Democrats Would Rather Be Talking About Romney’s Taxes than Obama’s Record? Really?
August 6, 2012
Following two weeks of Democrats, Reporters and even many Republicans asking, “Why won’t Mitt Romney just release his taxes?”, the Romney camp is left with no choice (since actually releasing his taxes is out of the question) but to accuse the accusers of trying to distract you from the REAL issue: “President Obama’s failed economic record”. On Friday, the latest jobs report was released Friday showing that the economy created 172,000 new jobs last month. 9,000 public sector jobs were cut for a net of just 163,000 jobs. That’s nearly 100,000 more jobs than were created last month, and well over the 110,000 needed monthly just to keep up with population growth. It’s also completely and totally without ANY help from the GOP controlled Congress (yes, Democrats hold the Senate, but by making every vote of substance require 60 votes just to pass, the Senate minority has ensured that virtually no economic bills pass.) Despite the good jobs numbers… or more accurately BECAUSE of it, more long-term unemployed, suddenly more optimistic about their chances of finding a job, poured back into the labor market, pushing unemployment up from 8.2% to 8.3%. Well, actually, that’s rounded up from “8.254%”. But I’m not here to nit-pick a tenth of a point. Republicans are in full-stop panic mode, unable to explain why Romney won’t just release his taxes and prove that all his critics (at the very least) don’t know what they’re talking about or (at best) are flat-out “liars”. As Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz so simply put it on yesterday’s Face the Nation, “Romney could shut everybody up in ten seconds by just releasing the 23-years worth of returns he gave John McCain, or even 12 years like his father did.” I mean, how sweet would it be if you’re one of Romney’s defenders, to prove all his critics dead wrong and expose them all as “liars” if Mitt would simply just release his tax returns? But they can’t because he won’t. He can’t. Which just leaves them with three pathetic defenses that aren’t fooling anyone: 1) “If he releases 10, they’ll want 12.” 2) “He paid his taxes, trust us.” and 3) “Democrats are just trying to distract you from Obama’s failed economy.” None of those arguments hold water. Here’s why:
Taking them in order, 1) President Obama has released 11 years of returns. Romney could release the same number and no one could ask for more without looking as hypocritical as Romney. Even better, he could one-up Obama by releasing twelve years like his father did, then turn the tables on Obama and ask, “Why did he stop at 11?” If people are always going to “ask for more”, why not have Obama be the one they’re asking?
2) “He paid his taxes, trust us.” The Romney camp (and the media) have repeatedly played the clip of an indignant Romney responding to Harry Reid’s accusations that “he [Romney] hasn’t paid ANY taxes in ten years!”, saying it’s “an outright lie” that he hasn’t paid ANY taxes. “I’ve paid a lot in taxes!”, insists Romney, careful not to differentiate “state & local” taxes (for which there are no exemptions) from “Federal Income” taxes… which is what Reid meant. RNC Chairman Reince Prebus (“RNC-PR-BS” with vowels removed) called Harry Reid “a dirty liar” and a “hypocrite” for not releasing his own taxes on ABC’s “ThisWeek” yesterday because: “We know just from the [one] return Romney did release [2010] that he paid $3-Million dollars in taxes”. Of course, that’s his taxes just for the one year he WANTED us to see, after he knew he’d be running for president again (Romney may have done the same in 2007, but since he failed to win the nomination, he never reached the point where he felt he had to release his taxes), where he didn’t take advantage of every loophole known to man, pulled some money out of a few overseas tax shelters, and gave big to “charity” (ie: “The Mormon Church”), and yet STILL paid less than the 15% he’d pay if he earned all of his money just off Capital Gains.
On last Friday’s Rachel Maddow Show, Rachel documented all the times Romney himself pulled a “Harry Reid”, demanding others to release THEIR taxes while refusing to release his own:
In his 1994 Senate race against Ted Kennedy, Romney demanded Kennedy release his taxes even though Mitt had not released his own. When Romney was asked about this apparent inconsistency, he said, “I will when Ted does.” Kennedy never released his returns, so neither did Mitt.
Then in his 2002 bid for Governor, even though his Democratic opponent Shannon O’Brien had released five years of her own taxes, Romney pointed out that her husband had not released his taxes. Romney’s then (and now) campaign manager Eric “Etch-a-Sketch” Fehrnstrom even asked, “What is she trying to hide?”, when it was pointed out at the debate that Romney himself had not released his taxes, he brought up Kennedy again, saying Kennedy refused to release his taxes on “privacy” grounds, “He was right and I was wrong” (so O’Brien’s husband didn’t have that same privacy right?), and again repeated his challenge that if Kennedy… his opponent from eight years before… were to release his taxes, then he would. Neither ever did.
Romney responded to Reid by criticizing his “anonymous source”, saying Reid should “put up or shut up”. Of course, that would settle nothing because the Romney Camp would simply just call the source a liar anyway. No, the simplest solution… the one that would prove Reid wrong without question… would be for Romney to just release his returns. “He could do that in ten seconds”, said Wasserman-Schultz on Sunday. And what great incentive: expose Reid as a “liar” making false claims based upon a rumor from an untrustworthy source. No one would ever trust Reid again. That’s just too sweet a deal to pass up… if it were a lie. But the fact Mitt won’t do that only seems to suggest Harry is right. Whatever the case may be, George Will was right when he surmised that, “Whatever is in those returns has to be worse than all the rumors and negative press he’s receiving over them or he’d just release them.” But he won’t. He can’t.
(ADDENDUM: Someone pointed out recently that John McCain has seen Romney’s tax returns, yet has not rushed to Romney’s defense or called Harry Reid a “liar”.)
Two weeks ago, I surmised myself that when we find out Romney paid “No taxes”, will anyone remember all the Right-Wing outrage last year over a report claiming “[almost] half of all Americans paid no [Federal Income] taxes last year”? Republican Strategist Ed Rollins on Fox “news” Sunday yesterday pointed out that, “the top 20% pay 94% of all incomes taxes in this country.” (Rollins didn’t bother to point out that that’s because they also control 94% of all the wealth). Wonder what Rollins and all those Republicans defending Romney will have to say when we find out Romney is one of those people who didn’t pay any Income Taxes either? Kiss another Romney defense down the toilet if he releases his returns.
But primarily, #3) the idea Democrats are talking about Romney’s taxes because they’re “trying to change the subject” from Obama’s economic record, is just silly. This, after a great jobs reports that shows more people have rejoined the workforce, if not working then optimistic about their chances now of finding a job. Republicans have been desperately running around this past week telling everyone that the President “can’t run on his [economic] record” because he hasn’t been able to turn the economy around. Really? Let’s look at the facts:
In October of 2009, nine months into his presidency and the end of the last Bush Budget, unemployment peaked at 10.0%. By April of this year, unemployment had fallen to 8.1%… that’s a decline of nearly TWO FULL POINTS in just over a year-and-a-half. And without a lick of help from the GOP Controlled Congress. That’s pretty incredible. I went back and checked. The last time unemployment fell that far that quickly was under St. Ronnie, when unemployment fell from 10.8% in the middle of his first term to 8.8% ten months later following a public-sector firing freeze and the largest tax hike of the past 50 years. And Reagan didn’t have anywhere’s NEAR as deep a hole to climb out of as President Obama did.
As I said repeatedly and wrote about one month ago, the GOP desperately needs you to forget that the last election wasn’t 2008. It was 2010, following a Republican landslide where they promised that if you put them in charge, they’d “focus like a laser” on “jobs, jobs, jobs”. And now, 19 months later, with unemployment “stuck above 8-percent”, they say you need to “vote Republican” and put THEM back in charge because President Obama’s policies have failed. “It’s all his fault! Don’t blame us! Blame the guy that blames everyone but himself!”
Sorry Republicans, but an economy that’s growing despite unprecedented GOP obstruction, unemployment falling nearly two full points in just under a year-and-a-half, you should be thrilled this president isn’t out there reminding everyone what miserable failures this do nothing Congress has been thus far. This is more YOUR economy, GOP, than it’s President Obama’s. If I were him, I’d be reminding everyone of these facts day & night between now and the election. #JobsJobsJobs.
