How did Romney get between $21 million and $102 million in his IRA?

And why don't we even know how much it is?

A reader writes:

Mitt Romney's IRA has been estimated to be worth $21 million to $102 million.

At the annual contribution limit of $6000/year, and with no gains or losses to the value it would take

3,500 years to get to $21 million

and
16,666.67 years to get to $100 million.

I think we should run with these numbers. They demonstrate so clearly that Romney plays by a different set of rules than the rest of us. It isn't envy of his wealth, but outrage at the difference in rules for him.

Even if you use the higher $30,000/year contribution limits referenced by some of the articles on this (some sort of special business IRA contribution limit)
it would still take 700 to 3,333 years of those contributions to get to $21-$100 million.

Romney's defenders say that of course he should pay as little in taxes as he legally can, that he would be a fool not to take advantage of all the legal tax breaks. That's why I think the IRA story is much more powerful. We all thought we knew the rules. We all struggle to fund ours, and I have been very discouraged at the loss in value of mine, or the low forward progress if they have gained in value.

I will leave it to a better mathematician than I am to figure out what kind of super-human rates of return he would have to have had on his investments to get to that amount.

And, his money is growing tax free in those IRAs, so it is costing us money.

Here's the Bloomberg article on this topic.

I think this is huge. And I think it is very understandable to the American people. Numbers like $100 million are out of the range of my comprehension, but I sure can understand 16,666. And most middle class Americans are at least familiar with the general rules of IRAs and are familiar with their scant returns. This is the issue Harry Reid should focus on, even more than the tax returns.

What do you think?

Read the rest of this post...

Romney lying again, this time it's about Israel

And the press is calling him out for it.  But when will they start asking Romney about it personally?  Asking him, to his face, why he keeps lying to the American people in his ads? From National Journal:

While it's hard to remember who did what first, Romney took an early step down the low road when he quoted President Obama in a television ad late last year: "If we keep talking about the economy we're going to lose.'' Only the quote was from 2008, before Obama was elected, and he was referring to remarks by Republican John McCain. More recently, the Obama campaign has unfairly characterized Romney's position on abortion in television ads.

But Romney's most recent ad is particularly galling because it seeks to suggest the president is anti-Israel or anti-Jewish.

Romney's campaign clearly knows these facts but can't be bothered with a more nuanced and honest criticism of the administration's failure to broker peace in the Middle East. That's a shame.

Now it's time to ask him to his face why he keeps lying in his ads. Read the rest of this post...

The long history of scapegoating the Sikhs

From my friend Sunny Hundal, one of the top British lefty bloggers, writing in the Guardian:

A little-known fact: the first victim of retaliatory violence following the 9/11 attacks was a Sikh man. On 15 September 2001, 52-year-old Balbir Singh Sodhi, a gas-station owner in Arizona, was shot five times by Frank Roque. While Sodhi died instantly, Roque went on to shoot at other ethnic minorities before going to a local bar and boasting: "They're investigating the murder of a turban-head down the street."

Yesterday, a gunman opened fire on a Sikh congregation in Wisconsin, killing six people in what is now being treated as an act of "domestic terrorism". Some witnesses say the shooter had a tattoo marking the September 11 attacks, though this is not confirmed by the authorities.

While the "war on terror" that followed September 2001 badly affected Muslim families in the west, it is sadly less well-known that Sikhs have also faced significant harassment as a consequence. The Sikh Coalition of Washington said yesterday that Sikhs in the US have faced more than 700 such incidents since 9/11; authorities still do not officially collect data on religious hate crimes against them.

More closer to home, my own brother – an observant Sikh with a turban and beard – faced frequent low-level harassment with people shouting "Taliban" at him or worse.

Read the rest of this post...

GOP justice Sandra Day O’Connor: Declining approval for high court a ‘disappointment’

Perhaps it has something to do with her own political party putting the demonization of government at the top of their list for decades.

Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor called the declining public approval of the high court a “great disappointment” and suggested the ruling in Bush v. Gore may have sparked the public’s loss of faith in the judicial branch.

In the past, when the public is asked about the three branches of government, the court has generally had, the juridical branch has had the highest respect among the three, and now it's about the same for all, and it's all down,” said ,” O’Connor, In an interview aired Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation. “So that's a great disappointment to me to see.”

The Republican party sees profit in destroying any and all trust in government, and they've been doing so for decades. Especially at it concerns the courts, it's the Republicans who have been admonished for making repeated threats against judges here and here.

