Category Archives: Taxes

“Fraudulent,” “Fantasy,” “Con Game,” “Mathematically Impossible.”

Posted on by

These are the words used to describe the Romney-Ryan budget plan by economists, The Washington Post, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center and Bloomberg News.

Mitt says his plan will cut taxes for all Americans, increase defense spending and still cut the deficit.  And, get this; he claims that his plan will be “revenue neutral.” He says that the costs will be offset by the elimination of tax deductions.  Yet he steadfastly refuses to provide details.  The only cuts he’s mentioned are funding for Public Broadcasting and Planned Parenthood.

In fact, after more than a year of campaigning for the office of President of the United States, Mitt has not provided any numbers for his plan…until tonight.

During the second debate with President Obama, Mitt announced the number five…in reference to his 5-point plan for the economy.  But don’t expect Mitt to provide any details for that plan, especially with regard to his budget figures.

He either can’t, or won’t.

Romney can’t explain his budget plan.  Liein’ Ryan can’t explain it.  And one of the campaign’s top surrogates can’t explain it.  When Sen. Marco Rubio was asked by Lawrence O’Donnell to name the tax deductions that would be eliminated, he admitted he couldn’t name a single one.

Instead of offering details about his plan, all Mitt says is “trust me.”  Now, tell me, Mitt, why would we do that?  You say one thing today. Then a day or two later, you say something else.  You’ve had at least four answers to every question.  Indeed, you’ve had more positions than the Kama Sutra.

When it comes to your economic plan, Mitt, I’ll trust the opinions of President Obama, President Clinton, most independent media, and non-partisan economists.

Time To Call The Churches’ Bluff.

Posted on by

Since the formation of the Moral Majority in the late seventies, many churches have immersed themselves in politics.  Pastors, particularly evangelical pastors, have implored their flocks to vote for Republicans despite Internal Revenue System rules which prohibit a non-profit 501c3 from engaging in politics at the risk of losing its tax-free status.

Yesterday, pastors across the nation challenged the IRS rules by telling their members how to vote based on the churches’ stances with regard to abortion, gay marriage and other so-called “values” issues.  In other words, they told their members to vote for Romney.

The churches even recorded their political messages with hopes that the IRS will attempt to change their tax status.  Apparently, they believe that any such attempt by the IRS will result in a backlash, unleashing them to take any political stance they want.

The churches consider it a First Amendment issue of free speech.  They assume the conservative Supreme Court will see it their way.  At the very least, they assume a Teapublican-controlled Congress will pass a constitutional amendment in their favor.

However, the issue is not about free speech.  It’s about taxes.

Certainly, pastors and churches have the right to make any political statements they want.  And the IRS has the power to determine their tax status. If pastors want to use their unique status as “spiritual” advisers to engage in partisan politics, they should be held to the same standards as any other Political Action Group.

The Etch-A-Sketch Debate.

Posted on by

We should have seen it coming.  For months, Mitt Romney ran further and further to the right.  Then during last night’s debate with President Obama, Romney did an about face.  Living up to the Etch-A-Sketch strategy that Mitt’s campaign manager promised following the Teapublican primaries, he abandoned most of the right wing rhetoric and ideas he promoted in the primaries and promised to be a moderate healer, instead.

Defying arithmetic, he promised to increase spending for the military, cut taxes for everybody, cut healthcare costs while repealing Obamacare, increase spending for education and student loans, increase spending for Medicare and Medicaid, maintain Social Security and create 12 million jobs.

Whew!

And, of course, while doing all that, he promises to cut the deficit and the national debt – all without revealing a single detail or plan other than to say he would cut funding for PBS and Big Bird.

Disregarding the fact that there is no possible way to pay for his promises, has he forgotten that he’s living in the 21st century?  We have an endless number of video recordings which show him saying that he will privatize Social Security, voucherize Medicare, slash Medicaid spending, eliminate the Department of Education, cut taxes for the wealthy, cut taxes for businesses, eliminate tax deductions for the middle class, cut Pell grants for students and turn back the clock on healthcare.

