Political Ruminations

Are You a Maker or a Taker?

A Romney administration would be likely to categorize Americans into two groups—the “makers” and the “takers” (based on writings by Ayn Rand, Ryan’s muse). Indeed, Mitt Romney has already done so in his own mind, and verbalized his disdain for the “takers” in his 47% comments made to his fellow plutocrats in Florida. This flowchart by Mother Jones will help you determine into which category you would fall Lots of luck!.

Morning Quote: Paul Ryan Calls 30 Percent of Americans "Takers"

The GOP’s vice presidential candidate, Paul Ryan the Plutocrat, hates almost as many Americans as Mitt Romney does, indicated in remarks (made by Ryan in November 2011) which went unreported until yesterday:

“Seventy percent of Americans want the American dream. They believe in the American idea. Only 30 percent want their welfare state. Before too long, we could become a society where the net majority of Americans are takers, not makers.”

See also: 14 Awesome Quotes About Paul Ryan by Economist Paul Krugman

Morning Quote: Mitt Romney Hates on Half of America

In a secretly taped video, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney calls half of America parasitic freeloaders during a private fundraiser last May, emphasis mine:

“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.”

Watch:

A majority of that 47 percent Romney is hating on, lives in red states, and, that number is not really even half the story.

Full series of video clips from the May fundraiser.

Morning Quote: Tea Party Leader Attacks the Poor

Watch Dallas Tea Party leader, Ted Phillips, cry about the expiring Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and attack the unemployed and food stamp recipients:

Tea Party buffoon, Ted Phillips:

“I think it is a bad thing is they let those cuts expire, we’re in the middle of a deep, deep recession … Now is not the time to increase taxes to the dwindling producers in our country when we have a president who is trying to give more money away to the moochers and welfare. We need people working, not sitting back receiving food stamps and unemployment. It’s laughable.”

Read John Amato’s post…

GOP Codifies the Republican War Against Women

Please note: this platform belongs to Mitt Romney, and to Paul Ryan, as it was prepared under the direction of their campaign.

With the inclusion of the agenda of those once considered the fringe into the2012 GOP Platform, the Republican Party should officially be flushed down the toilet. From the time when the once great party came into being in 1856, there has been no more hateful and conservative agenda than that of the 2012 GOP Platform.

The GOP has arrived at this unenviable place/state of being , a state of being where they are feared more than respected, hated more than tolerated, derided more than praised, by catering to the extremist religious fringe of their party until that extremist wing gained majority control. This can be easily, too easily, confirmed by reading their official platforms from the years prior to Nixon through that of this platform—the difference is striking.

This year we see the Republican war against women codified in the 2012 GOP platform in the form of several planks which endorse infringement upon not only our reproductive rights, but upon our dignity (the mandatory ultrasounds). Think Progress with the details:

1. NO ABORTION IN CASES OF RAPE OR INCEST. The proposal for a “human life amendment” passed without a hitch — and without any exceptions for rape or incest. The committee didn’t stop there; they also adopted language that would ban drugs that end pregnancy after conception, which could potentially include Plan B, the “morning after pill.” [the "Akin Amendment", so called by Democrats]

2. SALUTE TO MANDATORY ULTRASOUNDS. The GOP officially praises states’ “informed consent” laws that force women to undergo unnecessary procedures, require waiting periods and endure other measures meant to discourage them from getting an abortion. One such law receiving a “salute” was crafted by committee head McDonnell, who passed a notorious mandatory ultrasound requirement after he signed an unsuccessful bill to require an even more invasive transvaginal probe ultrasound during an abortion consultation.

3. NO WOMEN IN COMBAT. The platform condemns “social experimentation” in the military, which covers everything from the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to allowing officers to wear their uniforms in gay pride events to letting women serve on the front lines.

With the GOP’s adoption of these very specific planks which seek to control women, four things should be noted:

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan Are Big Fat Lying Liars

In spite of the fact that the Romney-Ryan welfare lies have been proven false by independent fact checkers, Romney-Ryan continues to lie about Obama welfare policy in another new ad. Watch:

According to The Hill, “Independent fact-checkers and some Republicans have agreed, with the Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck.org calling the Romney attack ads "simply untrue."”:

"You have Gov. Romney creating as a centerpiece of his campaign this notion that we are taking the work requirement out of welfare," said Obama during a press conference at the White House. "What he is arguing is that we have somehow changed the work requirement in our welfare laws. And, in fact, what has happened was that my administration, responding to the requests of five governors, including two Republican governors, agreed to approve giving them, those states, some flexibility in how they manage the welfare rolls as long as it produced 20 percent increases in the number of people who are getting work."

Additionally, while the Romney-Ryan Campaign is accusing President Obama of trying to gut the welfare reform enacted under Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton himself has proclaimed in a public statement that the Romney-Ryan Campaign is lying, emphasis mine:

“Governor Romney released an ad today alleging that the Obama administration had weakened the work requirements of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. That is not true.

The act emerged after years of experiments at the state level, including my work as Governor of Arkansas beginning in 1980. When I became President, I granted waivers from the old law to 44 states to implement welfare to work strategies before welfare reform passed.

After the law was enacted, every state was required to design a plan to move people into the workforce, along with more funds to help pay for training, childcare and transportation. As a result, millions of people moved from welfare to work.