ADDENDUM: This exchange took place last Sunday between former PA Gov Ed Rendell and Florida Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, putting to rest the nonsense Talking Point that President Obama has been avoiding talking about the economy. I didn’t have a clip or link at the time. Here it is now:
Rendell does push back on the idea that Obama is not talking about the economy, but sadly, he allows Diaz to get away with a slew of other ridiculous Right-Wing Talking Points. Most notably, the claim, “Gas is nearly twice as expensive now as the day Obama took office.” Before Bush, gas had NEVER been above $2/gal before. And by July of his last year, it was up over $4/gal. Yes, the price of gas in January of ’09 was almost half what it is now, but that’s only because THE ECONOMY COLLAPSED after the price of gas TRIPPLED under Bush. Is THAT their prescription for “economic recovery”? To attack President Obama on “gas prices” is the most disingenuous Talking Point there is (just above growth of the Debt/Deficit), and letting them get away with it is unforgivable.
| Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online! |
||
|
|
||
 |
Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! | |
August 6, 2012
· 
Admin Mugsy · 
3 Comments - Add
Posted in: Economy, Election, Jobs, Money, Politics, Seems Obvious to Me, Taxes
Pennsylvania: Ground Zero in Voter ID Nightmare. The numbers are chilling. (Updated)
July 30, 2012
In the 2000 election, the “must-win” swing state was Florida. In 2004, it was Ohio. In 2008, that do-or-die must-win swing state was Pennsylvania. On election night 2008, even though the night was only half over, I already knew it was over the moment it was announced Barack Obama had won Pennsylvania’s 21 electoral votes, because by that point, there was no longer any clear path to victory for McCain (Obama was so far ahead, he could have lost Florida and still won the election). And because of that, since then, the GOP has been pushing the most Draconian “Voter I.D.” legislation in the country in Pennsylvania. Republicans have been able to do so since taking control of the Pennsylvania State Legislature in 2010, coupled with their existing control of the governorship by the incredibly offensive Gov. John Corbett and his appointment of Republican “Secretary of State” (they call it a “Commonwealth”) Carol Aichele.
If you aren’t aware of what’s going on in Pennsylvania right now regarding their “Voter ID” efforts, you’re easily forgiven since the story is not being carried on your evening news, and has thus far enjoyed a total media blackout on the Sunday politi-talk shows.
In every state, it is the duty of the “Secretary of State” to manage the elections process. SoS’s are not elected, they’re appointed by the Governor, and just as in 2000 with Florida’s “Katherine Harris” (who slobbered over Governor Bush like a dog in heat), and Ohio’s “Ken Blackwell” in 2004 (honorary co-chair of the Ohio Committee to re-elect George Bush), this year, Pennsylvania’s SoS is a hard Right Republican named Carol Aichele. This is what Aichele had to say to protesters last week protesting the number of people that would be disenfranchised by the new “Voter ID” program called “PennDoT”, which requires registered voters without a valid government issued photo ID to travel to their local DMV to get one:
Pennsylvania Secretary of State Carol Aichele had a message for the hundreds of people gathered at the State Capitol yesterday to rally against voter ID laws: “Go home” and find ways to make their fellow citizens comply with the state’s controversial law.
Estimated number of people without a “valid” form of government-issued photo ID in Pennsylvania: “1.3 Million” (or 14.4% of the population [ibid: Aichele to protesters]). Estimated number of those 1.3-Million that are currently Registered Voters? Over 758,000. EVEN the PA-SoS’s office estimated “only 1%” of ALL Registered Voters in PA do not have a valid government issued photo ID. That’s 88 THOUSAND registered voters. I remind you that 2004 was decided by 118,000 votes (2%) in Ohio, and a mere 363 votes in Florida in 2000.
Yes, “Go home” and start giving rides to 758,000 registered voters (or 88-thousand if you prefer Aichele’s own estimate). You’ve got a bus handy, right? And just who are these people without a valid ID? Seniors that no longer travel on their own, college students that don’t drive, poor people that take public transportation, even recently married/divorced women in the midst of changing their last name. And even if you HAVE one of the generally accepted forms of ID, they STILL may not accept it.
Last month, Pennsylvania GOP House Leader Mike Turzai made headlines when he openly admitted what we all knew: the reason they want the new Pennsylvania Voter ID law so badly is because it’s “gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.”
I don’t think you can get any more blatant than that.
The Pennsylvania Secretary of State’s office has a “helpful” page on their website all about the new “PennDoT” voter ID program:
(Click to enlarge)
Just one problem: That “Espanol” link at the top for information about PA’s new “Voter ID” law… HASN’T WORKED IN MONTHS (ever?), and as of this writing, still does absolutely nothing when you click it. Hmmm.
Of course, Aichele’s office assures you (in the English version at least) that “no Registered voter will be denied the right to vote on election day if they don’t have an acceptable ID with them. Those people will be given “a provisional ballot” (the kind that only get counted if the race is close or contested).
The English language pdf on obtaining a DoS issued “Voter ID Card” states that they won’t be available until “the last week of August”. Not sure when Early Voting begins in PA, but a mere 8 weeks for 3/4 of a Million Registered voters to make arrangement to get to their nearest DMV (on a day it’s open) just so they can obtain a state-issued photo ID to guard against nonexistent “voter fraud”, seems a tad unreasonable. Some stats:
Number of persons convicted of voter fraud in Pennsylvania since the year 2004: 4
Number of persons convicted of attempting to vote pretending to be someone he or she was not since 2004: ZERO.
Approximate number of Pennsylvania voters who do not have a valid PA driver’s license yet are otherwise eligible to vote: 700,000.
This is a solution in search of a problem where none is to be found. Keep in mind that the people LEAST likely to be able to take time off from work to spend all morning at the DMV just to get a free Voter ID (though there are reports of some people being charged for their ID) just so they can do what they’ve already been doing for decades without incident, are going to be The Poor, mostly black or Hispanic, who overwhelmingly vote Democratic. In order to qualify for a free “PennDoT” Voter ID, you must provide proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate. And even that is no guarantee. The state just decertified the birth certificates of 120,000 Puerto Ricans living in Pennsylvania. I’m not kidding. This is not an accident. The only “Voter fraud” going on here is the attempted wholesale disenfranchisement of more than 5 million poor & minority voters across the country.
Recently, the PA governors’ office released “a list” that “wildly overstates” the number of “ineligible” voters on the voting roles. The Philli Enquirer newspaper found a number of problems with that Pennsylvania list:
Former Philadelphia Mayor W. Wilson Goode is on the list as not having PennDot ID. He has had a Pennsylvania driver’s license for 50 years.
Goode’s son City Councilman W. Wilson Goode Jr. is also on the list. So are four of his Council colleagues – Dennis O’Brien, Brian O’Neill, Maria Quiñones Sánchez, and Marian Tasco. All have licenses.
In addition to the stated problem with people who use different first names on different documents, it appears the state’s computers had problems distinguishing names containing spaces, like Mary Ellen, or Van Dyke; names with hyphens, like Olivia Newton-John; and names that computers sometimes spell with spaces, like Mc Dougall.
In Philadelphia alone, more than 10,000 people whose names begin with “Mc” were listed as not having PennDot ID. They included state Supreme Court Justice Seamus P. McCaffery, a driver whose name is spelled Mc Caffery on the city’s voter rolls.Names with apostrophes, like O’Brien and O’Neill, were especially troublesome because PennDot’s computer system doesn’t use apostrophes, according to David Burgess, a Department of State deputy secretary in charge of computer operations.
The Inquirer tested the state’s list by making random calls to registered voters in Philadelphia who were at least 80 years old. The demographic was chosen to gauge the impact of the law on would-be voters who might have the most difficulty getting to PennDot license centers to obtain photo ID.
A team of Inquirer reporters placed calls to 325 of those older voters listed as lacking PennDot ID. Out of 101 people interviewed, 76 said they already had PennDot identification, despite being on the state’s list. That’s 75 percent.
This is appalling. Unlike in Florida and Texas where their “Voter ID” bills could legally be challenged/blocked by the Federal Government, they have no such power over PA. Why? Because Southern states like Texas & Florida with a history of racial voter discrimination are subject to the 1964 Voting Rights Act. Pennsylvania is not, making it a ripe target for the GOP.
