathering of right-wing delegates, the semi-fascistic detritus of American capitalism.

The initial media reaction was to praise Romney’s remarks, declaring it a “defining” speech, even “the best of Romney’s career.” The festival of reaction that is the Republican National Convention is thus presented as some sort of great and legitimate component of the American “political debate.”

The Republican convention is to be followed next week by the Democratic Party Convention—at which a somewhat different, though no less thorough, lying will be on display.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/09/mitt-romney-franciscan-friars-poor_n_1760580.html


WASHINGTON-- The Franciscan Action Network (FAN), a Catholic faith-based advocacy and civic engagement organization, is strongly criticizing Mitt Romney's recent ads and rhetoric regarding welfare programs and welfare recipients, urging him to spend some time in low-income communities.
"Our Christian tradition teaches that we are to treat the poor with dignity and to prioritize the poor in our policies as a society," the organization said in a press release on Thursday. "At a time when millions are struggling financially, it is degrading to talk about the 'dependency' of people hurting in this economy, as Gov. Romney did recently."
Rhett Engelking, a secular Franciscan in Milwaukee and member of FAN, has even personally invited Romney to visit with the low-income people he assists. “Political leaders would not talk about the poor in demeaning ways or cut job training programs if they spent more time with the people they are affecting with their policies," he said.
While faith-based anti-poverty and charity organizations have often criticized candidates and lawmakers for a perceived unwillingness to highlight and tackle issues affecting the very poor, FAN claims Romney's rhetoric goes a step further, unfairly using welfare recipients as political props.
FAN spokesman Lonnie Ellis told The Huffington Post that what Romney is doing is "worse than ignoring" poor people. He said Romney is essentially criticizing President Barack Obama for helping out low-income individuals. "It's saying look, 'President Obama is actually supporting poor people too much, or he's just giving a free ride to poor people,'" Ellis said. "So it's actually using poor people in a really bad way."
FAN's criticism, however, goes beyond the Romney campaign's rhetoric on welfare by condemning cuts to Pell Grants, Medicaid and Head Start programs put forth in the budget proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and supported by Romney.
“With the political conversation now on ensuring that low-income people are working, the most blatant affront is that the Romney-Ryan Budget actually cuts job training programs for low-income people,” FAN Executive Director Patrick Carolan said in a statement.
The Romney campaign could not immediately be reached for comment.
While many Catholic groups have generally been supportive of Romney and Republicans on social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage, FAN joins several other prominent Catholic organizations in their harsh criticism of the Romney campaign's stance on welfare and the Ryan budget.
As ThinkProgress reported, NETWORK, a Catholic social justice advocacy group, has supported the national "Nuns On A Bus" tour, which is aimed at highlighting the negative effects of Ryan's proposed cuts, and invited Romney to spend a day with Catholic nuns helping the poor in their communities.
In April, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote a series of letters to congressional lawmakers criticizing the Ryan budget, saying that fair budget solutions "must require shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and fairly addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs."
"The House-passed budget resolution," the Bishops said in the letter, "fails to meet these moral criteria."