The rhetoric takes its toll.

To O'Connor's credit, she's called out the Republicans before for their anti-court hate rhetoric.  The problem is, we have a party that wants to arm the populace just in case government becomes evil, and then the party turns around and tells the armed populace that government has in fact become evil.

And then we're surprised when their minions respond accordingly. Read the rest of this post...

Romney trust continued investments in abortion, stem cells, China, Iran

Romney claims that he told the person running his blind trust to administer it in a way consistent with his public positions on issues.

That was the first mistake. Romney has taken every side of most hot-button issues, so which way should the trust go?

Second, it should have been clear that Romney meant consistent with his new-found conservative values. In that case, it shouldn't take a rock scientist to figure out that the "morning after pill," which conservatives consider a no-no, is off-limits. But Romney invested. Or stem cell research (again he invested). Or in Chinese companies (they even had the word "China" in their names!). Or companies that do business with Iran.

No wonder Romney won't release his tax returns. There's good reason to fear what's in them, in addition to what's NOT in them (such as payments for ten years of taxes he reportedly didn't pay). Read the rest of this post...

Pelosi: "It's a fact" someone told Reid that Romney didn't pay taxes for ten years

Why won't Romney just release his tax returns, like every other presidential candidate, including his own father, and be done with it?

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) fired back at Republicans accusing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) of lying about a Bain Capital investor telling him that Mitt Romney hadn't paid taxes in 10 years. They don’t know what they're talking about, Pelosi says.

"Harry Reid made a statement that is true. Somebody told him. It is a fact," Pelosi told The Huffington Post in a Sunday interview. "Whether he did or not can easily be disposed of: Mitt Romney can release his tax returns and show whether he paid taxes."

He's treating this as though we're asking for an anal probe.  Or someone is asking him to disprove that he's a communist (which his own staff suggested).  In fact, we're asking Romney to do what every other presidential candidate has done before him, release a slew of tax returns.

Romney clearly has something to hide, and it's increasingly looking like that something is "nothing" - meaning, it's true that he didn't pay taxes for ten years. Read the rest of this post...

Wealth reduces compassion (via Scientific American and another guy)

I'm going to make two points with this posts — one point about Romney, the rubes and wealth. And one point about something the actual, historical Jesus said — not the mythical guy from Paul's dreamy letters; the real one. (To jump to that point, click here.)

■ First, according to a report in Scientific American, the more you focus your mind on wealth, the less you care about the poor (great find by David Neiwert at Crooks and Liars; my emphasis and paragraphing):

Who is more likely to lie, cheat, and steal—the poor person or the rich one? It’s temping to think that the wealthier you are, the more likely you are to act fairly. After all, if you already have enough for yourself, it’s easier to think about what others may need.

But research suggests the opposite is true: as people climb the social ladder, their compassionate feelings towards other people decline.

Berkeley psychologists Paul Piff and Dacher Keltner ran several studies looking at whether social class (as measured by wealth, occupational prestige, and education) influences how much we care about the feelings of others. In one study, Piff and his colleagues discreetly observed the behavior of drivers at a busy four-way intersection.

They found that luxury car drivers were more likely to cut off other motorists instead of waiting for their turn at the intersection. This was true for both men and women upper-class drivers, regardless of the time of day or the amount of traffic at the intersection.

In a different study they found that luxury car drivers were also more likely to speed past a pedestrian trying to use a crosswalk, even after making eye contact with the pedestrian.

Synchronicity, simultaneity, but not causation. So then they tried to actually create the results, as opposed to just linking them with car ownership (fascinating experiment design, by the way):

In order to figure out whether selfishness leads to wealth (rather than vice versa), Piff and his colleagues ran a study where they manipulated people’s class feelings.

The researchers asked participants to spend a few minutes comparing themselves either to people better off or worse off than themselves financially. Afterwards, participants were shown a jar of candy and told that they could take home as much as they wanted. They were also told that the leftover candy would be given to children in a nearby laboratory.

So, I get the candy, or I give it to ... little children. Guess who were less inclined to give to the children?

Right the first time:

Those participants who had spent time thinking about how much better off they were compared to others ended up taking significantly more candy for themselves--leaving less behind for the children.

If you think of yourself as better than others, you're more likely to end up a net taker from the world.

There are two other studies mentioned in the article, followed by some musings about why these results turn out to be true. The studies, briefly:

In one study, they found that less affluent individuals are more likely to report feeling compassion towards others on a regular basis....

