Desperate to change topic from taxes, Romney again misquotes Obama

I don't need to walk you through Romney's latest intentional misquote of President Obama. Greg does that nicely here.

What's important is to watch the Romney desperation meter rise as the discussion shifts from whether Romney is hiding something in his taxes to what exactly he's hiding? Just yesterday everyone was atwitter as to whether Romney paid any taxes at all in 2009. (His campaign now says he didn't pay zero. That's nice, did he pay 1 dollar? 2 dollars?)

And now that scores of Republicans, including hard-hitting conservatives like Bill Kristol and George Will, have called on Romney to release his taxes, the Romney campaign has desperately tried to change the conversation to anything but taxes.  Even going so far as to accuse the President of not being American - anything, at any cost, to change the topic.

Every day the stench of desperation grows. Read the rest of this post...

Gaius and Jay Ackroyd on Virtually Speaking tonight—The "centrist" argument for abandoning the New Deal

A programming note in case you're interested in listening.

Live tonight at 9 pm EST, 6 pm PST, I'll be on with Jay Ackroyd in a Virtually Speaking interview:

Jay Ackroyd talks with Gaius Publius, contributing editor at AMERICAblog.com, about the recent Jeffrey Sachs Financial Times column in which Sachs plays the "both sides' economists do it" card.

The column exposes the neoliberal ("centrist" / elite) view of what must drive public policy — the need to abandon the New Deal for good.

Jay and Gaius also discuss Gaius' recent column on "rent-seeking" economies — what they are; why ours is killing us.

While the show is live, you can call in to speak with the host: (646) 200-3440.

The Jeffrey Sachs column is classic NeoLib fog, but has gotten some attention. We'll debunk, and also discuss rent-seeking (bankster-loving) economies. Please tune in if you're so inclined.

The listen-live site is also the archive site for the interview.

Virtually Speaking is available via iTunes podcast, and strongly recommended. It's an excellent download.

Thanks,

GP

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

The Fed is "afraid to do its job" for fear of right-wing criticism

The headline quote is Krugman talking; my brief comment below. Remember — the Fed by law has twin mandates:

• Low inflation consistent with economic growth
• Low unemployment

The current zero-interest-rate environment serves bondholders and kills fixed incomes. But that policy preference — sacrificing seniors to the bond market Bigs — is at least within the mandate.

But this is not a low-unemployment environment (the other mandate). What's a Fed to do?

Here's Krugman on that:

[M]y sense is that [Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke's] latest testimony, in which he declared that the Fed has the power to take action, that the economy is in really bad shape, but declined to, you know, actually take action, has left even his usual defenders more or less speechless.

It really makes no sense — except in terms of politics. ...

So Bernanke says that the Fed has the power to act, but won't. Why won't the Fed "do its job"? Krugman's explanation:

fear of being accused of helping Obama

That's Krugman, and the comment is damning. (Remember, Krugman knows Bernanke personally. Bernanke was once Krugman's dept chair at Princeton.)

The implications of this are terrible. It means (a) that the "independent Fed" actually is helping Obama — by shielding him from right-wing criticism. And (b) that the "opposition party" is leading the Democrats around by the nose.

But if you think that's bad, there's a worse explanation — The Fed is sacrificing the entire economy (and everyone in it) to serve the top .01%, including the banks, who need low-interest Fed-sourced borrowing to survive.

After all, the current situation is unsustainable. No demand, no recovery. No jobs, no demand. Q.E.D. (Latin for "thus it is destroyed").

Your pick. I think Krugman, as always, is just a tad generous. Me, a little less so.

GP

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

Syrian capital in chaos

Almost every report coming in from Syria right now is contradicted by another report. The only claim for which there appears to be good evidence is that the capital is in chaos with gunfights and explosions being heard.

The government claims that the defense minister and President Assad's brother in law were killed by a suicide bomber is contradicted by claims of responsibility by the Free Syrian Army and Liwa al-Islam, an Islamist group. And those are not the only people claiming responsibility.

According to an alternative version of events, the defense minister was killed by his own bodyguard. If that is true it is possible that the attack was actually an attempt at a coup, a Syrian version of the Stauffenberg bomb plot against Hitler.

According to the BBC World Service, Russia and even Iran are losing patience with the Syrian regime. But these reports have to be read with some skepticism as the BBC World Service exists to promote the world view of the UK Foreign Office. The Russian Ambassador to the UN is extremely clear that Russia opposes and will veto any Security Council resolution under Chapter 7, that is one that would authorize military intervention.

Russia is in a particularly weak diplomatic situation right now, having been on the losing side in (almost) every single international crisis since 1979: The invasion of Afghanistan, the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Yugoslav civil war and most recently Libya.