The recently announced waiver policy was originally requested by the Republican governors of Utah and Nevada to achieve more flexibility in designing programs more likely to work in this challenging environment. The Administration has taken important steps to ensure that the work requirement is retained and that waivers will be granted only if a state can demonstrate that more people will be moved into work under its new approach. The welfare time limits, another important feature of the 1996 act, will not be waived.

The Romney ad is especially disappointing because, as governor of Massachusetts, he requested changes in the welfare reform laws that could have eliminated time limits altogether. We need a bipartisan consensus to continue to help people move from welfare to work even during these hard times, not more misleading campaign ads. ”

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan consistently lie about President Obama’s policies as well as the state of the economy, the nation, and anything else that comes to mind. Calling them on it seems to have zero effect, but they can not be allowed to run a campaign based only on lies about their opponent. There really has never before been a campaign such as this one. It’s despicable.

Mitt Romney Embraces Paul Ryan's Radical Plan to Voucherize Medicare

Watch:

So, you heard Mitt Romney say: “for people 55 years of age and older, there’s no change.” You won’t like the translation.

Under the Romney-Ryan plan for Medicare, if you are younger than age 55, let’s say 54, and Romney-Ryan are elected to office, you will see a Medicare that is completely different from the one that your parents and grandparents enjoyed. It will be a voucherized plan, entailing fewer benefits and much higher costs to the beneficiaries.

Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman on Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan, emphasis mine:

In the first decade, the big things are (i) conversion of Medicaid into a block grant program, with much lower funding than projected under current law and (ii) sharp cuts in top tax rates and corporate taxes.

Is this a deficit-reduction program? Not on the face of it: it’s basically a tradeoff of reduced aid to the poor for reduced taxes on the rich, with the net effect of the specific proposals being to increase, not reduce, the deficit.

Quote of the Week

In an op-ed for Rolling Stone, Tom Morello, popular guitarist for the band ‘Rage Against the Machine’, blasts Romney’s vice presidential pick, Paul Ryan (Rage being one of Ryan’s favorite bands) as an “extreme fringe right wing nut job” among other things, emphasis mine:

“Don't mistake me, I clearly see that Ryan has a whole lotta "rage" in him: A rage against women, a rage against immigrants, a rage against workers, a rage against gays, a rage against the poor, a rage against the environment. Basically the only thing he's not raging against is the privileged elite he's groveling in front of for campaign contributions.

You see, the super rich must rationalize having more than they could ever spend while millions of children in the U.S. go to bed hungry every night. So, when they look themselves in the mirror, they convince themselves that "Those people are undeserving. They're . . . lesser." Some of these guys on the extreme right are more cynical than Paul Ryan, but he seems to really believe in this stuff. This unbridled rage against those who have the least is a cornerstone of the Romney-Ryan ticket.”

Morning Quote: Chuck Todd on Republican Lies About Obama Welfare Policy

Another corporate media person questions Republican lies as Chuck Todd called out Gov. Terry Branstad (R-Iowa) during an interview after Branstad repeated the Obama welfare reform lie, emphasis mine:

“Wait a minute... I can’t let that go... You leveled a charge about the welfare work requirement. It turns out that’s not true. Where did you get your information? ... Nothing about this issue, every charge that has been leveled about this welfare reform order that the president signed, every accusation that has been leveled by some Republicans have been proven to be not true.”

Finally we’re seeing a little pushback against the lies of the Republicans from corporate media, beginning with CNN’s Soledad O’Brien, and now NBC’s Chuck Todd. It is certainly unusual enough that it warrants commendation.

New Obama Ad and Paul Ryan Should Absolutely Be Viewed as a Threat

A new Obama Campaign ad touches on some of the least savory aspects of the Paul Ryan Plan. Watch:

On Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan as a running mate, I agree completely with what Bob Cesca said:

If Sarah Palin represents the most irresponsible decision John McCain and the Republican Party had ever made, the selection of Paul Ryan seems like a no-brainer smart choice for Mitt Romney.

The press is deferential to Ryan because he comports himself as a very serious budget wonk (we all know he’s an Ayn Rand crackpot who’s all too willing to genuflect to Glenn Beck et al); he’s another “central casting” Republican presidential stereotype who will ultimately run circles around Romney on the campaign trail unlike, say, Chris Christie who probably wouldn’t have survived the rigors of a national campaign; and he hails from a swing state.

Credit where credit is due, Romney could’ve picked a fire-eater like Santorum, Gingrich or Christie and he went with someone who is absolutely the opposite of Sarah Palin. Paul Ryan is wrong on everything, but he’s not a moron.

All that said, Ryan’s influence on a would-be Romney White House would be utterly disastrous for the economy and the instantaneous austerity measures, along with the dismantling of the Obama agenda, would spell doom for millions of working and middle class Americans. On the other side of a four-to-eight year Romney term will be a privatized Medicare, massive deficits from radical tax cuts for the rich, and an economic depression without any real ability for the government to inject emergency cash into the economy.

But if Romney really wants to win this thing, he made the right choice. For him and the Republicans. The rest of us will be screwed a thousand different ways.

Going forward, we absolutely must tie the Ryan Plan and the Ryan Budget around the neck of both Plutocrats if we are to win

Adding….Charles Pierce has dubbed Ryan the “zombie-eyed granny-starver”, and we must make people think of this term every single time they see, hear or think about Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney!

Pink Slime: It’s Delicious...REALLY

And like it or not, it’s on the market, deceptively called “lean, finely textured beef” aka "boneless lean beef trimmings.”