Since the Federal government does not have jurisdiction, it has fallen to The ACLU to challenge the new law in court on behalf of Viviette Applewhite, a 93-year-old great-great grandmother who marched with Martin Luther King Jr.. Ms.Applewhite, a housekeeper that never had a drivers license, recently had her purse stolen with her Social Security card in it. Adopted and twice married, proving Ms. Applewhite’s identity sufficiently to obtain a Voter ID card would be complicated and expensive… and totally unnecessary since the state has conceded in her case that there “have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania” (ibid ACLU). Nor will they “offer any evidence that in-person voter fraud has in fact occurred in Pennsylvania and elsewhere” or even argue that “in-person voter fraud is likely to occur in November.”
For a Party so big on “The Constitution”, citizen rights, and fearing an obtrusive “Big Government” that “can’t do anything right”, they sure seem awfully quick to trust the government here… at least when that government is run by Republicans and the payoff is theft of the White House.
Postscript: If you missed the “Opening Ceremonies” of the 2012 London Olympics Friday night, you missed an eleven-minute tribute to the NHS (“National Health Service”)… the British Socialized health care system… as one of their proudest accomplishments:
So the next time some wingnut tries to tell you how much the British hate their Marxists/Socialists/Commie government-run health care system, you now have photographic proof that they’re full of $#it.
(ADDENDUM: ThinkProgress reports, “Why Pennsylvania’s Voter ID Law Will Create Chaos On Election Day”. As they point out, the state is dumping the burden of providing all these ID’s in just two months time on the state’s DMV [“PennDoT”] at the same time they’ve slashed the number of Public employees to the lowest percentage in the nation.)
(ADDENDUM 2: The August 2nd Rachel Maddow Show provided a thorough examination of looming election chaos in Ohio this year, as the GOP’s “solution” to the long lines in 2004/2008 was to CUT the number of Early Voting days by three and exact severe “Voter ID” restrictions of their own:)
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
(UPDATE 8/16/2012 – Judge Upholds Pennsylvania Voter ID Law; Opponents To Appeal. – Judge says he considered partisan motivations and deemed it irrelevant.)
| Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online! |
||
|
|
||
|
Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! | |
July 30, 2012
· Admin Mugsy · No Comments - Add
Posted in: Crime, Election, Healthcare, myth busting, Politics, Right-wing Facism, voting
Graphic: “Mr. Romney’s Holiday”
July 27, 2012
Couldn’t sit on this till next Monday. After hearing people on the radio this morning comparing Romney to Britain’s famed “Mr. Bean” (popular British TV character that gets into trouble doing foolish things), I got a bug to re-create this movie poster in honor of Mitt’s gaffe-fest in London yesterday:
(click to enlarge)
(Probably should have used “Mr. Bain” but was concerned not everyone would get the allusion to “Mr. Bean”. Maybe Monday.)
Took ill last weekend. Next op/ed is Monday. Till then, Enjoy!
July 27, 2012
· Admin Mugsy · No Comments - Add
Posted in: Election, General, Politics
When we find Romney paid no taxes, will we remember last years RW outrage over people paying “No” taxes? (UPDATED)
July 20, 2012
Last Monday, I surmised that one of the likely reasons Romney refuses to release his tax returns is because we would discover that there were times the multi-multi-millionaire paid NOTHING in income taxes. With each passing day, I become more certain that will be the result (in addition to learning he is FAR richer that we already know). Mitt’s wife Ann has been making the rounds lately, and with all the obliviousness of Marie Antoinette, is repeating her husbands’ claim they they have “given all the information you peons people need to know.” We’ll see how long THAT lasts. Once the truth gets out, how does Mitt then continue to make the case The Rich are paying “too much” and need a massive tax CUT to encourage them to create jobs? It’s basically THE VERY FOUNDATION OF CONSERVATISM that “tax cuts spur job growth”. Take that off the table, and what are they left with? Abortion? Immigration?
But then I remembered… just over a year ago, Republicans were aghast by a report from “the non-partisan Tax Policy Center” stating that “47% of Americans households will pay no Federal Income taxes” (the earliest reference to the report I could find was this October 2009 report on “CNN Money”). Outraged, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) took to the floor of Congress in 2011 to decry the fact that “More than half of U.S. Households did not pay any income taxes in 2009″, and Teanut Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) also decried, “Fifty-one percent — that is, a majority of American households — paid no income tax in 2009. Zero. Zip. Nada.”
“Newsmax”, the Right-wing “outrage-machine” masquerading as “news”, repeated Hatch’s claim, followed by Democrats noting that the Poor DO pay taxes, which Newsmax countered with a quote from Hatch’s Finance Committee co-chair noted DINO Max Baucus-(D MT): “The question shouldn’t be what kind of taxes people pay, but whether every American is paying his or her fair share“.
Fox blowhard-supreme Sean Hannity, who never let the facts get in the way of a good argument, helped stoke the fires of Right-Wing outrage by falsely claiming 50 percent of households “don’t pay taxes”… something the original report never claimed (only “Federal income” taxes).
Following the report, Conservative blogger/blowhard Erick Erickson of “RedState.com” smugly responded to the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd’s claim of “we are the 99%” by creating a website entitled “We Are the 53 Percent”, claiming “the 53% is subsidizing the 47%” that paid “no” taxes.
The 2009 report was such a huge story on the Right that as recently as last February, Fox Nation was still reporting it as “news” (following a 2012 update by Heritage still using figures from their own 2010 report.)
Of course, the fact that ALL of those “freeloaders” living in poverty DO pay some taxes (state/local/FICA, etc) was irrelevant. The very IDEA that so many people (are so poor that they) pay NO Federal Income Taxes was an affront to their idea that you must pay taxes to be a contributing member of society, and those who don’t are leeches.
DailyKOS produced a detailed takedown of the “50% pay no taxes” myth last year, noting only in passing that “4.5% of the tax breaks” that allow some people to get away with paying “NO income taxes” are for the wealthy, and ergo will never be repealed (nor even criticized) by the GOP. The original 2009 report… for which there is no link… reported that “6,000 people (1.5%) of those Americans who paid no Federal Income Taxes, made more than $1-Million dollars” (ibid CNN Money link), with another 17,000 (2%) making over $500,000/year. A small percentage to be sure. But keep in mind that just the 400 Richest Americans earn more than the bottom 50% combined. That’s 1/15th of that 1.5%. Talk about “misdirected outrage”.
It is just accepted as fact by the Right that the wealthy are already carrying the burden of supporting the country thru exorbitant taxation, while tens of millions of lazy Americans on Welfare (including unemployment & Social Security) are getting a free ride. “Is every American paying their fair share”, they asked? If (When) we learn Mitt Romney paid NO income taxes in some years, will all those Right-Wingers that were livid for two years over all those poor people getting a “free-ride” apologize and call Romney a “leech” or a “freeloader”? Not only will they not apologize or criticize Romney in any way, they’ll dig-in their heals and DEFEND him as “a job-creator”.
(UPDATE 7/31/2012: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid revealed that a Bain Investor told him Romney “hasn’t paid taxes for 10 years.” Hate to say, “I told ya so”, folks!)
| Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online! |
||
|
|
||
|
Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! | |
July 20, 2012
· Admin Mugsy · No Comments - Add
Posted in: Election, Money, Politics, Predictions, Rants, Taxes
Quick video: Romney on Blind Trusts
July 18, 2012
Just a quick post:
Last night on the always excellent “Rachel Maddow Show”, she played an astounding clip of Mitt Romney from 1994 ridiculing the idea that “Blind Trusts” are truly “blind”. I just HAD to clip Romney’s recent defense of his “blind trusts” in Switzerland/etc vs his 1994 criticism, combined into one video:
[flv:http://www.mugsysrapsheet.com/4blog/video/Romney_on_Blind_Trusts.flv http://www.mugsysrapsheet.com/4blog/video/Romney_on_Blind_Trusts.jpg 432 240]
Release your taxes. Mitt. What are you hiding?
July 18, 2012
· Admin Mugsy · No Comments - Add
Posted in: Election, Money, myth busting, Politics, Right-Wing Insanity, Taxes
Possible Reasons Romney Is Suppressing His Tax Returns.
July 16, 2012
As you likely know, during the 1968 race for president, Michigan Governor George Romney ran for the Republican nomination. A self-made millionaire as former head of “American Motors”, the elder Romney released an unprecedented 12 years worth of past tax returns, explaining that “one year could be a fluke”, showing only what the candidate wanted you to see AFTER they decided to run for president. You know, maybe toss in some extra charitable giving, hide a few “embarrassing” investments/losses, whatever. Is it any wonder that… as the Obama campaign turns up the heat on George’s son… it’s becoming harder & harder for his supporters to argue that Mitt has “nothing to hide” as he continues to refuse to release anything more than his 2010 tax return (with a promise of an “estimate” for 2011)… years in which he was able to “tweak” his returns knowing he’d be running for president?
