Monthly Archives: July 2012

“Believe In America.”

Posted on by

That’s the slogan for Governor Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign.

Believe in America?  Really, Mitt?

Is that why you bought US companies and outsourced their jobs to China, Mitt?  Is that why you stashed most of your money in Switzerland, Luxembourg, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands?  Did you invest in those tax havens instead of the US because you believe in America?

What of your secretive Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors, Ltd in Bermuda?  Did you create that offshore tax shelter because you believe in America?

What of your feeder tax havens in which you funnel money into the US so that you can skip the usual tax, disclosure and regulatory requirements you’d face if you invested directly in the US?  What of your investments in blocker corporations in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere allowing you to escape the Unrelated Business Income Tax?

Is that what people who believe in America do?

If you believe in America, Mitt, why are you taking campaign contributions from places like London and Macao?

I believe in America, Mitt.  But after looking at your business career and listening to your ever-changing opinions and excuses, I don’t believe in you.

Conservatives Strike Yet Another Blow Against Real Representation.

Posted on by

I’ve previously written about ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council), the organization sponsored by many of the nation’s largest corporations with the intent of writing much of the legislation proposed in state houses across the country.  ALEC brags that it writes approximately 1,000 bills a year for conservative legislators to sponsor.  This is how Arizona’s SB 1070 came into being – written by a Kansas lawyer for Corrections Corporation of America (a private prison firm) and ALEC, and sponsored by former AZ Senator Russell Pearce.

In other words, ALEC is more involved in legislation than our legislators.

Well, it turns out that ALEC is not the only such organization in America.  (No, there are no liberal or Democratic versions of ALEC.)  The other large conservative organization is Stateside Associates.

The home page of Stateside’s website states “Lean forward…we have your back.”  It says, “Stateside Associates offers deep expertise in the core services, strategies and execution of state and local government relations.  We help clients shape the public policy environment by knowing what is happening, who is involved and what tools are needed to influence the process.”

They help ensure that the interests of corporations outweigh the interests of individuals.

In addition to Stateside, there are many smaller conservative organizations such as the Goldwater Institute and the Center for Arizona Policy in Arizona.  All of these groups are more than lobbying firms paid to look after the affairs of corporate clients.  These are ideological groups intended to change our entire political system by writing laws for conservative legislators.

They need to go.

The Felon-In-Chief?

Posted on by

For some time, I have referred to Mitt Romney as the Panderer-In-Chief based on the corny speeches he has given on the campaign trail – “The trees just seem the right height here.”  Now I realize that his tendency to lie and pander to any audience is the least of his obvious faults.

Recent investigations into his 2010 tax return and Bain Capital have yielded an array of offshore accounts and questionable investments, such as an I.R.A. account of $102 million, even though Romney could only legally put $2,000 a year into the account for 15 years and, depending on the type of plan he used, another $30,000 per year.

That’s some rate of return!

There’s also the matter of his accounts in tax havens such as Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, Luxembourg and Switzerland. In talking with bankers and economists, I’ve confirmed that there are only two reasons to open accounts in those places: Secrecy and Tax Evasion.

It’s clear that Romney is one of many who are responsible for an estimated $100 billion in lost annual tax revenue by sending their money offshore, costing ordinary taxpayers an average of $484 a year.  In other words, you have to pay more taxes to make up for tax deadbeats like Romney.

Of course, as CEO and sole owner of Bain Capital, Romney practiced what his Republican rivals termed “Vulture Capitalism.”  He bought up cash rich companies, took the cash, and charged the companies large sums for “management consulting.”  Then when the cash ran out, he either fired the staff and outsourced the jobs overseas or dismantled what was left at salvage rates.

But that’s not the worst of it – at least for Romney.

The Boston Globe found that contrary to Romney’s statements, he was still involved in his company several years after he said he had resigned.  That doesn’t sound like a big deal, except that it means Romney likely committed one or more felonies.  You see, he filed a federal disclosure stating that he left Bain in 1999.  Yet the company’s SEC filing in 2002 listed Romney as “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer and president.”  This would make Mitt guilty of a federal felony for certifying on federal disclosure forms that he left active management of Bain Capital in February of 1999.

Oops!

If elected, Mitt could be our nation’s first presidential felon.  Moreover, if he lied on disclosure forms, he may have lied on his federal tax returns.  There are many other questions about Romney.  But his business dealings and finances are shrouded in secrecy.  Indeed, The Washington Post summarized the opinions of experts across the political spectrum by saying Romney’s disclosures were “the most opaque they have encountered.”

Now imagine the uproar if Teapublicans found that President Obama had offshore tax havens and shipped American jobs overseas.  The torch and pitchfork crowd would’ve already surrounded the White House.

U…S…A! U…S…A…er, China!

Posted on by

Remember those chants after the US Olympic hockey team upset the Soviet Union?  We’ve come a long way since then.