Except it’s really the remains of the animal after all the meat normally cut has been removed. Or something like that.

Pink slime is the pejorative term for "lean finely textured beef," a product designed to recover useful bits from carcass trimmings. These are warmed, centrifuged to remove the fat, treated with ammonium hydroxide gas to kill pathogens, and compressed into blocks that are frozen for later use.

There’s a brouhaha going on, apparently. About our children being fed this pink slimy stuff in school lunches.

School food advocate Bettina Siegel collected 230,000 signatures on a letter to the USDA to ban LFTB. She wrote, "It is simply wrong to feed our children connective tissues and beef scraps that were, in the past, destined for use in pet food and rendering, and were not considered fit for human consumption." The USDA buys loads of LFTB for school hamburger because it is cheap. Districts that choose higher-quality meat will have to pay more for meat. Can they afford to?

And then there’s the asshat politicians who’ve been paid off by the meat industry and are now calling for a congressional investigation into food safety?

Reports over weekend showed that Beef Products' top executives and workers have given $820,750 to congressional and presidential candidates over the past decade, with all but $28,400 going to Republicans. Branstad, a Republican, received $150,000 over the past two years from people tied to Beef Products, his spokesman Tim Albrecht said Monday.

Nope. If you thought it would be food safety, you were wrong. Instead, Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad called for a Congressional investigation into who started the “smear campaign” against the pink slime. Seriously.

“Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad called Monday for a congressional investigation into how what he called ‘a smear campaign’ against the meat product commonly called ‘pink slime’ got started,” the New York Daily News writes. "‘We have a smear campaign going on against a product that is healthy and safe,’ Branstad said at his weekly news conference. ‘If they get by with this, what other food products are they going to attack next?’ … ‘It's clear this is a safe product. It's a lean product, it helps reduce obesity and there is a spurious attack being levied against it by some groups. You can suspect who they might be. They are people who do not like meat. … He also called on students at agricultural colleges in Iowa to use their social media skills ‘to counter what Hollywood and the media elites and the people who are spreading this misinformation are doing. It's their future that's being threatened by this.’”

So now, Republicans are waging a campaign against parents of schoolchildren, along with other well-meaning Americans, because they don’t think pink slime sounds entirely appetizing. And they’re apparently doing so in order to stop our protests against the pink slime.

Unf—king believable.

Krugman on Paul Ryan's 2013 Budget

Krugman on Paul Ryan and his 2013 budget:

“So I wonder: are they willing to concede, at long last, that he’s a clown?

His latest budget proposal has received some harsh critiques. It calls for huge tax cuts, supposedly offset by closing loopholes and ending tax expenditures — except that in a long report he fails to name a single tax expenditure that he would cut. It assumes drastic cuts in discretionary spending, basically eliminating everything except defense. And over the medium term, of course, it’s a plan to savage the poor while giving big tax breaks to the rich.

So actually two questions: are people finally willing to concede that Ryan is not now and has never been remotely serious? And — I know this is probably far too much to ask — are they going to do a bit of soul-searching over how they got snookered by this obvious charlatan? ”

Meanwhile, Republicans continue to applaud for the clown.

RELATED POSTS:

- Chart of the Day - Paul Ryan’s Latest Federal Budget
- Republicans Love the Banksters

Chart of the Day: Paul Ryan's Latest Federal Budget

You probably remember Rep. Ryan’s (R-)Path to Poverty. After all, it was only a few short months ago, back in mid-2011 that Ryan gained national attention with his plan to kill Medicare.

He’s baaack, and this time with another federal budget which will cause pain for everyone but the very wealthy. Ezra Klein on Ryan’s 2013 federal budget plan with the money quote first:

Here’s the basic outline of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s 2013 budget in one sentence: Ryan’s budget funds trillions of dollars in tax cuts, defense spending and deficit reduction by cutting deeply into health-care programs and income supports for the poor.

You see where Ezra said “Ryan’s budget funds trillions of dollars in tax cuts”? Of course you do. But here’s my point. The tax cuts will go disproportionately to the upper upper income brackets, same as all Republican tax cuts have done since Ronald Reagan took office. You know, that trickle down pile of crap.  And, it should be noted, unlike President Obama’s budget plan, Ryan’s plan provides no new revenue because he won’t increase taxes on the wealthy, and he is afraid of the political power of the middle class, so increasing middle class taxes is not going to happen under this plan. But lest you think “aha.....at least he left the middle class alone”, Ryan’s budget cuts, and cuts hard, aid to the poor, and the subsidies which many uninsured middle class Americans would have received to help pay for health care insurance. Ezra again:

Ryan prides himself on making tough choices. But where such choices need to be made for politically powerful constituencies — say, the tax breaks offered to the wealthy and the middle class, or the benefits offered to current seniors — Ryan punts. Changes for seniors don’t begin for a decade, the tax breaks Ryan will close to pay for his tax cuts go unnamed, and, of course, there are no tax increases at all. When such choices need to be made for programs that the poor depend on, however, Ryan is considerably more specific, and considerably more willing to inflict real budgetary pain on current beneficiaries.

And then there are Ryan’s spending cuts, which are massive, and come primarily from health care programs.

Gone would be the $1.5 trillion that the Affordable Care Act uses to subsidize health insurance for 30 million uninsured Americans.  Medicaid would be cut by a third ($770 million), and Medicare would see $200 billion in cuts. The chart  is from the CBO, via Ezra Klein, and provides a picture of how massive these cuts to health care programs would be.