The chorus of frustrated Conservatives urging Mitt Romney to release his tax returns continues to grow: Governors Chris Christi, Haley Barbour and Robert Bently have all urged Romney to release several years worth of his taxes… at least as many as President Obama (12). Joining the chorus are Republican strategists John Weaver, Bill Kristol, George Will and Matt Dowd (below), all calling for Romney to put an end to this “distraction” and just release his tax returns:
[flv:http://www.mugsysrapsheet.com/4blog/video/Dowd-Romney_should_release_his_taxes-120715.flv http://www.mugsysrapsheet.com/4blog/video/Dowd-Romney_should_release_his_taxes-120715.jpg 512 288](July 15, 2012 – 53sec)
As Dowd points out, “If he didn’t have anything to hide, it would all be out there.”
For Republicans, their obvious frustration grows as the Party’s new leader continues to put them in the uncomfortable position of having to defend the indefensible (“It sure looks like he’s trying to hide something”, they’re repeatedly asked.) But they also don’t seem to believe there could be anything so damaging in his returns that it would be worse than the damage he’s inflicting upon himself by NOT releasing them. Left with no other option, Republicans instead find themselves having to defend Romney’s refusal to release his taxes by calling it “a distraction” that we’re even focusing on them at all. On Meet the Press yesterday, when Democratic Strategist Hillary Rosen asked, “What is Romney trying to hide?”, Republican strategist Mike Murphy deflected Rosen’s question by accusing her of “deflecting” from the economy. That’s all they’ve got left, and they can’t do it forever. But you KNOW that if the tables were turned and President Obama were the one hiding his tax returns, Republicans would be on every channel asking: “What is he trying to hide?” (with Hannity, Beck and Limbaugh all claiming his returns would show Obama was born in Kenya).
So what’s the big deal about Romney’s taxes? Why do we even care? Have you ever asked someone an innocuous question about something mundane (“What’s in the box?”), and the reaction you got back was so WILDLY disproportionate (“Touch that box and I’ll beat the #@%!& out of you!”) that… where you didn’t really care before… now you HAVE to know? THAT is Romney’s tax issue right now. But why did we care in the first place? What might Romney’s tax returns reveal?
First, it bears mentioning that we already learned plenty of “uncomfortable” things from the one return Romney DID let us see. We learned that he’s been hiding millions in overseas tax shelters since the late 90’s. Republicans defended Romney’s tax evasion as trying to avoid “Obama’s high tax rate”. But Romney first hid that money in 1997 in a group called “Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors Ltd” in Bermuda, (which he conveniently put in his wife’s name the day before his inauguration as governor) and continued to hide his multiple accounts all through the Bush years even after President Bush passed his massive Tax Cut for the wealthy. And after three years, Obama has yet to repeal the Bush Tax Cut, so arguing Romney was protecting his wealth because of “excessive taxation by Obama” doesn’t wash. Something else we learned from the one tax-return we were permitted to see: Things like a $77,000 tax deduction for the care & feeding of his wife’s Olympic “Dressage” (Dancing) horse. Should the U.S. taxpayer really be footing that bill? And that’s just the stuff Romney thinks is OKAY we see… on a return he was able to “tweak” since deciding to run for president. Just imagine what’s in the returns for the years he DIDN’T know he might have to release them to the public?
A few things Romney’s past returns might tell us:
- First and most obviously: “How did Romney get his tax rate down to just 13.8%?” – We know from his one released return, that despite all the Republican caterwauling about America having “the highest corporate tax rate in the world”, Romney’s tax rate was lower than someone making $17,000/year (below the Poverty Line for a family of three). We only know part of the story so far: those tax shelters in Switzerland, Ireland, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg. But Romney is worth (according to his 2010 tax-return) nearly a quarter-billion dollars. Now consider the fact he stashed nearly $30-Million (ibid “1997” link) in his Cayman Islands account alone, and Lord only knows how much he stashed in those other tax-shelters. Suddenly, we’re not looking at an effective tax rate of “14%”, but possibly something more like SIX percent (or even less). Romney’s (legal) tax evasion could reach into double-digit millions.
- Following up on that, might there have been years Romney paid 0% in taxes? It is EXTREMELY likely Romney paid NOTHING in taxes for a number of years (or worse, got money BACK from the government), throwing a huge bucket of cold-water on all those claims of “soak the rich” by the Right, obliterating any sympathy from struggling Middle-Class voters, all while lending support for the “Occupy” Movement’s outrage over “tax fairness”. How does your candidate then go around the country and make a convincing case that “the rich are paying too much and need a tax break” after we find out there were years he didn’t pay a dime in taxes? If you’ve been paying “nothing” for years, tweaking your tax return so that you take fewer deductions one year in order to raise your rate to the giddy height of (a whopping) 14 percent might seem like the prudent thing to do. As George Romney said, “one year might be a fluke.”
- We are only now starting to learn Romney was still the “sole shareholder, President and CEO” of Bain Capital for three years after he supposedly left the company in 1999 to run the 2002 Winter Olympics. Many of Bain’s most egregious profiteering took place in those years, yet Romney was always able to deny responsibility for those years by claiming he had “retired” by then. Of course, we know now the company declared he was only on a “temporary leave of absence”, and… despite organizing the Winter Olympics in Utah… was still being paid $100,000/year for doing “absolutely nothing”. That isn’t as far-fetched as it might sound. It’s not unheard of for companies to agree to continue a Chief Executive’s salary even after they’ve gone just for the right to keep their name on the letterhead to prevent customers from bailing. So going after Romney on that particular bit of decadence… while a real turn-off for struggling voters… is hardly evidence of anything “criminal” or even (arguably) “unethical”. But what if those tax returns show that Romney was indeed still running Bain, or at the very least, still making decisions and representing the company. We already know Romney testified under oath that he “flew back home” while managing the Olympics to “attend board meetings” of some of the companies Bain managed.
- Besides that “$100,000” paycheck, might any income from some of those plant closures have made their way into Romney’s coffers? Bain owned a huge stake in most of the companies they financed. Sure wouldn’t look too good if… following a plant closure and liquidating their assets… Romney “made a killing” off the sale of those assets (this is also known as profiting off human-misery).
- Might we see some “business deductions” associated with some of those plant closures Romney says he had no connection to? This is what Kojak called “placing the suspect at the scene of the crime.”
- Speaking of “profiting off misery”, how about receiving “stock options” from the companies Bain took over while Romney was in Utah? If you’re paid dividends, you should be paying the Capital Gains rate of 15% on those dividends… unless you’re sheltering that income overseas, in which case we are back to paying zero in taxes.
- Romney stands to save a lot of money by extending the Bush tax cuts. “Just how much” it might profit Romney personally to extend those cuts could be answered by seeing those past returns.
- Did Romney donate to any charities he wouldn’t want to have to explain? We already know he donated millions to the Mormon church at the same time the church spent $8.4 million in 2008 to pass “Prop 8”, California’s anti-gay marriage amendment, as well “The Becket Fund”, a group that fought to keep discrimination against gays in the workplace, legal.
- We already know some of the companies Bain invested in benefited from The Stimulus. Any of that Stimulus money find its way into Mitt’s pocket?
- And lastly, if it does turn out Romney weaseled out of paying taxes for the better part of a decade, he could wind up owing tens of millions in back taxes, penalties & fines. Not only would it cost him a ton of money, it would assuredly cost him the presidency.
I’m sure there are a dozen other dirty details we’d learn from seeing Romney’s past returns, but that’s just a few off the top of my head. I’m not a tax attorney, whom I’m sure could come up with a dozen other “revelations” we could learn from Romney’s past returns, but just from my brief list, I already think there are enough possibilities to leave the Governor with a lot of explainin’ to do.
 |
||
|
Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE7+ users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! | |
July 16, 2012
· Admin Mugsy · 2 Comments - Add
Posted in: Election, Money, Politics, Taxes
Republicans Need You to Forget There Was An Election in 2010.