Back then, our Olympic team’s uniforms were made in America.  But, today, our Olympic team’s uniforms are made in China like almost everything else we use.  The US Olympic Committee hired an American icon, Ralph Lauren, to design them.  Then he turned around and outsourced their manufacture to China.

Of course, many Americans are upset upon learning the news, including politicians on both sides of the aisle.  They called it an embarrassment.  They said our Olympic Committee should be ashamed.

But are they willing to do anything about it?

In fact, it’s Congress that is responsible for subsidizing corporations for sending jobs and money offshore.

In Nobody We Trust.

Posted on by

A new Gallup poll shows that just 21 percent of Americans have a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in TV news – a drop of 25 percent since 1993!  And only 25 percent expressed confidence in newspapers.  But these numbers should come as no surprise when Teapublican nitwits such as Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann have long decried the “lamestream” media.  Indeed, the right has been trying to kill the messenger since the 1970s during the Nixon-Agnew administration.

Of course, among right-wing idealogues, there’s no lack of confidence in Fox News Channel despite a Fairleigh Dickinson University survey that found that those who rely on Fox News Channel for news are less informed than those who watch no TV news at all.

In reality, the US news media have earned their lack of trust.  Since the major networks succumbed to the ratings chase in the 1980s, they have emasculated their news gathering operations and replaced real debate with screaming talking heads from each side of the political spectrum.

Radio is even worse.  Since repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, commercial radio has been taken over by right-wing lunatics such as Rush Limbaugh.

And, as subscribers abandon home-delivered newspapers in favor of on-line versions, publishers have been unable to devote resources to traditional news gathering.

So where can Americans turn for reliable news?  I’d suggest National Public Radio and the BBC.  Both are politically neutral organizations with large news gathering operations.  But, in reality, most people will continue to ignore the news (except for the most sensational stories) or turn to (gasp) the Internet for information.

As a result, I’m not hopeful for our future.

Conservatives Trying To Steal Elections… Again.

Posted on by

For the past two years, Teapublican state legislatures have passed measures calling for photo IDs for voters.  They claim that, if you are required to have a license to drive, you should be required to have a photo ID to vote. (Of course, they don’t feel the same about those who carry guns.) They say their only interest is to eliminate voter fraud, especially by illegal immigrants.

Given the fact that there is virtually no proven voter fraud in this country that seems unlikely.  And anyone who is familiar with illegal immigrants knows that an attempt to vote is much too risky.  They would  never take the chance of calling attention to themselves for fear of getting caught.  For example, I recently asked a County Recorder in Arizona how many illegal immigrants have tried to vote in the county.  The answer was none. Moreover, I asked how many instances of voter fraud the county had uncovered in recent elections.  The answer was five.  All were caught.

Let’s get to the real reason for these new voter laws: Stealing elections.

Many of the voters who do not have photo IDs are likely to vote Democratic.  You see, many people in large cities, particularly in the inner cities do not have need for a driver’s license or a passport. They are often elderly, poor or students.  In the past, they have voted using voter registration cards, student IDs and other forms of identification.  Unless, the Department of Justice steps in, that will change.  And millions of voters will not be allowed to vote unless they obtain the proper kind of photo ID in time for this fall’s elections.

In Pennsylvania, it’s estimated that 750,000 eligible citizens do not currently possess identification cards issued by the state Department of Transportation.  That’s 9.2 percent of the vote!

To illustrate how unfair and absurd this new bill is, it will prevent all of the state’s Amish from voting, since their faith does not allow them to have their pictures taken.

Of course, Pennsylvania is not alone.  Voter purges are continuing in many other states, as well.  If they’re allowed to get away with it, we could see a repeat of 2000 when Vice-President Al Gore won the popular vote and lost the electoral vote as the result of voter suppression and dirty tricks in Florida.

What Roberts Knew About The Healthcare Ruling.

Posted on by

The primary thing that defines a nation is its rule of law, and that was very much in question with the Supreme Court decision on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  After a long series of 5-4 decisions heavily weighted to the right, Roberts likely knew the very credibility of the Court was on the line when he ruled that the mandate was a tax, allowing the law to stand.

Even so, the decision merely gives the Court’s reputation a temporary reprieve.

With such overtly political “justices” as Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the Court is still perceived as unduly biased toward the way-out-on-the-right-wing fringe of politics.  That perception began with the Court’s 2000 decision on Bush v. Gore which gave the presidency to the candidate with the fewest votes.  It has continued with a series of partisan decisions which have allowed elections to be sold to the highest bidder.

The conservatives on this partisan Court have shown a tendancy to argue cases out of both sides of their mouths to help their political causes, and they’ve shown disdain for long-standing tradition.

To wit, Clarence Thomas, whose wife was being paid to fight against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, refused to recuse himself from the case.  And, in a show of contempt for openness, he failed to list his wife’s job and income on his financial disclosure.