About the only thing consistent with his statements in previous speeches and debates was the promise to increase defense spending even more than the Department of Defense has asked for.

Of course, political pundits have already concluded that Romney won the first debate.  If so, it was only because President Obama couldn’t tell who he was debating.  It wasn’t Mitt.  It was some guy who looks like Mitt but who was espousing a completely different platform from the plutocrat who won the Teapublican nomination.  That Mitt was decidedly anti-middle class, anti-woman, anti-health reform, anti-green energy, anti-small business, anti-entitlement, anti-education, anti-government, anti-environment, and pro-war.

It’s not easy debating someone who’s willing to lie about absolutely anything and everything to get elected.

Obama’s America In 2016.

Posted on by

The shockumentary “2016” provides one man’s view of what America will be like in 2016 should President Obama be re-elected.  The future it portrays would be dim, indeed, IF this example of Teapublican propaganda were true.

But “2016” is based on a false premise…that President Obama is un-American.  That he’s a socialist out to destroy the very nation he has sworn to protect.

In truth, given his history of accomplishment against long odds, no one represents the American Dream better than Barack Obama.  And despite Teapublican rhetoric (and the film’s premise), Obama’s policies are decidedly not un-American.  In fact, the reverse is true.  It is the continuation of Teapublican policies that threatens to undermine our democracy.

For 40 years, the GOP (Guardians Of Privilege) have weighted tax cuts to aide the wealthy and large, multi-national corporations.  They have engaged in union-busting and cut funds for the poor.  They have used those in the military to pursue their goals of international domination and they’ve abandoned them as soon as they were injured or retired.  In order to win election, they have vilified teachers, firefighters, our postal service, government employees and immigrants.  In order to maximize the profits of multi-nationals, the GOP has proposed to eliminate the agencies responsible for clean air, clean water and product safety.  GOP policies have even rewarded those who ship jobs overseas and who take advantage of offshore tax havens.

President Obama threatens to change all that.  He dares to propose tax fairness, higher standards for fuel efficiency, sustainable forms of energy, investment in infrastructure, improved education and incentives to bring jobs home to the US.

So every time you see an ad for “2016,” imagine how much better off we’ll be with President Obama in the White House than with Mitt the Twit and his 47 percent-hating plutocrats.

Who’s Really Redistributing Wealth?

Posted on by

Following the “Mitt Happens” moment in which Romney was caught on video disparaging the 47 percent who pay no income taxes, Teapublicans have countered, claiming that President Obama and the Democrats are guilty of trying to “redistribute wealth.”

Apparently, they believe Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, VA benefits, GI Bill benefits, Unemployment Insurance and Food Stamps are evidence of “class warfare.”

Fact is, redistribution of wealth has occured since the beginning of graduated federal income taxes in 1862.  The idea was to ask the wealthy to pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than those who are less fortunate.  Our tax code embraced the idea until the election of Ronald Reagan.

Reagan’s flawed policy of “Trickle Down” economics greatly reduced tax rates for the rich while, at the same time, increasing taxes on the poor and the middle class.  Indeed, one of the largest tax increases in history was Reagan’s elimination of tax deductions for interest on loans: car loans, college loans, credit card loans, etc.  Now who do you think was harmed the most by that change?

Around the same time, Reagan eliminated the estate tax (aka the “death tax”) so the wealthy could pass their accumulated wealth to their children without penalty, and Teapublicans cut the capital gains tax rate paid on earnings from stocks and other investments.

More recently, the infamous Bush tax cuts were also weighted to benefit the wealthy.

But that’s only part of the redistribution of wealth upward.  During the past 40 years, multi-national corporations have been given a host of unfair competitive advantages over their smaller competitors.  Teapublican policies not only encouraged them to ship jobs overseas. They allowed multi-nationals to shelter income overseas in order to avoid paying taxes to the very government responsible for their success.

Meanwhile, small businesses and ordinary citizens have been asked to take up the slack.