July 9, 2012
On Friday, I reported that the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the National Employment Figures for June showing an economy that created only 80,000 net new jobs. But the day before that, major payroll accounting firm “ADP” released their monthly Private Sector job figures: 176,000. How did we arrive at two wildly different figures? Did government employers actually shed nearly 100,000 jobs to produce a “net” of just 80,000? Or are someone’s numbers horribly off? And if the numbers really are as bad as they say, who’s to blame?
According to ADP, their private sector job creation numbers are a calculated estimate “derived from an anonymous subset of roughly 500,000 U.S. business clients” (translation: they looked at the change in payroll among 500,000 employers… past & present clients… to extrapolate the number of private sector jobs created nationally) representing “23-million employees”. Using this method, ADP has been accurately predicting corporate employment for years (there’s even reason to believe the BLS uses ADP’s own estimates in their forecasts. When I checked BLS figures for May, they match ADP’s estimates). For June, they surmised that “roughly 176,000 jobs” were created by private businesses last month. Yet the very next day, the BLS released their official figures that in fact almost half that number… just 84,000… new jobs were created (reduced to a net of just 80,000 following 4,000 layoffs in the Public Sector (down from the month before according to “U.S. News & World Report).
So how did ADP get it so wrong? I contacted the author of the article citing ADP’s numbers Thursday, and the only answer he had for me is that “ADP has historically been very good [at predicting the monthly job figures],” but have been “badly off the last four months”. Not exactly an answer. What does that mean? Does ADP… by dumb luck… just happen to represent businesses that did most of the hiring? I’m not about to start investigating the methodology used by one of the largest accounting firms in the country. But it’s worth noting that whereas the BLS reported “69,000 net new jobs created last May” (82,000 private sector jobs offset by 13,000 public sector job losses), ADP revised their May figures UP from “133,000” to “136,000” private sector jobs created in May. Not only are they standing by their numbers despite the BLS figures, they doubled down on them. Very odd. I’ll send them an e-mail this week and see if they can provide a reasonable explanation. (If the economy really is creating 70-90 thousand more jobs a month than the government’s own agency is reporting, that would seem like pretty big news, don’t you agree?)
Meanwhile, Republicans have been quick to lay ALL the blame at the feet of President Obama and his policies”. But 2008 wasn’t the last election we had in this country. 2010 was. Yet for some infuriating reason, I’m not hearing any (or very few) Democrats going on the airwaves and pointing out this one obvious fact: Republicans were swept into power in 2010, retaking control of the House and made gains in the Senate after promising “jobs, jobs, jobs”. Now, suddenly, 18 months later, we are to render the GOP-run House and obstructionists in the Senate blameless, and lay all fault at the feet of President Obama? Back during the primaries, Governor Romney ridiculed Newt Gingrich for trying to take credit for all the jobs created during the Clinton Administration: “The government doesn’t create jobs! People do!”, quipped Romney. Yet now, six months later, the president is solely to blame for low job numbers? Last October, Republicans successfully filibustered the first part of “The American Jobs Act”, which would have created “1.9-Million jobs” according to Moody’s financial Analyst Mark Zandi. The Act… which is actually a series of bills… contains lots of tax cuts for businesses that hire returning veterans and the long-term unemployed (and, I’m proud to say, an idea Mugsy’s Rap Sheet petitioned for last year)… things you’d never dream Republicans would dare filibuster without looking like complete & total unpatriotic partisan hypocrites, certain to be raked over the coals for the next 12 months if they did. But they did, and the Media didn’t. And now they’re getting away with asking “where’s the President’s jobs plan?” (Note to GOP: The President’s plan still exists) Are we to forget Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s famous “one-term president” comment? And more importantly, will voters ignore their historic obstruction, blame President Obama and reward the GOP in November?
In 2008, professional Right-Wing bomb-thrower Ann Coulter wrote a book entitled “Treason”, where she accused Democrats of (among other things) “hoping for the country to fail simply to prove President Bush’s economic policies wrong” (not a verbatim quote, but close enough). She argued that Democrats… and Liberals specifically… were supposedly “rooting for failure” and “secretly hoping for another 9/11”. I’ve often said, “When a Conservative accuses you of something, it’s either because they are currently doing it themselves or assuming you’re doing it now because that’s what they would do if they were in your position.” Two years later, Rush Limbaugh says (and then repeatedly defends saying) he “hopes Obama fails”, while McConnell defends undermining the President for the next two years. Was I right or was I right? Are Republicans guilty of “treason”, Ann? You’ve been pretty mum on the subject as of late.
And what of Governor Romney’s “plan” to create jobs and turn around the economy? Republicans point to Romney’s “59-point jobs plan” (pdf)… which MSNBC’s Ezra Klein responded to thusly:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Klein: [Romney’s plan] is full of “long-term” ideas like opening trade with South America, cracking down on China’s Trade Policies and approving the Keystone XL pipeline. […] Full of tax cuts with no [stated] way to pay for them… which is why it can’t be scored by the CBO.
Looking at Romney’s “Plan” for myself, the first thing I noticed right off the bat: much of it is lifted straight out of Boehner’s “30 Job Bills” pamphlet that I already investigated last January. How do I know? Because Romney’s second listed job idea: “Approve the Free Trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea”… President Obama already signed into law last December. And like that, before you can say “incompetent hack”, Romney is down to just “58 job ideas”. And a “plan” listing ideas without explaining how he’d pay for them isn’t a “plan”, it’s a wishlist.
But getting back to my original point, there seems to be a collective amnesia about the fact the last election wasn’t 2008, but 2010, where Republicans won BIG on a platform asking “Where are the jobs?” and promising a “laser-like focus” on “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs”. Where’s THAT conversation? How come, when I turn on my TV, I don’t hear a steady stream of pundits asking Republicans why they haven’t done peanut-butter-piss in two years, and whether or not they deserve a share of the blame? Watch how fast these hypocrites will go from accusing President Obama of “blaming everyone but himself” to blaming the Democratic president and Senate for why they don’t deserve to share in the blame for the mediocre job numbers of the last 18 months. “So were you lying when you promised jobs, jobs, jobs? I never once heard you say it was contingent upon winning control of BOTH Houses.”
No, instead, we have a Republican presidential nominee that doesn’t know the president has a 400+ page Jobs Bill of ACTUAL legislation that explains in detail how to create nearly two million jobs immediately, and a Republican controlled Congress that doesn’t think they deserve any share of the blame after filibustering it.
From our archives: Billionaire Mort Zuckerman, Editor-in-Chief of U.S. News & World Report in March 2008 BEFORE the crash of Wall Street:
“The Bush Recession has barely begun.” – March, 2008
Notable since yesterday/Sunday, Zuckerman was blaming President Obama for not creating jobs faster. Ah, the miracle of YouTube.
|
||
|
Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE7+ users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! | |
July 9, 2012
· Admin Mugsy · 3 Comments - Add
Posted in: Economy, Election, Jobs, Politics
176,000 Private Sector Jobs Created in June, but 96K Public Sector Cuts drop it to Just 80K. ARE YOU FREAKIN’ KIDDING ME???
July 6, 2012
BREAKING NEWS
The Bureau of Labor Statistics released the monthly jobs report for June today, announcing that “the economy created only 80,000 jobs last month”, leaving the jobless rate unchanged at 8.2%. Naturally, as you might expect, Governor Romney is making hay over this lack-luster report, pointing to it as just more proof that President Obama’s economic policies are a failure. But the truth is, the PRIVATE SECTOR CREATED 176,000 NEW JOBS LAST MONTH… 50% more than the number of jobs necessary just to keep up with population growth. That’s pretty damn good, and a sign of a strengthening economy. But THE PUBLIC SECTOR SLASHED (unconfirmed) 96,000 JOBS… CUTTING THE NET TOTAL BY MORE THAN HALF (54%). ARE YOU FREAKIN’ KIDDING ME???
For those of you new to “Mugsy’s Rap Sheet”, I’ve spent much of the last few months railing against “Public Sector layoffs” hampering the recovery. Starting last March I noted that The Reagan Administration stemmed the steady rise in unemployment (peaking at 10.8% at the end of his SECOND year) by freezing Public Sector layoffs in his third year, helping bring unemployment down to just 7.2% in time for the November election. The Reagan Administration then went on a Public Sector hiring binge, bringing the National rate down to just 5.3% by the time he left office in 1989.