Ryan’s next significant source of cuts is so-called “other mandatory.” Compared to the president’s budget, Ryan cuts $1.8 trillion from this category. Some of that might simply be an accounting difference: The president’s budget proposes to move infrastructure spending from the “discretionary” side of the budget to the “mandatory” side. Ryan might be moving that back, which isn’t, in and of itself, a spending cut. But beyond that, the main programs in “other mandatory” are low-income supports like refundable tax credits for the poor and food stamps. Ryan is cutting these quite substantially.

So, I urge you, before this budget comes to the floor for a vote, be sure to call your congressional representatives and direct them to vote “NO” as the only acceptable response to Paul Ryan’s 2013 federal budget!

Adding......in spite of deep cuts to programs that are vital to the health and well being of the American people, Paul Ryan saw fit to increase defense spending.

Image credit:  Joshua Roberts-Reuters

RELATED POSTS:

- Krugman on Paul Ryan’s 2013 Budget
- Republicans Love the Banksters

Morning Quote: Rick Santorum

“On so many fronts, there could be no person in this country we could nominate who would be any worse on taking on Barack Obama on the most important issue of the day, ObamaCare, than Gov. Romney. And it's the equivalent of malpractice to nominate someone who gives away the most important issue in this race.”

According to Rick Santorum, the most important issue in this race is eliminating a health care policy [the Affordable Care Act, aka “ObamaCare”] which insures the uninsured, and reduces the deficit, while eliminating roadblocks for those with pre-existing conditions. Far more important than the economy, according to GOP candidates.

No ecoli conservatism happening in this race.

Rick Santorum Against Taxes for the Wealthy

“Higher income people don't have to pay taxes if they don't want to.”

- Rick Santorum, and that, folks, is what the Republican Party believes as well.

Via Bob Cesca

Quote of the Day

Mitt Romney thinks it’s a good idea to mandate drug testing for welfare/aide recipients:

“Well my own view is, it’s a great idea. People who are nreceiving welfare benefits, government benefits, we should make sure they’re not using those benefits to pay for drugs. I think it’s an excellent idea.”

We should start with drug testing the CEOs and other executives of companies who receive federal subsidies.

And then maybe move on to drug testig employees in our public schools, including colleges, since you know, our education system benefits from federal funding.

At this point, anyone who thinks that Republicans care about any other people except the wealthiest among us, is begging to be placed in a mental institution.

Via Bob Cesca

Morning Quote: Mitt Romney on Social Security & Medicare

Repeating much of what he told a Koch Brothers audience in November, Mitt Romney told Conservatives at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) that he would cut Social Security and Medicare:

“We're going to have to recognize that Social Security and Medicare are unsustainable, not for the current group of retirees, but for coming generations. And we can't afford to avoid these entitlement challenges any longer.

We are going to slowly and gradually raise the retirement age for Social Security from the current 66 for full benefits. And we'll slow the growth rate in benefits for higher-income retirees.

Tomorrow's seniors should have the freedom to choose between Medicare and a range of private plans [think the Ryan Plan]. And if these future seniors want a more expensive plan, then they will have to pay the additional cost.”

DNC Ad Targets Romney’s Lack of Concern About the Poor

Surely by now you’ve heard about GOP presidential hopeful Romney caught on camera  insisting that he isn’t “concerned about the very poor”.

The DNC came out with a little vid to enlighten you if you weren’t already aware and appalled, and as the video points out, Romney is really only for one group of people. And you know which one that is.

Watch:

Really, Mitt?

Adding.........did you know that according to Ezra Klein, via Bob Cesca, Romney is a real winner in the presidential wealth sweepstakes:

Add up the wealth of the last eight presidents, from Richard Nixon to Barack Obama. Then double that number. Now you’re in Romney territory.

Two Bushes are in there, too, and they’re loaded.

The Food Stamp President

Newt Gingrich just can’t stop using that old canard, the Southern dog whistle, that code for the term “welfare queens” (which don’t even exist in reality). Here’s Newt when asked what he would say to the NAACP if given the opportunity:

“More people are on food stamps today because of Obama's policies than ever in history. I would like to be the best paycheck president in American history. ... And so I'm prepared if the NAACP invites me, I'll go to their convention and talk about why the African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps.”

Really, Newt, really?

Give me a freaking break. Calling President Obama the “food stamp president” and insinuating that black people are all on food stamps, i.e., too lazy to get jobs thus live off food stamps, for Christ’s sake, is old, racist, and not based in truth. [Gingrich’s association with truth is always tenuous, but this is to the point of utterly ridiculous.]

Yes, enrollment in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program has increased during the Obama administration, but as experts continually point out, and which Gingrich continually ignores, this is because of the near depression caused by the policies of Bush and company, a deep, deep recession which continues today, necessitating assistance to many more people than would be the case during better times.

Watch Fox News amplify Gingrich’s message:

So did President George W. Bush preside over the highest number of food stamp recipients in history? Thus far, yes. 11 Alive in Atlanta [emphasis mine] fact-checked Gingrich:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition service tracks month-to-month figures dating back to January 2001. The numbers show that the total of food stamp recipients rose to 14.2 million during President Obama's administration.

   The highest in history so far is President George W. Bush. The number of food stamp recipients grew to nearly 14.7 million while he was in office. But, that's eight years in office, compared to President Obama who has not finished his first term.