The Arab Spring can be seen as a vindication of the 'domino theory', the revolution in Tunisia led to the uprisings in Egypt, Sudan and Libya. The fall of Libya has put renewed pressure on Syria. If Syria falls it is quite likely that there will be renewed unrest in the Gulf states, but what is likely to worry Russia rather more is the possibility that it would spread northward to the Caspian sea region.

With fighting in the capital, it now appears to be a question of when and how Assad falls rather than if he falls. Russian interests would certainly be best served if Assad was removed from the scene. Read the rest of this post...

Boehner calls Bachmann's racist attacks "dangerous"

When John Boehner has to criticize you as being too far out there, you're know you're really in trouble.

This is really pretty abominable, even for Bachmann.

At a press conference Thursday, Boehner (R-Ohio) defended Huma Abedin, the deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the wife of former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.).

Boehner said he did not know Abedin well, but that “from everything that I know of her she has a sterling character. I think accusations like this being thrown around are pretty dangerous.”

Boehner is the latest high-profile GOP official to criticize the charges by Bachmann and four other GOP lawmakers that Abedin could be using her position at the State Department to aid the Muslim Brotherhood.

You see, Huma is Muslim-American, so that means she must be working with the terrorists because she's, you know, a Muslim.

Bachmann shouldn't be serving on the Intelligence committee is she's this mentally unstable.

Andy Borowitz has a funny take on this in the New Yorker. Read the rest of this post...

How two strangers helped a kid in a wheel chair in 100 degree heat

From video over at KMBC.

A wonderful story about a kid in a wheelchair, Patrick Connelly, going to a country music concert and suddenly realizing he couldn't see the singer - everyone in the audience had stood up, as folks always do (annoyingly) at concerts.

Patrick started crying because all he could see were people's legs.

Suddenly, two men in the audience came out of nowhere and lifted Patrick up, and held him up for a good 15-20 minutes - they even carried him up to the stage for a bit (see photo below).

And it was 100 degrees out.

The mom is still trying to find out who the men were. Really neat story. KMBC's report on the story, and the video of the mom telling the story, is great too.

Screen shot from KMBC video.

Read the rest of this post...

Ann Romney lashes out at voters: "You people" have enough of our tax info

Meow.

Not very presidential.

Ann Romney dismissed concerns about her husband’s tax returns Thursday, contending that the two of them have “given all you people need to know.”

“You know, you should really look at where Mitt has led his life, and where he’s been financially,” the potential first lady said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “He’s a very generous person. We give 10 percent of our income to our church every year. Do you think that is the kind of person who is trying to hide things, or do things? No. He is so good about it. Then, when he was governor of Massachusetts, didn’t take a salary for four years.”

“We’ve given all you people need to know and understand about our financial situation and how we live our life,” she added later.

"You people."  Is that like "the little people"?

Interestingly, the phrase "you people" is usually used, inappropriately, against blacks (see def. 2 and 3), as former GOP chair Michael Steele implicitly confirmed here.  Good thing there aren't any African-Americans in this race.  Or for that matter, any African-American journalists sitting across from you when you use the phrase "you people":

I'm not suggesting that Mrs. Romney is a racist.  I am suggesting that the Romneys are so out of touch with regular Americans that they don't even understand that it's probably not a good idea to use the phrase "you people" about a black reporter, or a black president.

As for Mrs. Romney's comment that:

“You know, you should really look at where Mitt has led his life, and where he’s been financially,”

Isn't that what we're trying to do?

And finally, as for Mrs. Romney playing the Mormon card - which is interesting, since the Romneys don't often seem to want to raise attention to the fact that they're Mormon - the Romneys had no choice but to give the Mormons 10% of their income.  It wasn't like they voluntarily "chose" to do it, or could have chosen not to do it (from what I've heard, good luck trying not to pay your tithe, especially if you have money).

It is interesting, however, how we're now to believe that giving the Mormons the 10% they demand proves that all other financial questions are off limits.

So now being a Mormon means you don't have to release your tax returns when you run for office, and it means you can lie to the FEC or SEC with impunity. Huh. Never knew that.

All of this is just another sign of how desperate the Romneys are becoming in response to the outrage over their refusal to come clean on their taxes.

NB Speaking of "you people," quite a diverse lot of faces over at the Romney headquarters today:

RT @KevinMaddenDC: The Guv addressing RFP staff this morning...http://t.co/tqrSgzkc

You people look awfully white.

Read the rest of this post...

Current law allows secret foreign campaign contributions—GOP Sen Blunt is unconcerned

This is about Citizens United (the centerpiece of Mr. Roberts' Neighborhood); the DISCLOSE Act (which would cast a pale pre-dawn glimmer on the secret campaign-finance doings); and the fact that every Senate Republican filibustered the bill.

(Well, not filibustered, exactly. In Harry Reid's Senate, to "filibuster" means "to announce my intention to filibuster unless you actually make me do it." Because in Harry Reid's Senate, the Democrats would never be rat enough to actually make them perform that painful and disgusting act. Why disgusting? Think catheter.