Unfortunately, the Bureau of Labor Statistics does not yet have the state-by-state figures showing WHERE these public sector layoffs are taking place, but rest assured I will report on it as soon as they become available (currently [July], only “estimates” for May are available). I would be immensely interested in seeing if the Obama Administration is continuing to slit its own throat by laying off government workers in the lead-up to the election.
Had the Federal, State & Local governments of not laid off 96 THOUSAND public sector workers, the unemployment rate might have fallen by AT LEAST a tenth of a point to 8.1% (possibly more, except that positive job reports attract the long-term unemployed back into the market, pushing the numbers in the opposite direction.) And as previously reported, if it were not for the more than 701,000 public sector job cuts since January of 2009, unemployment would actually be closer to 7.1% (and arguably even lower, as fewer unemployed spurs additional job growth/creation).
THIS ECONOMY IS GROWING. BIG TIME. President Obama’s economic policies ARE working, but it’s this infuriating Republican demand for “Austerity” and obsession with the Deficit (that didn’t bother them when President Bush increased the Deficit from $18-Billion to just over $1-TRILLION in eight years) that is crippling our recovery. The fact that the unemployment rate isn’t rising in the wake of all these public sector layoffs, is a testament to the strength of our economy.
And President Obama: The economy is your Achilles Heel in this election. You had BETTER start calling out these government layoffs for dragging down the Recovery if you want to win reelection.
ADDENDUM: In a speech today, President Obama put the “total” number of jobs created at 84,000. Adjusting accordingly, that would put the number of Public Sector losses at “92,000”.
POSTSCRIPT: I am continuing the hunt for “the 92,000 missing jobs”. The same columnist that reported the “176,000 private sector jobs” figure Thursday did account for “28,200” of those public sector job losses on Friday:
[T]he federal government cut 7,000 jobs in June. The Postal Service shed 6,200 jobs. State governments lost nearly 1,000, and 14,000 teachers lost their jobs (not counting summer vacation).
A report by ThinkProgress supports the idea that a substantial number of those public sector job losses were among teachers, noting “130,000 teaching jobs” were lost “in the last 12 months alone”.
I will continue to investigate the remaining 63,800 jobs and follow-up in a report as soon as those figures become available.
|
||
|
Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE7+ users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! | |
July 6, 2012
· Admin Mugsy · 5 Comments - Add
Posted in: Economy, Jobs, Politics, Rants
Sorry Right Wingers, the Health Care Penalty is NOT a “Tax”. Roberts says so.
July 2, 2012
Everywhere I turned last week, it seemed someone on the Right was calling the “penalty” enforcing the Affordable Care Act a “tax”, and citing Chief Justice Roberts’ written Ruling as their evidence. George Stephanopoulos of ABC’s “ThisWeek” yesterday appeared to spend the entire show obnoxiously trying to make the case this is “a tax”, repeatedly citing the Roberts decision as “proof” (even laughing at one point at the idea anyone might think otherwise). It’s nonsense of course. The ruling makes no such claim. It DOES compare the penalty to a tax, and cites the AUTHORITY to impose a penalty as coming from the same place as the power of the Federal Government to “tax”, but never outright calls it “a tax”. In fact, Roberts goes out of his way to explain how a “penalty” is NOT a tax.
“So what?” I hear lots of people respond. “What does it matter if you call it ‘a tax’ or not? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…”. I must have heard that metaphor a half dozen times. What does it matter? Plenty. It’s more than just a matter of semantics. As Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell pointed out on “Fox news Sunday” yesterday, the power of Congress to REPEAL “ObamaCare” using Reconciliation depends entirely upon whether or not the penalty is indeed “a tax”:
[flv:http://www.mugsysrapsheet.com/4blog/video/McConnel-Reconciliation_to_repeal_ACA-120630.flv http://www.mugsysrapsheet.com/4blog/video/McConnel-Reconciliation_to_repeal_ACA-120630.jpg 512 288]Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Fox News Sunday (6/30/12)
If Republicans are able to convince enough Democrats that the “penalty” is in fact “a tax”, then Congress can then legally use “Reconciliation” to repeal the entire law. And that’s what this whole “is a tax”/”is not a tax” debate comes down to: the power to repeal ObamaCare.
While the White House… and President Obama specifically… repeatedly denied accusations that the penalty is indeed a tax, lawyers defending the law before the Supreme Court used every argument available to them that the government does indeed have such enforcement powers, including that the argument that the AUTHORITY to levy “a penalty” is derived from “the same place” the government derives its “power to tax” (from page-1: “this penalty…shall be assessed and collected in the same manner” as tax penalties. §§5000A(c),(g)(1)”). And therein lies the rub.
Reading through most (but not yet all as of this writing) of Justice Roberts’ 150 page decision (pdf), the first 12 pages or so is dedicated to rebuking the White House claim that they have the authority to impose penalties under “the Commerce Clause” (a position Liberal justices, Kagan, Breyer and Sotomayor also rebuked), but then the Chief Justice clearly went to great pains to illustrate why the penalty is LIKE a tax, but in fact is NOT one. A few examples:
“Amicus contends that the Internal Revenue Code treats the penalty as a tax, and that the Anti-Injunction Act therefore bars this suit.” – page 12.
Translation: Roberts is noting that the Amacus pointed out that if this WERE a tax, the court didn’t even have the right to HEAR the case because Congress’ power to tax is unquestionable. The fact they even TOOK the case proves it’s not a tax.
“We have thus applied the Anti-Injunction Act [of 1867] to statutorily described [sic] “taxes” even where that label was inaccurate.” – page 13.
This is important, because he’s pointing out that, when they referred to “The Anti-Injunction Act” (the law restricting the Federal government’s power over state proceedings) to see if it applied in this case, the term “tax” was repeatedly used to describe things that were NOT taxes. Roberts is pointing this out for a reason: Not everything called “a tax” is in fact one. And why else point that out if he’s not suggesting the same goes here?
“In 1922, we decided two challenges to the “Child Labor Tax” on the same day. … [in the first] Congress called the child labor tax a tax … In the second case, however, we held that the same exaction, although labeled a tax, was not in fact authorized by Congress’s taxing power.” – Pages 33/34
What Roberts is pointing out here is that what someone “labels” something is irrelevant. What Congress called “a tax” in that second case, the Court decided was in fact not. “Labels” are irrelevant. It’s the Court’s job to rule based upon the ultimate “goal” of an action. This matters because five pages later, Roberts points this out:
“The joint dissenters argue that we cannot uphold §5000A [the “penalty” provision] as a tax because Congress did not “frame” it as such. … they contend that even if the Constitution permits Congress to do exactly what we interpret this statute to do, the law must be struck down because Congress used the wrong labels.“ – Page 39
THAT is why Roberts pointed out the irrelevance of “labels” five pages earlier. He then goes on to give an example of how the government could penalize you for not buying “energy efficient windows” (ibid). Roberts uses several examples throughout his opinion to reinforce his case.
(jumping ahead past those examples…)
“And the nail in the coffin is that the mandate and penalty are located in Title I of the Act, its operative core, rather than where a tax would be found—in Title IX, containing the Act’s “Revenue Provisions.”
For all these reasons, to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. – PDF page 150.Translation: Roberts is pointing out that if the penalty WERE a tax, the government would have included it in the section under “taxes”. They didn’t, thus supporting the governments good-faith argument that this isn’t… nor was it ever… intended to be a tax. And to claim otherwise you’d have to physically rewrite the bill to make it say that.
As I just illustrated, any claim that the Roberts Ruling declares the penalty “a tax” is… in his words… rewriting the bill. It doesn’t say that. President Obama didn’t lie (Chris Wallace, I’m looking at you) when he denied the penalty was a tax. And Roberts clearly went to great pains to make the distinction… as well as point out that even in those instances where he referred to it as “a tax”, it shouldn’t be taken literally.
On at least three occasions on ABC’s “ThisWeek”, Steph-O and panelist George Will cited use of the phrase “a tax, not a penalty” in Roberts’ decision as their proof the penalty is indeed a tax. And indeed, that phrase does appear on page 35 of the report. But (surprise, surprise), they took the quote completely out of context. Here’s what it ACTUALLY says:
payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax, not a penalty.”