The result of all this is the hollowing out of the middle class, the destruction of our domestic manufacturing base and the deterioration of our infrastructure.  It has led to higher unemployment, lower federal revenues, decaying cities, higher poverty and millions without access to basic healthcare.  Over the same time period, the wealthy have gotten even wealthier.

Class warfare, indeed!

It’s Not Just About The 47 Percenters.

Posted on by

The video of Mitt Romney’s speech to a Florida gathering of the wealthy shows his utter contempt for much of America.

Who are those he considers to be “freeloaders?”  They are not the “welfare queens” and lazy louts you might expect.  The 47 percent who have not paid federal income taxes in the past few years include the working poor, the elderly, veterans, military who are serving in a combat zone, even the wealthy who have enough tax write-offs to zero out their federal income taxes.

But Mitt didn’t limit his disparaging comments to the 47 percent.   He also went out of his way to insult Latinos and other minorities.  And he again inserted his highly polished loafers in his mouth with regard to foreign policy.

He said that Palestinians do not want peace, so as president, he would just kick the issue down the road.  After all, by Mitt’s standards, the Palestinians trapped in Israeli-controlled ghettos don’t earn enough money to be of consequence.

None of this should come as any surprise to those who have followed Romney’s career. 

As a vulture capitalist, he showed complete disdain for those who lost their jobs as the result of his hostile takeovers and business conquests.  His tax-evading investments in offshore accounts display a lack of patriotism for the country that allowed him to accumulate wealth.  And his trip to Europe during the Olympics showed his incompetence and lack of tact with regard to foreign policy, leading European media to label him “Mitt the Twit” and the “American Borat.”

So let’s review: Contempt for nearly half of our voters, dismantling American companies and shipping jobs overseas, legalized tax evasion, and arrogance in dealing with foreign leaders.

Exactly why should anyone other than the very wealthy vote for you, Mitt?

In The Public Interest?

Posted on by

In 1934, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was given the power to license wire and broadcast communications, demanding that licensees prove they operate “in the public interest.” Not long afterward, the FCC implemented The Fairness Doctrine, which required licensees to present issues of public importance and do so in a manner that was deemed “honest, equitable and balanced.”

Unfortunately, the Fairness Doctrine was eliminated in 1987, following years of attacks by the political right beginning with Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew. Since then, our media has failed on almost every level…except for generating massive amounts of money.

It’s no coincidence that, following the end of the Fairness Doctrine, broadcast stations and networks have been swallowed up by large media conglomerates.  To maximize profits, the new owners diminished long-established news-gathering organizations, such as the once-proud CBS News which was home to legendary newsmen like Edward R. Murrow, Douglas Edwards, Walter Cronkite, Eric Severeid, and far too many others to mention.

At the same time, radio was hijacked by blathering, angry wingnuts such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.  And the newspaper industry has been virtually replaced by on-line “news” sites that provide a few headlines with little depth or context.

The result of all this is that we no longer have in-depth reporting, especially with regard to politics.  TV networks are filled with “human interest” and are almost devoid of “public interest.”  The most popular cable news network is little more than a megaphone for Teapublican talking points.  Radio is filled with conservative lies.  And newspapers have redirected their efforts toward local news gathering.

(Ironically, Rolling Stone, Mother Jones and Vanity Fair, which were once special interest magazines, are now doing more in-depth investigative reporting on national and international issues than nearly all of the so-called “news” media combined.)

It is precisely this news void that has allowed the Republican Party, the Tea Party and its unscrupulous candidates, such as George W. Bush, Richard “The Dick” Cheney, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan to become serial liars. And we’re all paying a price for it through tax cuts for billionaires and tax subsidies for large corporations, resulting in enormous deficits and endless wars of choice.

What can you do about it?

For one thing, you can ask your Congressional Representative and Senators to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. You can demand your state universities teach students that journalism is more than mere reporting; it’s a never-ending search for the truth. You can call out candidates whenever you hear them lie. And you can support the few media left that actually practice real journalism.