 

It's possible that when the figures for January 2012 are available they will show that the gain under Obama has matched or exceeded the gain under Bush. But not if the short-term trend continues. The number getting food stamps declined by 43,528 in October. And the economy has improved since then.

   One out of seven Americans is currently getting food stamps, according to the Department of Agriculture.

   The figures also show the rise in food stamps began before Obama took office, and accelerated as the nation plunged into the worst economic recession since the Great Depression.

The economic downturn began in December 2007. In the 12 months before Obama was sworn in, 4.4 million were added to the rolls, triple the 1.4 million added in 2007.

   So, who gets food stamps?

   The most recent Department of Agriculture report on the general characteristics of the SNAP (food stamp) program's beneficiaries says that in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2010:

-- 47% of beneficiaries were children under age 18.

-- 8% were age 60 or older.

-- 41% lived in a household with earnings from a job - the so-called "working poor."

-- The average household received a monthly benefit of $287.

-- 36% were white (non-Hispanic), 22% were African American (non-Hispanic) and 10% were Hispanic.

Oh, and by the way, Newt and Fox liars, the state with the highest number of  Americans eligible for and receiving food stamps is Nevada. [Nevada, where if I had to venture a guess, I’d say that there might be maybe fifteen whole black people living in the entire state of Nevada.]

Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-IN), a prominent supporter of the food stamp program:

“People now see that it’s necessary to have a strong food stamp program.”

 

 

Mitt Romney - Champion of the Middle Class

A more appropriate title might be “Romney’s Tax Plan is a Gift to Millionaires & Billionaires, as he proclaims “Screw the middle class!”.

In an October debate, Romney claimed that he was all about helping the middle class, and that he so wasn’t concerned about helping rich people.

“If I’m going to use precious dollars to reduce taxes, I want to focus on where the people are hurting the most, and that’s the middle class. I’m not worried about rich people.”

And yet, Mitt Romney’s tax plan benefits millionaires to the tune of $150,000 each, and billionaires $500,000 each, while it takes dollars away from the poor, and especially from families with children. Romney’s tax plan gives little or no benefit to middle class households, and the implementation of the plan would cause the deficit to sky rocket, all so Mitt Romney can buy the favorable opinion, and thus the financial support, of his fellow one percenters. Think Progress:

The Tax Policy Center released an analysis today showing that, contrary to Romney’s rhetoric, the overwhelming majority of the benefits under the plan would go to the wealthy. In fact, compared to the policy in place today, Romney’s plan would give millionaires a $150,000 tax cut, while raising taxes on many low-income families:

A sizable number of low-income families would see their taxes go up. For instance, about 15 percent of those in the $10,000 to $20,000 income group would get an average tax cut of about $140, but 20 percent would get hit with an average tax increase of $1,000, mostly because Romney would bring back the less generous versions of those refundable credits.

About one-third of those in $40,000 to $50,000 group would get a tax cut that would average about $400, but about one-six would face a tax increase of nearly twice as much.

Almost every millionaire would get a tax cut averaging roughly $150,000. As a group, those making $1 million or more would receive nearly half the benefit of Romney’s tax plan.

Romney plan hits hardest those making less than $40,000, and primarily those households with children, as he would undo President Obama’s expansion of the child tax credit.

And Romney’s proposal only gets more lucrative for those at the very top of the income scale, giving those in the richest 0.1 percent an annual tax cut of nearly half a million dollars. In 2015 alone, the plan would add $600 billion to the deficit.

Sounds a lot like the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

---

RELATED POSTS:
. Mitt Romney in His Own Words - 10 Important Mitt Romney Quotes
. The Character of Presidents and Potential Presidents Conveyed in Images
. 6 Quotes About Mitt Romney
. Full Video: When Mitt Romney Came to Town

 

 

Morning Quote: Rick Santorum Doubles Down on the Stupid

“I don't want to make black  people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.”

- Rick Santorum derides poor black people in Iowa last week, using a racist dog-whistle that has become typical of GOP talking points during this election cycle. Santorum should know that only 9% of public assistance recipients in Iowa are actually black. 39% of public assistance recipients are white.

Santorum should probably switch to an attack on poor white people. Or hey, maybe he could make gay people (another group for which Santorum has no love) out to be the major recipients of government assistance.

“I’ve looked at that quote, in fact I looked at the video. In fact, I’m pretty confident I didn’t say black. I started to say is a word and then sort of changed and it sort of — blah — mumbled it and sort of changed my thought.”

- Rick Santorum on CBS with John King [after being called out by civil rights groups], denying his racist comment of the day before, ridiculously claiming that he didn’t say ‘black’ people, he said ‘blah’ people.

Ahem.......the ‘Blah’ community is rightfully outraged by Santorum’s inaccurate and racist remarks.

Morning Quote: Rick Santorum on Income Inequality

“They talk about income inequality. I’m for income inequality.”

- GOP presidential hopeful, Rick Santorum, when asked about income inequality, in Iowa in December 2011.

Morning Quote: Newt Gingrich

“I think that we need to consider taking more explicit steps to make it expensive to be a drug user. It could be through testing before you get any kind of federal aid. Unemployment compensation, food stamps, you name it.