It’s that word “considered” that makes all the difference. Roberts is not saying the penalty IS a tax, simply that for matters of juris pudence, it’s enforced the same way. Roberts uses the term “capitation” (fee for services) early on to make the distinction between a “tax” we pay on things we OWN like capital or property, vs “penalties” the IRS may put on certain behavior (like not paying our taxes. We don’t “tax” someone for not paying their taxes. We fine them. And unlike a tax that applies to everyone, the only people that pay a fine are those in violation of the law.)
And it’s a critically important distinction. Because if they can get enough members of Congress to “admit” it’s “a tax”, then Republicans have added incentive to get to the polls this November and vote in a Republican controlled Senate to begin the “Reconciliation” process to repeal “ObamaCare”. It’s all about the election and regaining control of the Senate. So if you weren’t particularly concerned about the Senate before, you damned well better be concerned now. You thought “contempt hearings against the Attorney General” by a Republican House were nonsense, just wait until they seize the Senate too. Not only would they waste the next four years trying to undo every piece of legislation of the last four (a coup by any other name). but remember what happened the last time we had a GOP controlled Congress and Democratic president? Years of multi-million dollar witch hunts (from Whitewater, to Postage-Gate, to eventually impeaching President Clinton for a dalliance that didn’t even start until LONG after the GOP investigations began.) Investigations that lead to the likes of Newt Gingrich in the House and Henry Hyde (correction, “John McCain”. Hyde was also a hypocrite, but not a Senator) in the Senate (both cheating on their wives at the time) impeaching the president for lying about having an affair.
Do we REALLY want to go down that road again?
(POSTSCRIPT: Something I’ve been pondering ever since the verdict that I’d love some feedback on: Several states, such as Vermont, obtained waivers from The ACA [the Affordable Care Act] in order to establish Single-Payer programs in their own state. I’m wondering… while the Federal government agreed as part of The ACA not to establish its own competing Public Option in the National Exchange, what’s to stop Vermont from offering its own program in the Exchange of another state… eg: Texas… to compete with the private insurance companies, effectively creating a backdoor Public Option? The more people paying in, the more stable a state’s “Public Option” would become, so they have a financial incentive to attempt it.)
PPS: Uh oh! It looks like ROMNEY also believes the penalty is NOT a “tax”.
PPPS: Hmm, correction. Now Romney “agrees” with the Supreme Court that what President Obama did IS a tax, just not when he did it in Massachusetts (even though he called it one).
|
||
|
Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE7+ users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! | |
July 2, 2012
· Admin Mugsy · 15 Comments - Add
Posted in: Election, Healthcare, myth busting, Politics, Taxes, Unconstitutional
Video: The Mythical Mandate (UPDATE! I was right)
June 27, 2012
Just a brief update before tomorrow’s Supreme Court ruling on The Affordable Care Act. As MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell pointed out last night, if the High Court rules “ObamaCare” unconstitutional because of a “mandate”, then they did so based upon SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT EXIST:
As O’Donnell points out, the “fine” for not complying is “less than $100”, and the “penalty” for failing to pay is… nothing. No fine, no liens, no jail time.
A full update following release of the verdict tomorrow.
UPDATE: The Supreme Court upheld the legality of The Affordable Car Act and the Insurance Mandate so long as it is enforced via a “tax” instead of a “penalty”… exactly as I predicted in my Predictions for 2012 (Prediction #10).
June 27, 2012
· Admin Mugsy · 4 Comments - Add
Posted in: Healthcare, myth busting, Politics, Unconstitutional
Will Supreme Court Rule that the Republican Solution for Health Care Reform Was Unconstitutional?
June 25, 2012
Last week, lots of things were supposed to happen that didn’t, and plenty of things that shouldn’t of happened, did (like the GOP making a mockery of Congress’ power to levy charges against the Executive Branch for political gain… again). There was no update here on MaRS (my new shorthand for “Mugsy’s Rap Sheet”. Like it?) the day after Father’s Day, and with rumors that the Supreme Court might finally release some early rulings on The Affordable Care Act (aka: “ObamaCare”), I had hoped to post an update following that ruling. Now they are telling us to expect the verdict sometime this week. So, unwilling to wait any longer, I’ve got to ask: “If the Supreme Court rules The ACA ‘unconstitutional’, seeing how it was originally a Republican idea cooked up by the hard-right ‘Heritage Foundation’, does that mean that a Conservative solution for Health Care Reform was in fact ‘unconstitutional’?” And more to the point, will anyone note that fact?
It was back in the early 1990’s when newly elected President Clinton made health care reform the primary focus of his new administration. Sadly, Clinton aimed too high, suggesting a Single Payer system similar to Medicare, where every American was provided with a government-issued insurance card. The system would be paid for with taxes (like the European system) where all you’d have to do was show your card at any (still private) hospital to receive care. The Right… as you might well imagine… went nuts. Back then, (in those pre-Fox days) the initial outrage wasn’t over any “government takeover of health care” (though that did come later). Instead, it was “the threat to privacy” that came from placing all of your medical records on a single “stealable” ID card. That led to a pseudo “1984-esque” outrage over a “National ID System”. Yes, you read that right, Republicans went apoplectic in 1993 over the idea that every American might be forced to carry a “National ID Card” (ala Nazi Germany. Funny how often The Right goes there). If you’re not shaking your head right now, you’re probably a Republican that doesn’t get the hypocrisy of recent “Voter ID” laws being passed in a swath of Southern states. But eventually, the insurance companies lobbied Republicans into wailing like howler-monkeys over a program that threatened to put them out of business.
In order to counter President Clinton’s push for Health care reform and soaring insurance costs (that were trite in comparison to today), the uber-Conservative “Heritage Foundation” came up with a counter-proposal: The Private Insurance Mandate. A plan that forced every American to “purchase private insurance” from the existing privatized health insurance system with the goal of cutting off the free-loaders, and force people to “take personal responsibility for themselves” (something Republicans THINK they are very big on) by purchasing health insurance. Their “Free Market Solution” belief was that by insuring everyone, the price of insurance for all would drop. Then later, during the Bush-II Administration, when it was pointed out how many insurance companies have near monopolies in most states, the Right introduced the idea of allowing people to purchase insurance “across state lines” to a state with lower rates. And that’s how “interstate commerce” (and by extension the Federal government) was dragged into the debate.
When the Obama Administration adopted the GOP idea for “cross border health insurance exchanges”, that instantly became subject to the “Interstate Commerce Clause” that dictates that the Federal Government MUST (not “should”) regulate consumer activity between states. Why? Because every state has its own insurance regulatory system. They set rules on the insurance companies for what they can and cannot refuse to cover and how much they can charge for that coverage. Now let’s say you start allowing anyone to buy insurance from companies based on the state with the most lax coverage laws in exchange for low rates (eg: buying hurricane insurance from North Dakota). Suddenly, states no longer have any power to manage insurance coverage for their state. And when things go bad, who gets stuck holding the bag? They do.
The ONLY solution is an “Insurance Exchange” where every company must agree to a set of Federal Insurance guidelines in order to be included (ie: “Pay-to-Play”). If everyone does not agree to basic minimum standards (set forth by the states), then you can’t join the Exchange (and thus sell across state lines). Competition between companies included in the Exchange is supposed to keep rates down (take that for what it’s worth.)
And there it is. The ENTIRE concept of “ObamaCare”… from the “mandate” to “cross border exchanges”… all Conservative Republican ideas that they think are “Socialism of the highest order” today, and rendering President Obama “Karl Marx incarnate” for proposing them.
During “Fox news Sunday” yesterday, perennial blowhard Bret Hume said that he believed that “if the Supreme Court strikes down ObamaCare, they will have levied a catastrophic blow to the signature achievement of the Obama Administration.”
I beg to differ. I believe a negative ruling by the Supreme Court would be an undeniable rebuke of Conservative policies in action. And should the Court strike down the mandate, will anyone acknowledge that this was initially a REPUBLICAN idea the President patterned his bill after (because he thought it would have an easier time moving through Congress)? Do fish ride bicycles?
In my “End-of-Year Predictions” last December, I predicted the Supreme Court will uphold “ObamaCare”. No question the Federal Government has the authority to regulate “interstate commerce” as a result of these Exchanges. The question then becomes whether or not The GOP’s mandate idea was Constitutional. Personally, I don’t understand the distinction that States can pass a mandate, but the Federal Government can not. To me, it’s a distinction w/o a difference. The Federal Government forces states to do all sorts of things… like “threatening to deny highway funds if they don’t set the speed limit to 55”, or threatening to withhold Education funding if students don’t pass a minimum basic skills test (see: “No Child Left Behind”… another mandate… and an unfunded mandate at that). I see no reason the Federal government couldn’t simply force every state to “mandate health insurance” the same way. But why go through all that rigamarole when we can just pass a single Federal Mandate?