Scalia, a close buddy of Richard “The Dick” Cheney, has made numerous political statements that are unseemly for a Supreme Court justice.  One of the most bizzare was his assertion following the decision overturning most of Arizona’s SB 1070, that the entire law should have been upheld, likening it to the time when Southern states could exclude free blacks from their borders.

Scalia’s tendancy to mix justice with politics led columnist E. J. Dionne to write an opinion in The Washington Post calling for Scalia’s resignation.  Stating that Scalia cannot be a blatantly political actor and a justice at the same time, Dionne wrote, “So often, Scalia has chosen to ignore the obligation of a Supreme Court justice to be, and appear to be, impartial. He’s turned “judicial restraint” into an oxymoronic phrase.”

He went on to write, “Scalia should free himself to pursue his true vocation. We can then use his resignation as an occasion for a searching debate over just how political this Supreme Court has become.”

Justice Roberts’ deciding vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act would seem to have delayed that debate.  But, with Scalia and Thomas on the Court, likely not for long.

What Our Politicians Could Learn From A Lifeguard.

Posted on by

By now you’ve probably heard the story of Tomas Lopez, the Florida lifeguard who was fired for saving a life.  You see, he dared to save someone from a portion of the beach that wasn’t under contract by his employer, Jeff Ellis Management.

Of course, this story vividly illustrates the problems of outsourcing traditionally government jobs to private companies, but that’s another story.

It also shows that Tomas understands morality and ethics – something in very short supply in Congress.  Tomas didn’t stop to consider how his actions might affect him personally.  He just did the right thing.  Our Congressional representives on the other hand…

You see, the first thing many of our Congressional representatives do after winning an election is to start fundraising and campaigning for their next term in office.  That means, if there is legislation that would benefit the public versus a political contributor, they often choose to vote for the contributor’s benefit.  Or if the right thing to do is controversial, they’ll vote against it for fear their opponents will use it against them.

No one party is more guilty than the other.  This is one aspect of Congress that is truly bipartisan.

We can’t change the situation with term limits.  They’ll just be motivated to ram through as much partisan legislation as possible during their limited time in office.  We can’t change it with legislation.  They’ll just find ways around it or, worse yet, take money under the table.  But we can change the situation by making it unnecessary to raise insane amounts of money to run for office.  We can also demand better candidates. 

What we need is a Congress full of representatives like Tomas Lopez.

The Teapublican Plan For “Repeal And Replace.”

Posted on by

When Tom Brokaw forced Rep. Eric Cantor to explain the Teapublican alternative to the Affordable Care Act, Cantor said that the GOP (Guardians Of Privilege) had already presented it.  It was the alternative they offered during the healthcare debate in 2009: H. R. 3962.  In short, what it calls for are more concessions to insurance companies, tort reform and a lot more hocus pocus.

At the time it was presented, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that it would increase the number of insured by roughly 3 million by 2019.  That compares to the more than 30 million previously uninsured that will be covered under “Obamacare” by 2019.

Is it any wonder why Sen. Mitch McConnell was recently quoted as saying that “the uninsured are not the issue?”

Moreover, this great replacement for the Affordable Care Act would do very little, if anything, to curb rising healthcare costs.  Indeed, its provision to allow insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines, looks a lot like the deregulation of national banks which allowed them to skirt state usury laws to raise interest rates on credit cards to more than 30 percent.

If this bill were to replace the ACA, it would likely allow a few health insurers to become monopolies with the power to set their costs and coverage.  And it would allow doctors and hospitals to avoid any repercussions from malpractice and medical errors.

Whoeeee!  Let’s all celebrate.  Who wouldn’t want this over “Obamacare?”

We Know Romney Is Running For President. But Of Which Country?

Posted on by

This week, The Huffington Post broke a story that disgraced Barclay’s CEO, Robert Diamond, rescinded an offer to co-host a pricey London fundraiser for Mitt Romney.  Apparently, he wanted to keep his own difficulties from tainting Romney.  Yet, despite Diamond’s withdrawal from the affair, the fundraiser is expected to go on with other British hosts.

This story raises a number of questions for US voters.

When did it become acceptable for foreigners to fund US candidates?  What do they expect in return?  More important, why would Romney even consider accepting money from such an event?

According to the HuffPost article, the fundraiser will occur while Romney is in London for the Summer Olympics.  Those who attend the fundraiser will be expected to pay $25,000-$75,000 for dinner; far more than fundraisers for British politicians. Of course, this comes on top of concerns that the Romney campaign and its Super PACs have already received anonymous contributions from other foreign entities, including money from China.

The slogan for the Romney campaign is “Believe in America.”  In fact, most of us do believe in America.  But, based on Romney’s avoidance of US income taxes and his willingness to accept money from foreign interests, it’s obvious that Romney doesn’t.