It has always struck me that if you’re serious about trying to stop drug use, then you need to find a way to have a fairly easy approach to it and you need to find a way to be pretty aggressive about insisting–I don’t think actually locking up users is a very good thing. I think finding ways to sanction them and to give them medical help and to get them to detox is a more logical long-term policy.”

- Newt Gingrich declares war on recipients of federal aid, says mandating drug tests should be the standard, and tries to paint his position as concern for drug users.

Bob Cesca responds:

The drug testing should include anyone who receives federal subsidies. Oil companies ($24 billion), defense contractors ($12 billion), the financial sector (trillions!) — all of them. Let’s drug test the entire management team of each company from the CEO to the board and all the way down the line. If anyone fails the test, take away their federal aid, just like Newt Gingrich says.

Idiot Quote of the Day

Not just the “Idiot Quote of the Day”, no, Rep. Michele Bachmann, GOP presidential wannabe in 2012, is going for the “Anti-American Quote of the Year” when she tries to make a case that the U.S. ought to be more like China:

“The ‘Great Society’ has not worked and it’s put us into the modern welfare state. If you look at China, they don’t have food stamps. If you look at China, they’re in a very different situation. They save for their own retirement security…they don’t have the modern welfare state and China’s growing. And so what I would do is look at the programs that LBJ gave us with the Great Society and they’d be gone.”

So, Michele Bachmann would like to do away with the social safety net. So we can be more like communist China.

Via Bob Cesca

Morning Quote: Michele Bachmann

“Our nation needs to stop doing for people what they can and should do for themselves. Self reliance means, if anyone will not work, neither should he eat.”

- The ever charitable, GOP presidential contender, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), channeling Marie Antoinette, suggesting that the U.S. stop funding safety net programs, cause, you know, the poor, disabled and/or unemployed are lazy and don’t deserve to live.

Watch it:

Via Think Progress

House Majority Leader Says NO to American Jobs Act Vote

Today, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) responded to President Obama’s entreaty to the House and the Senate, to vote on the American Jobs Act by the end of the month. Cantor’s response was that there will be no vote on this bill in the House. Period.

As you know, all spending bills must originate in the House, consequently, this bill is dead in the water. I intend to point this out daily. If you’re a Liberal blogger, I hope you will do the same, since it’s imperative that Cantor’s refusal to hold a vote on American jobs be common knowledge.

Washington (CNN) - House Majority Leader Eric Cantor flatly rejected President Obama's call for the House and Senate to hold a vote on his jobs bill by the end of the month, saying Monday the full bill, called the "American Jobs Act," won't get a vote in the House of Representatives. [...]

Instead Cantor announced the House will take up several measures this month that he believes House Republicans and the White House agree on, including the three pending free trade agreements with Korea, Colombia, and Panama.

The Majority Leader also said the House would vote on a bill to permanently repeal the 3% withholding tax on businesses that hold government contracts and take up other bills that roll back regulatory barriers for businesses. Cantor said the President Obama has made comments supportive of both of these areas.

So, the anti-regulation Republican House will vote on bills that eliminate regulatory barriers for business, along with providing tax cuts for business.

But, American jobs for American workers? Pffft..........

Image courtesy of CNN
Via Bob Cesca

Political Cartoon of the Year: Entitlements 101

Adding.........last time I checked,  the employee contribution to “entitlement” programs came out of our paychecks, so I guess that means that even if you earn it, you are not "entitled" to it.

Cartoon via Bob Cesca

Morning Quote: Rep. Paul Broun

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA), Tea Party buffoon,  attempted an analogy re the debt ceiling, telling MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell on Wednesday that “he wanted to lower the debt ceiling because when you’re broke, you have to cut back on certain luxuries”. 

“Well, Andrea, the thing is, when someone is overextended and broke, they don’t continue paying for expensive automobiles; they sell the expensive automobiles and buy a cheaper one. They don’t continue paying for country club dues, they drop out of the country club.”

As if poor people own expensive automobiles or join country clubs. 

And,  as if  Rep. Broun isn’t fully aware that the cuts currently being considered are not going to hurt those who can afford the country club memberships and expensive automobiles. After all, those cuts are specifically targeting the poor and disenfranchised. 

The callousness of many of our lawmakers is astonishing.

Morning Quote: Eric Cantor

At his weekly news conference in Washington, House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor (R-VA), responded to President Obama’s demand for tax increases via closing tax loopholes for the wealthy:

“If the president wants to talk loopholes, we will be glad to talk loopholes [but they must be] coupled with offsetting tax cuts somewhere else.”

In other words, no net gain in revenues, absolutely no tax increases on the wealthy, according to Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

Wondering if the ever whiny, billionaire kowtowing Cantor is still betting his money on the collapse of the American economy.

New Ad Targets Medicaid Cuts

Why do Republicans hate poor people, the elderly, women and children?

Morning Quote: Ezra Klein

Ezra Klein on two differing scenarios for a debt ceiling outcome:

“Whichever party wins, the country is likely to lose. If the Republicans win, we’re going to get an unbalanced debt deal that relies too heavily on frontloaded spending cuts, forgoes tax hikes that could further reduce the deficit, and rewards a reckless and dysfunctional model of negotiating through brink.manship. If the Democrats win, we’re likely to see some sort of crisis before we see any sort of action, and this isn’t an economy or market that can handle much more bad news. Heads, dysfunction. Tails, catastrophe.”

The differences are in the details.