Okay, okay, just for arguments sake, let’s consider whether of not a Federal mandate is even Constitutional, or whether the “rigamarole” method is the only way to do this legally? Is a Federal Mandate to purchase a product even legal?
First, unlike “eating broccoli” or driving a car, every person participates in the health care market. Even people in perfect health. Eventually, everyone is going to need a doctor. No one lives forever. If YOU don’t have insurance, that drives MY rates UP. YOUR inaction affects ME. How? Because when you get into an accident, suffer a heart attack, or get shot in a drive-by shooting, you end up in the hospital. And if you can’t afford to pay, the burden falls on the hospital, forcing them to charge everyone else more to cover those loses. So it’s not simply YOU taking a risk by going without insurance, you’re impinging upon ME by making me pay more to cover YOUR irresponsible ass.
Second, any male over the age of 18 is familiar with having to register for “Selective Service”, the Federal program that started back when we still had a Draft (yes, it’s still required in case you were wondering), as a way of helping the Federal Government keep track of how many military-aged men there are in the United States. While the military stopped drafting people during the Vietnam War, the Draft itself was not outlawed by Congress and can be reinstated at any time. How is a government mandate conscripting you into military service where you might pay “the ultimate price” any less of a burden than forcing every adult to buy health insurance?
Third, anyone that tells you this Mandate is “unprecedented”, doesn’t know what the Fudge they’re talking about. There are several examples throughout history of the Federal Government mandating people purchase something in the name of the Public Good:
In 1790, the very first Congress passed a mandate (embedded in another law) that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. Why? Because our fledgeling nation was critically dependent upon International Commerce for most of our goods. And we couldn’t have scores of merchant mariners out sick for long periods of time. That Congress included 20 framers of the Constitution and was signed by another framer: President George Washington.
Two years later, President Washington signed “The Second Militia Act of 1792”, which mandated every American purchase a firearm and ammo in defense of this country against the British. We had no Standing Army in those days, so the duty of defending the nation fell upon the citizenry. It’s the reason for that whole “militia” clause in the Second Amendment that Republicans love to overlook, and why banners at every NRA meeting heralding the Second Amendment always start with “dot-dot-dot” (ie: “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”) I think George Washington knew a thing or two about what The Founding Fathers believed was within the rights of the Federal Government.
Participation in Social Security is also a Federal mandate that you pay into whether you live long enough to collect on those benefits or not. Whether you are wealthy enough upon retirement that you don’t need it. Because baring an early demise, you WILL live long enough to collect it. It’s a safety net that ensures our disabled and elderly won’t find themselves out on the street when they can’t work anymore. And that benefits ALL of society, not just those who live to collect. The power of the Federal government to mandate every person into participating in the system was upheld in a 1934 Supreme Court ruling on the Agricultural Adjustment Act that stated:
“…the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.”
Translation: When it comes to the public good, Congress can do most anything with public funds and is NOT limited to just the explicit wording of the Constitution.
(Note: The June 22 edition of The Rachel Maddow Show opened with an excellent, well resourced piece on Republican hypocrisy over the Individual Mandate.)
(UPDATE: I’m reminded by this video that… if the Court overturns “ObamaCare”, then who does the GOP look too for an alternative? The Father of “ObamaCare”, Mitt Romney?)
Of course, all of this could of been avoided if we had just ignored the “Republican” solution and focused on the Democratic solution instead: The Public Option.
POSTSCRIPT: Other topics I hope to cover this week:
- A member of The Muslim Brotherhood was elected as Egypt’s first Democratically elected president. Remember all the Righties claiming The Arab Spring was Bush’s “Democracy flouring across the Middle-East” as a result of “toppling Saddam Hussein”? Suddenly, we don’t hear many Republicans rushing to take credit for the rise of Islamic law in Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere as a result of all this instability. The “Arab Spring” has more in common with the “Occupy Wall Street” movement than Bush’s invasion of Iraq in that the powerless are kicking out the Establishment and supplanting them with administrators they can relate to on a personal level (I’d also note that “The Muslim Brotherhood” members… while devout… are also anti-war isolationists. Good for the U.S. and Israel, bad for women and Christians inside Egypt.
- “Fast & Furious”: The Right is on another witch-hunt, demanding the Attorney General turn over documents pertaining to an ongoing investigation, something he is prohibited by law… a law passed by Republicans under Bush… to turn over. So when President Obama declares “Executive Privilege” to protect his AG (a member of “the Executive Branch”), the GOP led kangaroo court holds Holder in contempt for not revealing information that is obtainable elsewhere (such as calling up one of the members of Bush’s justice department). It’s election-year political theater at its most transparent. I Tweeted former Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying: “NOW do you understand why so many Dems were outraged when you took prosecution of the Bushies off the table?” The Right convinces everyone that if they put Democrats in charge, they will just engage in a parade of partisan witch-hunts, then when THEY get elected, they go on partisan political witch-hunts in the middle of an election year because THEY KNOW no one will ever call them out on their hypocrisy. Democrats promise not to hold hearings investigating Republicans even when they CLEARLY have every right to do so: like cherry-picked intelligence and those phantom “WMDs” they were so positive were there that were used as justification for war. There was also Gonzo’s firing of nine U.S. Attorneys reportedly because they refused to prosecute Democrats for supposedly being “lax on Voter Fraud” in an election year. And just WHO leaked the identity of Valery Plame?)
- The only reason we even know “Fast & Furious” was involved in the death of a U.S. Border Patrol officer is because a tracked gun was found at the location where he was killed. Had we not recovered that weapon, we might never have known of the connection. That begs the question, “How do we KNOW no ‘walked’ gun under the Bush Administration’s “Gun Runner” or “Wide Receiver” programs did not lead to the death(s) of any Americans? Simple answer is we don’t. So any claims that this is an investigation because of “Recklessness on the part of the Obama Justice Department” exclusively is a canard.
- Another issue I’d like to address in the near future: a slew of reports this past week of oil speculators manipulating the price of oil based on reasons that have NOTHING to do with Supply & Demand. So the next time some RW moron complains about obstruction of the Keystone XL Pipeline or intones “Drill baby, drill”, you can point to the REAL cause of high oil/gas prices: Wall Street.
I still have a bumper sticker in the rear window of my car the reads “Support Our Troops. Impeach Bush/Cheney”. When people “point out” to me that Bush/Cheney are no longer in office, *I* like to “point out” that “impeachment” is simply a Criminal hearing that takes place in the House of Representatives. You don’t have to still be in office to be impeached.
|
||
|
Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE7+ users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! | |
June 25, 2012
· Admin Mugsy · 2 Comments - Add
Posted in: Economy, Healthcare, myth busting, Politics, Right-Wing Insanity, Unconstitutional
SPECIAL EDITION: Remember when President Bush THOUGHT he was being disrespected by a reporter?
June 16, 2012
SPECIAL EDITION:
Just a quick note while it’s still fresh.
On Friday in the presidential Rose Garden, President Obama was interrupted by a young “reporter” from the Rightwing blog, The Daily Caller:
Not only did he interrupt the President while he was speaking, but then argued with him on his comment afterwards. The president handled the situation with more grace & class than I might have in that situation, but it reminded me of another event…
In June of 2008… almost four years to the day… President Bush was making a similar announcement in the very same Rose Garden. Clearly aware of how unpopular he was, President Bush thought that he was being disrespected by a reporter that didn’t even bother to remove his sunglasses when asking him a question… unaware that the reporter was legally blind:
Compare that to the punk that challenged President Obama today:
(click to enlarge)
It’s one thing to THINK you’re being “disrespected”, but it’s quite another when they are ACTUALLY disrespecting the president and think nothing of it.
No word from Congressman Joe Wilson on whether such blatant disrespect should be considered the new normal.
June 16, 2012
· Admin Mugsy · 2 Comments - Add
Posted in: Election, General, Politics, Rants
![](http://mugsysrapsheet.com/4blog/gop_death_cult.jpg")