In a second study, participants were asked to watch two videos while having their heart rate monitored. One video showed somebody explaining how to build a patio. The other showed children who were suffering from cancer. After watching the videos, participants indicated how much compassion they felt while watching either video. ...

[P]articipants on the lower end of the spectrum, with less income and education, were more likely to report feeling compassion while watching the video of the cancer patients.

The heart rate data tended to confirm those results — slower heart rates imply greater focus and attention. The heart rates of the less wealthy slowed during the cancer video.

Obviously this matters. The report doesn't say if the results were scalable — if greater wealth tended toward greater lack of compassion.

But I'd be shocked if that weren't true, however — especially given reports like this (the context is the wealth-display of super-rich Romney donors):

“It’s incredible, right?” shouts Jeff Greene over the roar of the two-seater dune buggy’s motor. “It’s 55 acres!”

Still in his whites from this morning’s tennis match, he’s giving a personal tour of his Sag Harbor estate, barreling at 30 miles per hour through the vast forest of scrubby pines and soft moss of its gated grounds.

“Beautiful nature here!” A blur of deer goes by, and the trees break to reveal the summer sun glinting off a grassy lagoon. Greene slows by its shore.

“This is our swan pond, and this is our private beach,” he says, gesturing toward a slip of white sand encircling the edge of the North Haven Peninsula. “It goes all the way to the ferry. Three thousand feet of beach,” he adds, a smile spreading across his tanned face. ...

“I wish we could spend more time here,” he says. “Honestly, we have so many great homes.”

This is Sag Harbor. Fifty-five acres of "beautiful nature" in Sag Harbor, Long Island, and he can't spend enough time there because he has "so many great homes."

No wonder he wants to kick you Lessers all the way to the poor house. If wealth and lack of compassion are scalable, I'd be surprised if this instance of Our Betters had enough soul left to fill a sweathouse worker's thimble, much less his own "swan pond."

■ Now Jesus on the same subject. One of the most famous quotes in the Bible is this one:

"It is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. ... [I]t is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Closely followed by:

"[G]o and sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven: [then] come and follow me."

What do these quotes actually mean? The key phrase is "kingdom of heaven" and similar formulations.

I'm not personally religious — I adhere to no religion for what I hope is the obvious reason. But I do believe in doing good work(s), for the other obvious reason. As a result, I pay attention to teachers.

Strip away the Pauline layer of "Jesus was god" from the actual historical Jesus. Throw away the edited-in quotes where "Jesus said" what the writer or polemicist — some them well into the Middle Ages — wanted him to say. (See ex-evangelical Bart Ehrman's deliciously readable Misquoting Jesus for this; you can almost watch quotes change when a new monastery takes up the mass-copying task.)

Do all that and you get close to the core of what a fascinating teacher actually taught. Stuff like (paraphrased):

"If you want god to be infinitely forgiving, you must be infinitely forgiving yourself."

If you care about personal ethics, as I do, this is a powerful point of view, even revolutionary.

There's real research in this field. What quotes were most likely to be historical? And what did they mean in the context of who he was (a Mediterranean peasant — a serf) and where he lived (a first-century Roman colony)? These things can be (and are) studied.

The key work, in my opinion, is John Dominic Crossan's The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. And the key research is going on under the auspices of the Jesus Seminar. Again — they don't buy "Jesus as god." That's not their job. What they do is scholarly research into an historical figure whose real thinking can be reconstructed through textual, literary, historical and anthropological analysis. It's fascinating stuff.

So back to the quote about "eye of a needle." Most people think of "the kingdom of heaven" as a place. Crossan argues that for Jesus the kingdom of heaven is a state of mind.

In other words, the "kingdom of heaven" and the "kingdom of god" are inside you. You enter the kingdom of god by thinking and acting like god. That is, the core message of the real Jesus was, "Be the change you wish to see."

If you want to live in a world ruled by a kind, just and forgiving god — be that way in all of your dealings. Tough stuff, right? Now you see where all that "if a man steals your cloak, offer him your shoes" comes from. Be the god you want to see.

In that context, the "eye of a needle" quote makes exactly the same sense as the study results quoted at the top of this article.

Why is it so hard for a rich man to "enter the kingdom of heaven" — i.e., to think like a loving and compassionate god? Precisely because of his wealth — that's the barrier.

How do you fix the problem? Remove the barrier. Thus the second quote about giving your possessions to the poor. Your best shot at re-igniting your compassion — to "have treasure" in the heaven inside you — is to get rid of your wealth.