Why Romney’s Tax Returns Really Do Matter.

Posted on by

Mitt Romney has broken with tradition, saying he will not release more than his tax return for 2010 and for 2011 “when it’s ready.” He refuses to release any more returns, saying in other words, “I took a look at the last 10 years and I paid a tax rate of approximately 13 percent.”

So why doesn’t he want to follow in the footsteps of his own father by releasing more returns?

Quite simply, he doesn’t want you to know the lengths to which he has gone in order to evade US income taxes.  He doesn’t want anyone peering into his off-shore accounts in Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, Luxembourg and Switzerland.  And he wants to deflect the whole issue of his finances until after the election.

This isn’t the first time Romney has asked people to trust him about his finances.

He did the same when he ran for governor of Massachussetts.  Back then, he faced questions about the state’s residency requirements when his opponent claimed that Romney was actually a Utah resident.  Of course, Mitt denied it.  When asked to produce his tax returns, he refused, saying that he had filed tax returns as a Massachussetts resident and would prove it when his returns became available after the election.

And what did they find after Mitt won?  Why, of course, they found that his tax returns claimed residency in Utah.  In other words, he did not meet the Constitutional requirements to be governor.

That incident should tell you all you need to know about Romney.  1 – He cannot be trusted.  2 – He will do and say anything to be elected.

Liein’ Ryan.

Posted on by

First, I must credit my friend, Mike Cosentino, for the title.  To my knowledge, he was the first to coin the description of the Teapublican Vice-Presidential candidate.  And Ryan has certainly lived up to the title ever since.  Indeed, his penchant for ignoring the truth was on full display at the Republican National Convention.

For example, Paul Ryan says that his budget plan will “save Medicare.” But in reality, it will leave the next generation of seniors at the mercy of greedy health insurance companies. Ryan says that his budget will cut the deficit. What he doesn’t tell you is that his plan will increase an already bloated defense budget and give large tax cuts to the wealthy while cutting healthcare and food stamps for the poor.

Ryan has lied so much and so often, he couldn’t even tell the truth about his only marathon time.

Prior to the convention, Ryan condemned Congressman Todd Akin’s remarks on “legitmate” rape as offensive. Yet Ryan co-sponsored a bill with Akin that would ban all abortions except for pregnancies that resulted from “forcible” rape.  In other words, you would be denied an abortion unless you could show that you had been bruised and beaten sufficiently in an attempt to fight off the attacker.

Moreover, Akin and Ryan co-sponsored a “personhood” bill that would give fetuses all of the rights and protections of the First Amendment thereby outlawing all abortions, even in vitro fertilization. And lest you think Aikin and Ryan are alone in their extreme beliefs, the GOP adopted a platform that would ban all abortions. No exceptions.

Of all the liars in the Republican Party, Paul Ryan is one of the most prolific. By himself, he could easily provide enough material to fill a second volume of the Teapublican Book of Lies.

Romney: A Corporate Wet Dream.

Posted on by

Contrary to the belief of the conservative majority of our Supreme Court, corporations are most definitely not people. They are not born. They are created by lawyers.

In fact, corporations have little in common with most living, breathing people. They do, however, have a great deal in common with Mitt Romney.

Like many large corporations, Romney seems to lack a moral compass. Like many large corporations, Romney has extracted as much money as possible from society while giving back little in return. And like many corporations, Romney evades taxes and any sense of responsibility to the common good.

Romney has spent the past four years sucking up to billionaires and big corporations, including all of Wall Street, in order to win election. Want a tax policy that rewards the wealthy and punishes the poor? Romney will give it to you. Want an energy policy that rewards Big Oil and Big Coal while destroying our planet? No problem! Want a foreign policy that will bully the world and fuel our defense industry? Of course! Want a social policy that forces narrow-minded religious values on women? Sure!

No presidential candidate has been so beholden to the wealthiest and most powerful in our nation. If Mitt’s elected, you can be sure they will be rewarded handsomely.

The rest of America, and the planet, will pay for it dearly.