Democrats are fighting to ensure that the poor and the middle class don’t pay the entire price via entitlement cuts, along with holding out for tax increases on the wealthy. Republicans, on the other hand, are demanding deep cuts to entitlement programs, while also refusing any tax increases for the wealthy.

Should be a no-brainer, but Republicans have chosen to hold the country hostage for the sake of the very wealthy. 

Sen. Rand Paul and Republicans Lack of Humanity

In a discussion on the disgraceful travesty of hunger amongst senior citizens, American senior citizens, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Senator Al Franken (D-MN) stood up. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) did not.

Now, you may think “so what? This was entirely predictable.” But despite that, this video perfectly illustrates a major philosophical difference between Republicans and most other people. And that difference is that Republicans, as was illustrated so well in this discussion, simply do not care.

Republicans are for and by the wealthy, and have no qualms about throwing our most vulnerable citizens under the proverbial bus.Rand Paul might just as well have said "let them eat cake", because that is precisely what he meant.

Watch:

TRANSCRIPT (transcribed by myself)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): Making sure that seniors have the nutrition that they need is not only the right and moral thing to do, it is the financially smart thing to do.

It is estimated today that 5 million seniors face the threat of hunger, 3 million seniors are at risk of hunger, and 1 million seniors go hungry because they can not afford to buy food.

But in some cases it's not just money. In some cases it's the transportation to get to the store. In some cases it's the ability to think through when you're 85 or 90 and alone what kind of food you need and how you purchase it. Persistent hunger and malnutrition leads to multiple chronic diseases, resulting in extended hospital stays and premature nursing home placements. There's some studies out there that are quite sure about significant percentage of seniors today who are in nursing homes who need not be in that expensive care if they had good nutrition and somebody visiting them on a regular basis. That seems to me to be pretty dumb.

SEN. AL FRANKEN (D-MN): Make no mistake, Rand (Sen. Rand Paul), The Older Americans Act saves money. It allows seniors to stay in their homes who wouldn't otherwise be able to stay in their homes.

SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): It's curious that, uh, only in Washington can you spend 2 biliion dollars and claim that you're saving money. Here's a thought. Perhaps the 2 billian dollars we spend on OAA if we subsumed that in to another program and didn't spend it, that might be saving money.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): Senator Paul has suggested that only in Washington can people actually believe that spending money actually saves money. I think that is the kind of philosophy which results in us spending almost twice as much on healthcare as any other country on earth. Because we have millions and millions of Americans who can't get to a doctor on time, some of them die, some of them become very, very ill. They end up in the emergency room, they end up in a hospital at great cost rather than making sure they have access to a doctor. Maybe it's the same reason why we have more people in jail than any other country on earth including China, tied to the fact that we have the highest poverty rate among children than any other major country on earth. So the point is, and I think we have a bit of a difference here, I believe, and I think Senator Franken has spoken to the fact that prevention, keeping people healthy, taking care of their needs at home, does actually save money. And that if you deny those resources, you leave a senior citizen at home today alone, isolated, confused about medicine, not getting the nutrition they need, you know what happens to that person? That person collapses. That person ends up in an emergency room. That person ends up in a nursing home at much greater cost to the system.

SEN. AL FRANKEN: Here's my very precise question. Does the Older Americans Act save taxpayers money by allowing seniors to stay in their homes as opposed to going to nursing homes?

MS. GREENLEE, Assistant Secretary, Administration on Aging: Yes Senator.

SEN. AL FRANKEN: Thank you.

SEN. RAND PAUL: Um, I appreciate the great and very, um, I think collegial discussion, And we do have different opinions, you know, some of us believe more in the ability of government to cure problems, and some of us believe more in the ability of private charity to cure these problems. I guess what I still find curious is though that if we are saving money with the 2 billion dollars we spend, perhaps we should give you 20 billion. Is there a limit? Where would we get to? How much money should we give you in order to save money so if we spend federal money to save money, where is the limit? I think we could reach a point of absurdity. Thank you.

SEN. AL FRANKEN: I think you just did (reach a point of absurdity).

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Uh, I would suggest, Senator Paul, when you have seniors in this country who are dealing with food insecurity, who are not getting the nutrition that they need, my guess is that the government is wasting substantial sums of money by not taking care of those seniors, who will end up in emergency rooms, in hospitals, uh, and in nursing homes, so, you asked that question, my answer is I don't want to see one senior in this country go hungry. It's the morally right thing to do, and from a fiscally conservative point of view, saving government money, in my view it is the right thing to do.

Why do Republicans Hate Poor People?

The GOP is balancing the federal budget on the backs of poor women, children, the elderly, and the homeless. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), horrified by the cuts to food assistance for the poor, called it “morally indefensible” in an interview with Think Progress (see below the video for the specific cuts):

“The agriculture appropriations bill that the Republicans are putting on the floor next week cuts food and nutrition programs by more than half a billion dollars. I think that’s morally indefensible. We shouldn’t be balancing the budget on the backs of the poor. Taking food from people can’t be justified. We have a big fight next week and I hope that people are outraged by the priorities of this new Congress. They’re all messed up.”

Watch:

The specific cuts as follows:

- The Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program cut by $686 million. Affects 200,000-350,000 low-income mothers and young children.
- The Commodity Supplemental Food Program cut 22%. Affects at least 130,000 low income senior citizens.
- The Emergency Food Assistance Program cut by $51 million.
- The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program cut by $2 billion.

We should all be outraged by the priorities of the 112th Congress.