Wealth is a barrier. There aren't many FDR-types who can get past it. The study and the guy we've just been talking about are in complete agreement on that.

■ An "easter egg" for those of you who've lasted to this point. Think of the quote —

"Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven"

in this new light. The meaning? If the "kingdom of heaven" is inside you, only the poor (the destitute, the cast-off, the lepers and homeless) are truly able to "act like god."

Why's that? Because every one in the economic middle adds to the misery of those below them. Crossan's translation is this, memorable in itself:

Only the destitute are blameless.

Everyone but the bottom is complicit — they're the only ones not hurting someone lower.

In modern terms — got iPad?

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

Let's discuss the [INSERT SHOOTING TRAGEDY HERE] tragedy

It's time to have a somber national discussion about the [insert shooting tragedy here] tragedy.

Before we get started, let's go over a few basic ground rules.

1. In the wake of the __________ tragedy it's time for us all to come together as a nation and not assign blame. This is not the time, for example, to talk about how it's easier to purchase a gun in America than it is to vote (or buy French cheese).

2. And we won't tolerate any second guessing of the Second Amendment right to carry assault weapons, or questions about how the Framers could have possibly envisaged an assault rifle over 200 years ago, or why a "hunter" needs six thousand rounds of ammunition, or kevlar, or smoke grenades to kill a pheasant.

3. While the shooter may have been inspired by political fliers showing the victim in cross hairs, or may have come unhinged by inflammatory rhetoric about how said victim was coming for the shooter's guns, discussing such motivation at this sensitive moment would be completely inappropriate. Not to mention, disrespectful to the __________ victims.

4. If the tragedy involved someone flying an aircraft into a government building, or for that matter blowing up a government building, now is not the time to discuss people like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity (no names, please), or Republicans generally (no political parties, please), incessantly trying to convince their audience that the occupant of the White House, or any government official, agency,  or entire branch of government is evil and/or "un-American" and/or out to get them or our country or our freedom.

5. And definitely don't mention the Republican party's frequent claim and/or insinuation, including suggestions from the GOP candidate himself, Mitt Romney, that the sitting Democratic President is a socialist, which in American parlance actually means "communist," which actually means "Soviet," which was America's deadliest enemy out for our utter destruction.  Sure, it would be entirely understandable why someone would take up arms against a Soviet takeover of the United States, but a Democrat said something mean once about a Republican's dog, or something, so aren't both parties really to blame, thus making the charge moot?

6. Never, ever mention the NRA.  Sure, they've proven themselves, time and again, incapable of passing laws that effectively keep guns out of the hands of crazy mass murderers, but that's no reason to blame them for the _______ tragedy because it's just too early to cast blame on anyone other than the shooter, who was obviously crazy, and thus this month's anomaly.

Now, let's discuss for a moment the race of the shooter and the victims.

7. If the ______________ tragedy involved angry white men opening fire on brown people of faith, this is definitely not the time to replay clips of bombastic commentators and politicians getting white men in places like Kansas whipped into a frenzy over Manhattan's zoning criteria for non-Christian houses of worship.

8. But feel free to discuss if all brown people, and thus the shooter, or his victims, were Muslims - sorry, I meant to say "radical Islamists."  And even if neither was a Muslim, make sure you discuss that point incessantly - Muslims, Muslims, Muslims, Muslims - so as to eventually sow suspicion in the public's mind as to whether there really is a Muslim angle to this story.

9. Speaking of which, this is not the time to discuss the more general fear mongering around words like "Muslim," including the ongoing, successful, attempt by Republicans to convince their base that our dark-skinned President is one.

Okay, I think we're ready now to discuss the ______________ tragedy.

First off, it is entirely acceptable for a Republican to opine that the tragedy could have been averted had the victims all been armed (please disregard previous tragedies where armed police officers themselves were injured by the shooter).

Second, poignant, but ultimately meaningless, gestures such as lighting tragedy candles at nighttime vigils, and posting anti-gun petitions on Change.org, are to be encouraged.

Finally, clutch your pearls, and all together now, ask the purely rhetorical question: "How could this happen?"

Forty-eight hours later return to talking about the Olympics and the latest Kardashian wedding until the next shooting occurs, then refer to point 1 above.

PS If the victims of the ___________tragedy were black, ignore the above restrictions and take up a collection for the shooter's defense fund. Read the rest of this post...