So Harry Reid, in classic rollover–Democrat style, allows a "gentleman's filibuster" — you can email your intention from the links at St. Andrews, I suppose, and never break stride.)

So every Republican filibustered. As usual, there's a cover story and a real story:

The cover story — "It's just a symbolic vote."

The real story — "Can't go hurting Chinese investment in U.S. elections, can we? After all, that's where the money is."

Would you like a hint of how much money the Chinese are already funneling into the current U.S. election, white-washed through Sheldon Adelson's Macao ("I'm the world's largest casino") gaming empire? Click here.

Back to the DISCLOSE filibuster. Watch Movement Conservative retainer-cum-Senator Roy Blunt deliver the cover story and trip over the real one (the interviewer is Lee Fang of the intrepid Republic Report).



From the transcript:

FANG: One argument that’s made in support of the Disclose Act is that, let’s say a Chinese corporation has a subsidiary here, and it funds a group, you know, Americans for Puppies or whatever, and that group runs ads for lawmakers who support Chinese trade policies.

Do you think Americans have a right to know if a Chinese corporation is doing that sort of thing?

BLUNT: Lee, what I told you was, I think this isn’t a serious legislative issue ... when it’s serious I’ll talk about it like it’s serious.

And there you have it. Chinese money coming into U.S. elections is not a "serious legislative issue" for MoveCon Republicans.

Translation: Why turn off the tap when the water is so cool and refreshing — and ours. Drink up, Mr. Rove.

Just to put things in world-historical perspective. The U.S. does have an industrial policy:

■ U.S. industrial policy — Enrich global billionaires at the expense of the American people (true for both parties).

■ Chinese industrial policy — Enrich global billionaires to the benefit of the nation of China.

What do you expect the result to be in, say, two more election cycles? Welcome, Walmart shopper, say I; enjoy those savings while you can.

My point? Just because the Democrats use nice words at election time and sell you out after, doesn't mean the Republicans aren't your enemy. In my view, they're as close to undisguised evil as we've seen in this generation.

Nice to get it on tape.

GP

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

Romney tax-mania grows

What's odd is that Romney doesn't seem to realize that he's already lost this battle.  It's only a question of time, and his returns will be released.  But by dragging it out, he's inflicting maximum damage, and that doesn't even include what may, or may not, be damaging in the returns themselves.

First, the Boston Globe reports on the ever-growing number of Republicans calling on Romney to release his returns. Keep in mind that the Republicans are like sheep to the slaughter - they always line up dutifully, all in unison, on any and every issue. Yet on this one, they're falling apart at the seams. That's an indication of how bad this has gotten for Romney,

The list of prominent Republicans advising Romney to give up earlier tax returns includes Representative Ron Paul and Governor Rick Perry, both of Texas; Haley Barbour, a former Republican National Committee chairman; and Senators Charles Grassley of Iowa and Johnny Isakson of Georgia.

“Politically, I think that would help him,” Paul told Politico on Tuesday. “In the scheme of things politically, you know, it looks like releasing tax returns is what the people want.”

Conservative journalists such as Post columnist George Will and Weekly Standard editor William Kristol are also urging further disclosure.

“He should release the tax returns tomorrow. It’s crazy,” Kristol said on “Fox News Sunday.” “You’ve got to release six, eight, 10 years of back tax returns. Take the hit for a day or two.”

Next up, Ryan Grim and Zach Carter over at Huffington Post report that Romney has not, in fact, released all of his 2010 returns - the only returns to date that he claims to have fully released.

Romney released his 2010 tax return in January of this year, a document that first informed voters about the existence of his Swiss bank account and financial activities in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. But people who own foreign bank accounts are required to file a separate document with the IRS that provides additional details on such overseas bank holdings, and Romney has not released that form to the public.

The Romney campaign did not respond to HuffPost's request to view the document.

Tax experts say it is almost certain that Romney did file the form, known as a Report on Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, or "FBAR" in accountant slang. The penalty for not filing an FBAR can be severe, and the IRS would have expected to receive the form since Romney listed the Swiss bank account on his tax return. Listing the account on his tax return and then failing to file the subsequent FBAR would have been asking for a hefty fine, and would probably have heightened IRS scrutiny of prior tax filings.

Prize quote:

For individuals seeking to game the U.S. tax code, Swiss bank accounts are only useful when used illegally.

Oh, and Romney is whining again, via the Chicago Trib:

"This idea of criticizing and attacking success, of demonizing those in all walks of life who have been successful is so foreign to us we simply don't understand it," Romney told a townhall-style meeting.

No, what's foreign to us is paying only a 15% tax rate and hiding our money in Swiss bank accounts.

Oh, and having a home that's so large that even your car has its own elevator is also pretty foreign.

Yep, Mitt Romney, nothing foreign there:

Read the rest of this post...