Morning Quote: Rep. Edward Markey

Rep. Edward Markey’s (D-MA) goes for humor on the floor of the House yesterday, in his rightful denigration of the Republican budget plan. Unfortunately, it really wasn’t funny at all since everything but the rapture dogma was absolutely true, and utterly tragic.  Full text transcript after the jump.

Watch:

“Now, recently radio evangelist Harold Camping calculated that the world would end at precisely 6 p.m. on May 21st. Well, he was wrong. But much like Harold Camping’s wildly inaccurate predictions, the House Republicans have come up with their own apocalyptic vision: The Republican Rapture.

It decides, this budget decides, who gets lifted up into the

VIDEO and Full Text Transcript: Thom Hartman on the Republican War Against Working People

A must see video, wherein Thom Hartmann completely destroys the Fox Business meme on entitlement programs (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security), and the Republican war against working people.

Watch (full text transcript after the jump):

Via Chez Pazienza

---

Thom Hartmann on the Republican War Against Working People FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT [transcribed by moi]

Any good war effort needs an effective PR strategy. A campaign to specify just who the enemy is, and why they should be defeated. How else do you rally support?

So when it comes to the Republican War on the working class, who do you think they turn to for help with messaging? Fox News..well, Fox Business Channel, actually, but close enough.

All this week, Fox is running segments named "Entitlement Nation: Makers vs Takers" . Take a look [Fox clips play].

Quote of the Day

A very to the point, and honest statement from Rachel Maddow on the Republican attack against Medicare:

Republicans are trying to kill Medicare. Republicans are trying to get rid of it. They are trying to force old people to buy private insurance instead.

Watch (at approx 4:32):

As we rightfully castigate Republicans for their transparent attempts to strip the elderly of Medicare insurance, we should be mindful that the GOP is also attempting to strip the poor of basic and essential access to health care via Medicaid “reforms”. Josh Marshall:

Medicare gets all the attention, for a lot of good reasons. But as TPM Reader KH argues the cuts to Medicaid are no less devastating, though most people don't figure it will ever directly affect them ..

Senate Republicans Vote En Masse to End Medicare

In a vote held today, 40 out of 47 Republican senators voted to support the Paul Ryan Plan, which would end Medicare as we know it. Brian Beutler, emphasis mine:

The GOP continued its bloody walk into the Medicare buzzsaw Wednesday, when 40 out of 47 Senate Republicans voted in support of the House GOP budget, and its plan to phase out and privatize the popular entitlement program.

The test vote failed by a vote of 57-40. But the roll call illustrates that Medicare privatization -- along with deep cuts to Medicaid and other social services -- remains the consensus position of the GOP despite the growing political backlash against them.

Voting with all of the Democrats against debating the plan were Sens. Scott Brown (R-MA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) -- both 2012 incumbents -- along with Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). Rand Paul (R-KY) voted against it because it wasn't radical enough.

Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Pat Roberts (R-KS), and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) did not vote.

Democrats intentionally scheduled the vote less than 24 hours after a Democrat won a special election in New York's 26th -- and heavily Republican -- congressional district, on the strength of defending Medicare from a GOP onslaught. The outcome of that election heightened the political stakes, but sent few Republicans bolting for the exits.

"I've been surprised a lot of the times about how they're voting here," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at a press conference after the vote.

“Rand Paul voted against it because it wasn’t radical enough.” Unbelievable.

Our Stupid AND Heartless GOP House

Yesterday, our apparently heartless House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor (R-VA) said that there would be no disaster relief from the federal government for victims of the killer tornado in Joplin, Missouri unless other cuts to the federal budget were made to pay for it. Cantor and his GOP-Teabagger team in the House then made a decision to cut clean energy, rather than something like, oh, I don’t know, oil subsidies?

Scientists have warned for decades that our climate system would grow deadlier as greenhouse pollution from coal and oil increases, with greater floods, heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and storms. Instead of responding to reality by mobilizing our nation to protect people from climate disasters and build a resilient, green economy, Republicans are keeping us tethered to big oil.

“It is staggeringly shortsighted to pay for the economic losses of climate disasters by choking off funding for policies that reduce the threat of future climate disasters,” said Bracken Hendricks, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. [emphasis mine]

Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-MO) on The Ed Show.

When you talk about cutting clean energy programs versus cutting subsidies for big oil, let’s have that debate here in Washington. But not on the backs of the people of Joplin.

Watch:

Adding…..according to Think Progress, they’ve “acquired the text of the Aderholt amendment. Of the $1.5 billion cut from the clean cars program, only $1 billion is directed to disaster relief, while $500 million is simply rescinded.”

Classic Disaster Capitalism

Republicans, in all their unrelenting and heartless glory, are still refusing to raise the debt ceiling unless Democrats agree to major spending cuts, preferably to Medicare and Medicaid.

(Emphasis mine)

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said “there will have to be a deal” on raising the nation's debt limit before August, when the country will be unable to pay its bills. But he said the deal will have to include significant spending cuts.

"To get my vote we'd have to do something significant both short term and long term and long term means Medicare and Medicaid" cuts, McConnell said.

They’re playing a game of chicken, and if Democrats lose this one, at risk are seniors, and the poor.

VIDEO: ALEC Involved in Prison Privatization & Anti-Immigrant Laws

Chilling.

Watch:

More on the activities of the right wing organization ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council), an organization which is partially funded by David and Charlies Koch through their many foundations.